-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGaf |Early 2016 Election| - the government's term has been... Shortened
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
Elaugaufein
Member
Nothing's coming to mind. Do you remember anything else about the segment (what was the budget like ?, was it a skit show segment, standup , etc), the performer (visual appearance / age) or the time (was it in the 90s or more recent)?
(On the bright side you led me to find one the most bizarre pseudo-libertarian idiocies I've yet seen. Libertarian on everything (including optional voting) except for anything conservative (like religious prohibitions on abortion, euthanasia , etc) where he proudly votes conservative. So basically he's libertarian only where libertarians and conservatives don't disagree. Wha ? )
Libertarians that hate abortion aren't actually that uncommon (in America); there were actually (at least) two on this forum for a while - jaydubya and Duffy. Weird guys. They're kind on the boundary of paleoconservatism rather than 'real' libertarians - Ron Paul basically.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I feel like I read about it the late 90s, early 00s. I remember the segment was news coverage, so I don't think it was a comedian doing it for his own show, so much as it was a public stunt. Don't remember much more than that. I'm not even certain it was Australia, but I do remember it being English and AU is the only major English speaking country that does compulsory voting. I'm personally generally positive on compulsory voting but it's important to show the students the flip side and if I could get a clip of the guy I think that would be helpful.
Elaugaufein
Member
I can construct a Libertarian anti-abortion argument based on the rights of the child but I'm having significant difficulty constructing one banning stem cell research or voluntary euthanesia.
Aarglefarg
Member
It's a bad day for the Country Liberals in the NT election today.
Current results on the ABC, 20% counted, with 13 seats needed to win:
CLP: 1 seat
ALP: 11 seats
OTH: 2 seats
In doubt: 11 seats
Antony Green: "Labor has got government"
Current results on the ABC, 20% counted, with 13 seats needed to win:
CLP: 1 seat
ALP: 11 seats
OTH: 2 seats
In doubt: 11 seats
Antony Green: "Labor has got government"
Elaugaufein
Member
Yeah, it's looking possible that Giles (the CLP Chief Minister in a seat that was previously a 19.6% margin) may lose his seat. The CLP are being fed into a woodchipper. It's very possible the official Opposition is going to be a cobbled together Coalition of Independents (probably the form CLP members banding together)
bobnowhere
Member
Damn, I forgot. I missed like 2 hours of Green-time.
Not familiar sorry. Those against compulsory voting are pretty few and far between to be honest. Only a few far right types that believe it would be advantageous to them electorally and libertarians who are against it on principle, government bad etc...
Probably the loudest opponent is David Leyonhjelm from the LIberal Democratic Party (DLP), not to be confused the governing party, The Liberal Party, as many many people did resulting in his election to the senate in the first place. Can't find and videos of him talking, they wouldn't be funny anyway as he is probably the most humourless, boorish and arrogant human being in Australia.
Senator David Leyonhjelm moves for voluntary voting
David Leyonhjelm Proposes Abolishing Compulsory Voting
Not familiar sorry. Those against compulsory voting are pretty few and far between to be honest. Only a few far right types that believe it would be advantageous to them electorally and libertarians who are against it on principle, government bad etc...
Probably the loudest opponent is David Leyonhjelm from the LIberal Democratic Party (DLP), not to be confused the governing party, The Liberal Party, as many many people did resulting in his election to the senate in the first place. Can't find and videos of him talking, they wouldn't be funny anyway as he is probably the most humourless, boorish and arrogant human being in Australia.
Senator David Leyonhjelm moves for voluntary voting
David Leyonhjelm Proposes Abolishing Compulsory Voting
Aarglefarg
Member
I also forgot until 2 hours in, and an early thought was how I missed some Antony Green. 
CLP: 2
ALP: 15
OTH: 3
In doubt: 5
ALP passing the magic number, 13.
The ABC prediction is it will end up CLP 3, ALP 18, OTH 4.
CLP: 2
ALP: 15
OTH: 3
In doubt: 5
ALP passing the magic number, 13.
The ABC prediction is it will end up CLP 3, ALP 18, OTH 4.
Elaugaufein
Member
Giles conceding now. Doesn't sound like h's planning to stay on even if he wins his seat , so if he does there's probably a by election very soon.
bobnowhere
Member
I love how low key politics is in the NT!
Pretty funny how disunity and personality politics were to blame yet no mention that he was the absolute centre of all of the disunity.
I can't confirm this but the CLP may need to get four seats to even be declared a parliamentary party and all that entails in terms of staffing etc...
Pretty funny how disunity and personality politics were to blame yet no mention that he was the absolute centre of all of the disunity.
I can't confirm this but the CLP may need to get four seats to even be declared a parliamentary party and all that entails in terms of staffing etc...
Aarglefarg
Member
The ABC's current prediction is the CLP will only get 2 seats, ALP 19, Others 4.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/nt-election-2016/results/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/nt-election-2016/results/
Elaugaufein
Member
In perspective the entire NT voting population is less than that in Brisbane. It's about two regional centres in other states.
This is a AusPiliGAF SCOPE but there's a coup fermenting in the tasmanian liberal party. Michael fergeson as premier and Elise archer as his deputy (a women motivated by pure spite [http://www.themercury.com.au/news/politics/will-hodgman-makes-history-as-first-tasmanian-premier-booted-from-state-parliament/news-story/283dccb3ae7a727a7fd9c001fcfca43f, maybe justifiably). Despite being the most popular premier in years he's unpopular within the party for being too socially liberal. A bit like Turnbull but he's actually won an election convincingly.
Candescence
Member
A former head of the IPA, Roger Neave, has basically come out saying that right-wing radicals hijacked the think-tank, and by extension hijacked the liberal party, and turned it into a neoliberal conservative party as opposed to what he believed was the progressive party of Menzies.
Unfortunately, both major parties are guilty of promoting the neoliberal agenda, now and before Howard, but Howard and Costello arguably took it to high gear.
Unfortunately, both major parties are guilty of promoting the neoliberal agenda, now and before Howard, but Howard and Costello arguably took it to high gear.
Elaugaufein
Member
Your link is busted.
http://www.themercury.com.au/news/p...t/news-story/283dccb3ae7a727a7fd9c001fcfca43f
Whats the spite about ? Also disunity is a terrible idea in Tasmania , there's a stupidly large block of voters who'd vote for a potted plant if they thought it could form majority government, so showing cracks in your party is dumb
Elaugaufein
Member
Eh. There's a difference to what he means, than you do probably. He's most likely a small l liberal like Arksy, and he's more annoyed by the Bernadi block than the economics. Though Menzies era economics would also be fairly alien even to the ALP of today (Australia was much more protectionist and command and control).
ETA- This is a fascinating read. Thanks.
ETA2 - I was wrong. It's the economics as well. Though its not neoliberalism he's arguing against but the rebadged laissez-faire spearheaded by Reagan and Thatcher (though Reagan would probably be too far left even on economics for the modern Republicans).
ETA3 - Seems like there's a few of the 70s Liberals who are disturbinged by the attitude towards asylum seekers in particular since that was specifically mentioned (and he's neither the first nor the most high profile to break ranks on it).
She was passed over for a cabinet position. In favour of Notorious Creep Guy Barnett too, which has to sting. Given that labor have been in hibernation since the Libs have been in power (basically waiting for Rebecca White to be ready for the leadership), and have no chance of unseating them for at least another cycle if things stay the way they are, it seems like a really fucking dumb move.
Elaugaufein
Member
Something floating through my mind:
Last night the ABC News 24 local Journalist for the NT, was pretty obviously a Labor voter. She tried harder at the beginning of the night to be objective but at the end she basically countered Scullion with an ALP point about low interest rates making it a good time to spend and was obviously pleased with the result. This certainly isn't only a Labor thing either (cf News Corp), just the example most temporally present
Is this departure from Journalistic Impartiality happening ? Argment of my imagination ? Is the Increasingly partisan reporting on things good or bad or neither ? And I don't mean 'balance' where two sides wbo arent even close to equally correct get the same coverage, I mean journalists who clearly have political positions reporting on things that should be covered impartially like election outcomes.
ETA - Side topic but I notice Turnbull is way more confident and well spoken on Insiders than he's been in a while. And it's interesting that he's talking about the Sensible Centre without making any firm steps that way himself. Not sure what he's trying to do there, warn of the Right of his own party ? Seems more like nominal rebranding the more he talks , he's really not making anything like moves to the centre himself just saying he is while beating the standard LNP drum.
ETA2 - The Labor party are certainly shooting themselves in the foot arguing that the plebiscite shouldn't be held because it wouldn't be passed. That's an idiotic argument (also not based on any polling known to any one).
ETA3 - I bet you some Liberals would like Christensen to shut his yap when they are trying to setup to blame Labor for the lack of SSM if they block the plebiscite. The last thing they need is him going out there saying "No, I'd be happy to claim responsibility for the LNP"
Last night the ABC News 24 local Journalist for the NT, was pretty obviously a Labor voter. She tried harder at the beginning of the night to be objective but at the end she basically countered Scullion with an ALP point about low interest rates making it a good time to spend and was obviously pleased with the result. This certainly isn't only a Labor thing either (cf News Corp), just the example most temporally present
Is this departure from Journalistic Impartiality happening ? Argment of my imagination ? Is the Increasingly partisan reporting on things good or bad or neither ? And I don't mean 'balance' where two sides wbo arent even close to equally correct get the same coverage, I mean journalists who clearly have political positions reporting on things that should be covered impartially like election outcomes.
ETA - Side topic but I notice Turnbull is way more confident and well spoken on Insiders than he's been in a while. And it's interesting that he's talking about the Sensible Centre without making any firm steps that way himself. Not sure what he's trying to do there, warn of the Right of his own party ? Seems more like nominal rebranding the more he talks , he's really not making anything like moves to the centre himself just saying he is while beating the standard LNP drum.
ETA2 - The Labor party are certainly shooting themselves in the foot arguing that the plebiscite shouldn't be held because it wouldn't be passed. That's an idiotic argument (also not based on any polling known to any one).
ETA3 - I bet you some Liberals would like Christensen to shut his yap when they are trying to setup to blame Labor for the lack of SSM if they block the plebiscite. The last thing they need is him going out there saying "No, I'd be happy to claim responsibility for the LNP"
Candescence
Member
The plebiscite is a problem for numerous other reasons that Labor is aware of - it's non-binding as far as parliament is concerned (meaning those against SSM will vote against it anyway), it may not be compulsory (which can have issues for turnout if people assume the 'yes' vote will inevitably win out), the question itself can potentially divide proponents of the issue itself much like what happened with the republic referendum being designed so even many pro-republic voters wouldn't go for it, and the 'debate' will be dominated by bigots spewing hate speech. Look at the Brexit vote, see how well that worked out for the Brits. The Greens and other people who have spoken with LGBTI people about the plebiscite and many believe they'd rather wait another three years rather than endure the potential abuse as a result of the 'debate'. Anyone who believes the 'no' proponents are going to be civil is deluding themselves.
And a former high court judge has rightly argued that the plebiscite would be a dangerous precedent that would give politicians an excuse to force controversial issues onto expensive popular votes rather than dealing with them in parliament like they're supposed to.
Honestly, I'm inclined to say that Labor, the Greens and some of the crossbench (mainly Xenophon) are right to block the plebiscite. The plebiscite is really just a plan to try and delay a proper vote on SSM as long as possible and as a way to force Turnbull to adhere to the whims of the conservatives in his own party.
And a former high court judge has rightly argued that the plebiscite would be a dangerous precedent that would give politicians an excuse to force controversial issues onto expensive popular votes rather than dealing with them in parliament like they're supposed to.
Honestly, I'm inclined to say that Labor, the Greens and some of the crossbench (mainly Xenophon) are right to block the plebiscite. The plebiscite is really just a plan to try and delay a proper vote on SSM as long as possible and as a way to force Turnbull to adhere to the whims of the conservatives in his own party.
Elaugaufein
Member
I think I agree with you (its probably not a good idea to hold it if the people who'd benefit don't want a Plebiscite). I was objecting to that reason particularly which is dumb and a gift to the Liberals.
Did you see Leigh Sales' interviews on 7:30 pre-election with Turnbull and Shorten?
Elaugaufein
Member
No. Didn't see them myself but heard about them.
I live in Darwin. I'm shocked the CLP got more than one seat.
I work with Federal Politicians of all stripes. All of them from every party were boggled by how terrible the CLP govt were.
They were the worst mix of dumb and arrogant that I've ever seen. Giles = terrible human. Tollner - worse. The rest of them = despair for humanity.
An Ex CLP treasurer said on election night that, "you can't abuse people for 47 months and expect them to forget or forgive". They did a whole bunch of stuff that was not just unpopular with a segment of the electorate but a whole raft of things that were universally unpopular. There was also a feeling that they were "helping" their friends. Small example. They made an ex CLP Chief Minister who is a lobbyist for a powerful developer the head of the body that approves development applications in the NT. No conflict of interest here, nothing to see. Lol. http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/north...e/news-story/d5c3884c35b9e2a3713896d06bafc2ab
They deserved to be annihilated and they were.
I work with Federal Politicians of all stripes. All of them from every party were boggled by how terrible the CLP govt were.
They were the worst mix of dumb and arrogant that I've ever seen. Giles = terrible human. Tollner - worse. The rest of them = despair for humanity.
An Ex CLP treasurer said on election night that, "you can't abuse people for 47 months and expect them to forget or forgive". They did a whole bunch of stuff that was not just unpopular with a segment of the electorate but a whole raft of things that were universally unpopular. There was also a feeling that they were "helping" their friends. Small example. They made an ex CLP Chief Minister who is a lobbyist for a powerful developer the head of the body that approves development applications in the NT. No conflict of interest here, nothing to see. Lol. http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/north...e/news-story/d5c3884c35b9e2a3713896d06bafc2ab
They deserved to be annihilated and they were.
Aarglefarg
Member
Xenophons oppose the plebiscite and support marriage equality.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-turnbulls-plan-in-peril-20160829-gr3crv.html
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-turnbulls-plan-in-peril-20160829-gr3crv.html
Elaugaufein
Member
It's going to be interesting if enough ex-CLP Indeps get up to form a party block bigger than the CLP. They'd have grounds to demand being the official Opposition and take the corresponding staff, funding and media coverage.
And if they do you can guarantee that the LNP and Nats will be seriously considering offering their branding.
I actually have to feel some sympathy for the Lib mods on this one, they can't even maneuvre to blame other parties without Christensen shouting "Look at me! We did it!" Does anyone actually have the numbers on the factional splits in the Federal Libs ? Do the Right actually have the numbers or is there influence primarily due to the weak majority ?
bobnowhere
Member
What a shock, typical Xenophon media stunt.
Step 1: I'm against something
(A few days later...)
Step 2: Now I'm undecided.
(24 hours of lavish media attention...)
Step 3: I'm against something.
Step 4: Profit?
Mr. Pointy
Member
Last I read, CLP are only going to hold Spillett. Labor might actually get 20 seats.
Elaugaufein
Member
People seem pretty confident they'll get Daly as well and may manage to retain Katherine and Braitling for 4.
(Of those 3 they lead in Daly and are behind in Katherine and Braitling but my chase on postals)
Candescence
Member
The spectacular collapse of the NT CLP has caused the federal government to try and distance themselves from their loss. To be fair, the CLP has nobody but themselves to blame for their near-complete destruction in the election, but it's amusing nonetheless.
The Federal Libs and Nats wanted nothing to do with them for at least 3 years. No one willingly jumps into a plane crash. Natasha was wiped in the federal election, it was no secret what was coming.
Why would they stick their heads into that mess?
brandis has the bloody cheek to say shorten should do the decent thing and not play politics with the plebicite (Lateline). what the fuck, you two-faced weasel of a turd, the entire point of the plebiscite was that you liberal fuckwits didn't have the stones to defy the right wing of your own party and actually vote for ssm so you needed to engineer an idiotic non-binding binding non-binding expensive thing so you could claim to the left to be doing something and claim to the right to be letting them not do the thing
you twat
you twat
Didn't you hear? It's all about a higher love according to Hastie.
I feel sick just typing that. Who knew the liberal party would be trying to claim they are the caring people here.
bobnowhere
Member
Isn't Hastie a Young-Earth Creationist?
Nah, we just need to change the definition of "girt" or something.
Elaugaufein
Member
Girt: Guarded by military vessels and
I believe so. Wouldn't be out of place on a family first ticket.
bobnowhere
Member
Promising start!
Candescence
Member
Elaugaufein
Member
Re:18C
There is some disingenuous behaviour going on on the part of its defenders I think.
While 18D exists it's a set of affirmative defences in civil action, you still need to be able to pay for your defense, 18C on the other hand is automatic grounds for civil action and the state will perform the suit for you (or you can do so your self if you wish). That is an asymmetry that is likely to have chilling effects. As such 18D isn't the magical and just panacea its made out to be.
I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this overall but 18D doesn't inherently make 18C not suppressive of free speech.
There is some disingenuous behaviour going on on the part of its defenders I think.
While 18D exists it's a set of affirmative defences in civil action, you still need to be able to pay for your defense, 18C on the other hand is automatic grounds for civil action and the state will perform the suit for you (or you can do so your self if you wish). That is an asymmetry that is likely to have chilling effects. As such 18D isn't the magical and just panacea its made out to be.
I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this overall but 18D doesn't inherently make 18C not suppressive of free speech.
bobnowhere
Member
The courts should only be for the rich, wouldn't want any pleb using them
Eric Abetz suggests tough 18c questions from broadcaster Fran Kelly could 'insult and offend'
I don't think I have words...
Lets face it, this is all just a conservative power play against a week moderate PM. None of them give a crap about anything other than getting one of their own, Abbott, back in charge.
Candescence
Member
I wonder what Turnbull is going to do concerning the attempt to bring the 18c changes to a vote. If he gives in and forces the party to vote for it, it'll make him look even more beholden to the conservatives. If he decides to make it a conscience vote instead by saying "okay, fine, we'll take it to a vote but I won't force the party as a whole to vote for it, if it doesn't pass the lower house, don't come crying to me about it", the moderates will cross the floor or abstain and potentially piss off the conservatives because it didn't get the PM's backing, and it'll be prime ammunition for Labor and the Greens to point out hypocrisy on the SSM issue concerning a free vote. But it probably won't pass the senate anyway, neither Labor, the Greens nor Xenophon will vote for it, leaving such a bill dead in the water. Turnbull probably might just not bring it to a vote in the first place with the reasoning that it has no chance in the senate, but that might piss off the conservatives anyway. There's no move he can make that will let him get away unscathed.
I swear, if they get rid of Turnbull by the end of the year or even before a year has even passed, there's no chance of recovery for the government, especially if they bring back Abbot.
Also, Turnbull and Morrison are desperately trying to deny that they ever argued for limiting negative gearing.
I swear, if they get rid of Turnbull by the end of the year or even before a year has even passed, there's no chance of recovery for the government, especially if they bring back Abbot.
Also, Turnbull and Morrison are desperately trying to deny that they ever argued for limiting negative gearing.
Elaugaufein
Member
My concerns aren't with state funding as such, it's with state funding for one side of a civil action. The Plebs (as you put it) should have as much right to a defense as they do to launch an action. Technically given the presumption of innocence you should have a greater right to a defense, but I don't think I'm going to start pretending that the Justice system is really structured to back that presumption up in this argument.
And I think you misread this. They'd love Abbott back in charge but this particular crusade is about Bolt, the usual shock jobs and the Murdoch Press , that it's giving a middle finger to Turnbull is just a bonus.
Elaugaufein
Member
Turnbull plays the NatSec card. Shorten disables his cybernetic spine implant so as to provide smallest target possible. Politics has returned to normal.
Candescence
Member
Sam Dastyari is being a massive tool and basically spouting the Chinese Communist Party line about the South China Sea about how Australia should be "neutral" despite said position being practically opposite to the Labor party line, since he basically owes a Chinese donor a favor. Frankly, Shorten needs to fire his ass.
This is why we need restrictions if not an outright ban on foreign donations.
This is why we need restrictions if not an outright ban on foreign donations.
Elaugaufein
Member
I am deeply sceptical that Dastyari's disclosed (and well below the officially requires disclosure threshold) donation is responsible for this (~1800 would be a bargain). It's a bad look but the position almost certainly has more to do with the soft social relations that lead to such donations than the donations themselves.
That said I'm all for banning donations entirely and funding the entire thing publicly. Though that has other issues to address (like how).
- Status