-
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
Or 1 really good gaming PC. Maybe Sam has always wanted to play Crysis on max settings.
Should I dredge up the photos of said Chinese donor with Turnbull, ScoMo, Gillard, Rudd and Brandis?
bobnowhere
Member
Really dumb move from Dastyari. It's not corrupt as Bernardi says or even illegal, but jeez it looks bad. Even the Chinese that donate have said they don't get value for their money!
Public funding is where we should be heading but taxpayers don't want to pay for it. I imagine it's going to take a massive scandal well beyond the current ICAC shenanigans in NSW to shake people out of their complacency. Arthur got off yesterday as well for not noticing vast amounts of laundered money though ICAC hasn't reported on his issues with Australia Water Holdings yet, they are waiting for criminal charges against others to work their way through the system.
The fun reason why Pyne and Bowen were talking with paper on their head yesterday!
I would have though Malcolm would have had a top hat knocking around somewhere just in case!
Public funding is where we should be heading but taxpayers don't want to pay for it. I imagine it's going to take a massive scandal well beyond the current ICAC shenanigans in NSW to shake people out of their complacency. Arthur got off yesterday as well for not noticing vast amounts of laundered money though ICAC hasn't reported on his issues with Australia Water Holdings yet, they are waiting for criminal charges against others to work their way through the system.
The fun reason why Pyne and Bowen were talking with paper on their head yesterday!
I would have though Malcolm would have had a top hat knocking around somewhere just in case!
Elaugaufein
Member
Really dumb move from Dastyari. It's not corrupt as Bernardi says or even illegal, but jeez it looks bad. Even the Chinese that donate have said they don't get value for their money!
Public funding is where we should be heading but taxpayers don't want to pay for it. I imagine it's going to take a massive scandal well beyond the current ICAC shenanigans in NSW to shake people out of their complacency. Arthur got off yesterday as well for not noticing vast amounts of laundered money though ICAC hasn't reported on his issues with Australia Water Holdings yet, they are waiting for criminal charges against others to work their way through the system.
The fun reason why Pyne and Bowen were talking with paper on their head yesterday!
I would have though Malcolm would have had a top hat knocking around somewhere just in case!
You'd think they'd replace the rule with something else a little less silly , like a baton or ribbon or something easily kept at the desks.
What does half a million from a mining magnate buy?
Candescence
Member
Elaugaufein
Member
You know given how often Labor folds when the words National Security are mentioned I'm surprised that the LNP haven't worked out a way to make our deficit into a National Security issue (something something foreign creditors maybe ?).
Or they could run with the cuts to social services they propose and the added burden on the less well off would make Australia less attractive to refugees so therefore it should be part of a Bipartisan Approach to Stopping the Boats.
Or they could run with the cuts to social services they propose and the added burden on the less well off would make Australia less attractive to refugees so therefore it should be part of a Bipartisan Approach to Stopping the Boats.
bobnowhere
Member
Haha, 2 days into the new Parliament and the Turnbull Government becomes the first government in 44 years to lose a vote! Maybe if they hadn't played pairing games from 2010-2013 they might be having an easier time.
Elaugaufein
Member
3 votes lost. And it's the first majority government (depending on how you view the failure of a speaker to eject a member Gillard lost one too).
roosters93
Member
bobnowhere
Member
At least one of the votes was 71-71 and by tradition the speaker doesn't stifle debate so voted with the opposition. I bet Bronnie would have broken that tradition.
Turns out it was 41 years ago not 44, so the dying days of the Whitlam government.
It still won't result in the Banking Royal Commission but it will only take 1 person crossing the floor and one or two of the Nats just might at some point.
Mr Potato head locked out:
Turns out it was 41 years ago not 44, so the dying days of the Whitlam government.
It still won't result in the Banking Royal Commission but it will only take 1 person crossing the floor and one or two of the Nats just might at some point.
Mr Potato head locked out:
Candescence
Member
"Workable, stable majority", Turnbull said, only to eat crow in the first day the lower house sits. Not a good look for him.
Aarglefarg
Member
And do a bad job of it.
Candescence
Member
To be fair, Abbot did shit on the custom of pairing, so Labor decided to do the same in retaliation this term, so that part isn't Turnbull's fault. It's still karma for the government as a whole, though.
bobnowhere
Member
Not sure of the exact votes but one of the first two was to bring on debate on the Banking RC bill that passed the Senate earlier by Labor and the 3rd was an attempted adjournment of debate by the Coalition that failed.
Elaugaufein
Member
I believe:
To deny adjournment, to bring on the RC debate and the move by the government to end the debate about such.
bobnowhere
Member
roosters93
Member
Tones looking pretty relaxed on the ol' backbench
Elaugaufein
Member
Anyone have any idea where Bandt was yesterday ? He and Ludlam are poking fun at the government so I, assume he's pretty confident that his reason whatever it is, wouldn't upset Greens voter but its a big odd that no one has asked / no statement has been issued.
Elaugaufein
Member
It's to prevent counting errors with people entering / leaving. The prohibition on entry only lasts for the division (which is why numbers changed on later votes). It's still kind of archaic though, like paper hats.
Elaugaufein
Member
Herald Sun deciding the Senate doesn't have a mandate of its own and that people who vote for minor parties in the Senate don't deserve representation.
(Even if you didn't know who'd won the election you'd know from that)
(Even if you didn't know who'd won the election you'd know from that)
Candescence
Member
So Ernest Wong, another Labor MP (a NSW Legislative Council MP, but still), has come out supporting a 'neutral' role for Australia's foreign policy concerning the South China Sea. Labor may want to do something about him and Dastyari, lest they become a political liability.
Elaugaufein
Member
The silly thing is that that position shouldn't inherently be a political liability. We've toed a fine balance of Chinese trade and US vassaldom for at least 30 years. The idea that we shouldn't automatically go along with the US position shouldn't be a liability. But our internal media position has always been US good / China bad. Which is not to say that I think that China building artificial islands to surreptitiously increase its territory is a good thing (I don't think it is) but it's certainly not a position that should be an automatic liability. We've supported the US position on things that are at least as intellectually unsound , and if you want to get critical about allegiance to a foreign power: we've had politicians who are US intelligence informants (if that had been any other country other than maybe the UK that would have ended careers). .
Just because we've supported aggressive stupidity in the past is no reason to continue. The actual neutral position in the South China Sea is one that is opposed to China's aims.
Elaugaufein
Member
True enough. It's the sheer hypocrisy of the position that any kind of favoritism to a foreign power is a liability by the same people who religiously follow America's lead that bothers me.
Candescence
Member
I'm not saying we should automatically take the USA's stance over the SCS mess (though, really, China being a massively hypocritical spoiled brat and ignoring international law because it doesn't get its way isn't exactly endearing me to them, though I was never exactly on the side of a corrupt, immoral and genocidal government to begin with, seriously, the sooner China's government collapses the better), but the 'neutrality' being advocated by the two MPs isn't neutrality at all.
Elaugaufein
Member
No, its not moral neutrality or even neutrality in adhering to international law but it's pretty bog standard realpolitik diplomatic neutrality (cf the entire Western World and Saudi Arabia, and a variety of dictatorships). Which is of course problematic in its pervasiveness in and of itself.
Yes it's dumb. It's like how barristers still wear curly wigs and robes in court. What the fuck dude go back to Hogwarts.
Elaugaufein
Member
So I was thinking about politics and the way parties interact as well as the interplay that produces specifically about NXT.
I don't think it would be controversial to suggest (at least in SA) that Labor should preference NXT ahead of the Liberals (in that Xenophon as erratic as he can occasionally be is generally closer to the ALP than the Liberals are).
The NXT question is where should NXT be positioned relative to the Greens ?
This is interesting because it brings into contrast the public perception of supporting the extreme Greens and the political advantage of having a party further along your ideological wing (ie you can use them as cover or ignore them by dealing on the other side).
It's also interesting to note that Xenophon while erratic is also often much closer to traditional Labor positions than either his Sensible Centre* branding or status as an ex-Lib would suggest, which is both useful in terms of dealing and dangerous in that it presents someone who can cannibalize Labors more traditional industrial base.
Thoughts ?
*Let's assume the centre lies between the ALP and LNP for this purpose.
I don't think it would be controversial to suggest (at least in SA) that Labor should preference NXT ahead of the Liberals (in that Xenophon as erratic as he can occasionally be is generally closer to the ALP than the Liberals are).
The NXT question is where should NXT be positioned relative to the Greens ?
This is interesting because it brings into contrast the public perception of supporting the extreme Greens and the political advantage of having a party further along your ideological wing (ie you can use them as cover or ignore them by dealing on the other side).
It's also interesting to note that Xenophon while erratic is also often much closer to traditional Labor positions than either his Sensible Centre* branding or status as an ex-Lib would suggest, which is both useful in terms of dealing and dangerous in that it presents someone who can cannibalize Labors more traditional industrial base.
Thoughts ?
*Let's assume the centre lies between the ALP and LNP for this purpose.
bobnowhere
Member
Does anyone see the dicotomy in calling Sam Dastyari "Shanghi Sam"(Morrison), saying he's been seduced by China (Pyne} and accusing him of having links to foreign countries (Turnbull) while the PM is in China for the G20 trying to drum up investment? Not to mention the ridiculous "Peking Duck" analogy from some no-name senator.
Elaugaufein
Member
Also some results from the Greens post election survey of members / donators during the campaign:
http://greens.org.au/our-future-your-say
(It's not full findings and is obviously intended as a press release kinda thing since the page has share buttons).
Politicians being hypocrites, say it isn't so.
http://greens.org.au/our-future-your-say
(It's not full findings and is obviously intended as a press release kinda thing since the page has share buttons).
Politicians being hypocrites, say it isn't so.
Candescence
Member
To be fair about Sam Dastyari, turns out he has absolutely no support within the caucus and his position in the Labor frontbench is a "captain's pick" on Shorten's part. Shorten is under a ton of pressure right now to do something about Dastyari, lest he become a bigger problem down the line.
Elaugaufein
Member
I suspect it's got more to do with state factions. Dastyari is apparently a pretty big player in his state Right group.
Candescence
Member
Of course it's factional nonsense. Sigh.
On the flipside, Dastyari also claimed that what he said was severely misrepresented and that he still very much supports Labor's foreign policy stance on China, and while it's not exactly surprising that the Communist Party-run media would do such a thing, I'm not sure I can take his word for it.
On the flipside, Dastyari also claimed that what he said was severely misrepresented and that he still very much supports Labor's foreign policy stance on China, and while it's not exactly surprising that the Communist Party-run media would do such a thing, I'm not sure I can take his word for it.
Elaugaufein
Member
Tbf its pretty much impossible to be a Federal Labor front bencher without being a factional heavy.Singh was a front bencher who didn't even get a winnable pre-selection slot because she wasn't involved. If it hasn't been for the Senate reform she would have lost her seat.
The factions will even kneecap the party for their benefit (see WA in 2013, if Labor hadn't bumped Pratt to 2nd there's an excellent chance there would have been more Labor and less Ludlam in the Senate. A situation I would like less but I doubt the Labor party feels the same way).
bobnowhere
Member
Brutal presser going on with Sam Dastyari atm on ABC24!
Elaugaufein
Member
Andrew Wilkie joins list of people not allowed on Naru. At this stage it seems being anywhere to the Left of Labor Unity gets you a free disqualification.
Also the Lib Dems position in political funding seems bizarre. Doesn't like big money or public funding ? Something I'm missing or Libertarian idiocy where only the Independently wealthy deserve representation ?
Also the Lib Dems position in political funding seems bizarre. Doesn't like big money or public funding ? Something I'm missing or Libertarian idiocy where only the Independently wealthy deserve representation ?
What happened?
Elaugaufein
Member
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...o-the-status-of-a-nobody-20160906-gra2x4.html
A bit slanted in tone but has an accurate summary of the press conference.
Elaugaufein
Member
Keep seeing media comments about how odd it is the Greens don't usually discuss internal issues with the media. Do these people not read the Murdoch media (ie most of our print media) ? Fair and impartial coverage is about as likely as the IPA releasing a press statement suggesting the need for more unions and stronger regulation of political donations.
Probably because big money = union money
- Status