bobnowhere
Member
What's the DLP's stance, no money at all? No public or private, just your own/party resources? Sounds about right for them, survival of the fittest, politics of the self(ish).
-
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
Candescence
Member
And now Dastyari may have broken both Federal and NSW Labor rules.
Wow, Shorten is between a rock and a hard place. Dastyari is now an increasing liability politically, but sacking him would mean a revolt from the NSW Right.
Wow, Shorten is between a rock and a hard place. Dastyari is now an increasing liability politically, but sacking him would mean a revolt from the NSW Right.
bobnowhere
Member
He's gone. Offered his resignation and Shorten accepted. 3 years on the backbench and he'll be back.
He probably should have walked last Friday but I suspect they hoped the shenanigans in Parliament Thursday evening would overshadow it, but the Coalition wouldn't let go.
Fuck the NSW Right.
Candescence
Member
Yeah, Dastyari falling on his own sword was probably the best outcome for Shorten and Labor right now. He had to go, but this way the NSW Right can't blame Shorten without coming off as extremely petty. But his career has taken a huge blow regardless.
In any case, a problematic senator is no longer a target for the government to shoot at, and a huge blow has been dealt to the NSW Right faction, which is good.
In any case, a problematic senator is no longer a target for the government to shoot at, and a huge blow has been dealt to the NSW Right faction, which is good.
Indeed.
#putyourHSPout
bobnowhere
Member
Not quite, Andrew Leigh is still Assistant Treasurer but paid like a backbencher. Punishment for not being part of a faction.
Elaugaufein
Member
I thought they only had 1 person who wasn't being paid appropriately (since they had to include Carr) , with Dastyari gone they should be able to shuffle his portfolio onto one of the existing Frontbenchers and pay Andrew Leigh appropriately no?
bobnowhere
Member
Shorten picked 32 for cabinet but only 30 were able to get the pay rise. Leigh was one to miss out and oddly enough the other one was Dastyari. That alone pointed to his lessened influence in the party unless he did it under the kindness of his heart, highly unlikely!
So I believe out of the 30 the right got 15, the left 14 and the Carr faction got 1, Carr himself. Now even with the largest number of seats being in NSW, there are only so many places for the NSW right after Bowen, Burke, Husic, Fitzgibbon, Kelly, Bird and Rowland get a spot. Dastyari may have called himself a power broker before he got into the Senate but he's at the back of the queue in Canberra.
Elaugaufein
Member
Yeah, being a state factional heavyweight is pretty much the minimum bar to get a Frontbench position in Canberra yeah (at least if you intend to keep it for more than a single Parliament).
Aarglefarg
Member
Adam Giles confirmed to have lost his seat in the NT election and so the CLP has only two seats.
Elaugaufein
Member
So they've been confirmed to lose Katherine too ?
Candescence
Member
From the man who said "no wrecking, no undermining, and no sniping", comes two different exclusives in different newspapers from Tony Abbot, and a radio interview claiming that the NT juvie detention RC was "an act of panic from Turnbull". All in one day.
Christ, at least Rudd was relatively subtle about this shit.
Christ, at least Rudd was relatively subtle about this shit.
Aarglefarg
Member
The NT Electoral Commission website says "Sandra NELSON (Australian Labor Party NT (ALP)) elected at count 5". http://www.ntec.nt.gov.au/2016 Territory Election/results/pages/Katherine.aspx
In other news...
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/na...bull-a-d-for-first-year-as-pm-20160904-gr8nlt
0% gave him an A.
10% gave him a B.
42% gave him a C.
20% gave him a D.
16% gave him an E.
8% gave him an F.
4% didn't give a rating.
bobnowhere
Member
Turnbull did get an A from someone, Malcolm Turnbull! Delusional.
Clover Moore has won a 4th term as Sydney mayor with a 10% swing to her even after Baird's ridiculous 2 votes for businesses gerrymander.
Clover Moore has won a 4th term as Sydney mayor with a 10% swing to her even after Baird's ridiculous 2 votes for businesses gerrymander.
I'm not. I was trying (very badly, as my month long ban attests to) in that thread to point out that there is no silver bullet solution to this problem. That if we accept the premise that there will be drownings if we don't turn back boats and institute strict border controls (controversial, but bear with me) then the institutions that we devise to do implement this policy will inevitably see abuse. As all institutions do. And that we therefore have to accept that there will inevitably and unavoidably be a trade-off (not linear, but still there) between the quality of the border protections and the extent to which institutional abuse happens.
Of course this leaves us treading a fine line where one side sees us using torture and sexual abuse as tools of the state in order to implement government policy. And if we aren't explicitly doing it through legislative action, then at some point we would have to have an acknowledgement that we are implicitly condoning the abuse of refugees through ignoring the reports of institutional abuse.
I re-read my posts in that thread and they came off awfully. I sound like a psychopath. I'm not, hopefully.
There's probably a story in this article somewhere, but it's hidden deeply beneath a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between neo-liberalism as is currently understood, neo-liberalism as it was previously understood, and what economic rationalism is. Hayek and Friedman are as close together economically as Whitlam and Howard are.
Whoops I meant to edit this in.
Elaugaufein
Member
Good to have you back.
Candescence
Member
NSW council elections have seen Clover Moore re-elected as Lord Mayor of Sydney with an overwhelming majority despite the Libs basically trying to rig the election in favor of a more "business-friendly" candidate (aka their candidate, aka Tony Abbot's sister) since they really don't like Moore's environmental and progressive agenda. With 60% of the vote and her nearest rival only getting 15%, I doubt she'll be leaving office anytime soon barring some disaster, which is good, since she's a really good mayor. Hopefully she can hold on to another 14 years of office to see through her plans to reduce Sydney's carbon emissions by 70%. I didn't even realize she was 70 years old.
Unfortunately, the council elections results sliding away from the Libs have been blamed on the greyhound racing ban, which could probably stifle any appetite for similar reform in other states, which is a shame, because it's one of Baird's good ideas.
Unfortunately, the council elections results sliding away from the Libs have been blamed on the greyhound racing ban, which could probably stifle any appetite for similar reform in other states, which is a shame, because it's one of Baird's good ideas.
Candescence
Member
Sam Dastyari has once again put his foot in his mouth by praising the People's Daily, AKA the propaganda mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party.
This just comes off as hilariously treasonous. Does this guy simply have no sense of perspective?
This just comes off as hilariously treasonous. Does this guy simply have no sense of perspective?
D.Lo
Member
It's almost literally the only good thing Baird has done.
It's only bogan areas where the swing was because of that though, I mean a lot of people will literally lose careers from it, and many people their hobby.
Closer to civilisation the westconnex scam would have been a huge driver.
Elaugaufein
Member
I'm dubious it was that even in rural areas. The Greens did good in some of those areas and were very publicly in favour of the ban. Greyhound racing just seems to be a convenient excuse that has very little tie to Liberal ideology or policy so it's a good scapegoat.
D.Lo
Member
I was thinking that but then I saw that it was particularly bad in shellharbour, which is famous for the Dapto dogs, so it probably did have some effect there.
It doesn't matter what the Greens position was, low information voters won't look that up. Heck most people didn't even know if they had to vote. All they know is Liberal Mike is taking away their dogs, and I'll vote for anyone else's party.
bobnowhere
Member
So the Yes and No campaigns are going to consist of 10 woman/man committees with 2 government, 2 opposition, 1 cross and 5 others. I wonder which 2 members of the Labor party are going to sit on the no committee? I imagine they will be from the Victorian or SA right, Conroy? Danby? Someone else?
The major points via the Guardian.
- be a compulsory vote on 11 February 2017
- ask voters Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to be married?
- result in the yes and no cases receiving $7.5m of public funding each, to be administered by two committees of 10 people (five parliamentarians, five citizens)
- Other third-party groups, including churches and LGBTI lobby groups, will still be able to spend their own money on advertising but it will be up to TV stations and other media whether to carry their ads
- The plebiscite will not be automatically binding or self-executing. The successful side will be the one with the majority of votes, nationwide, but result will be reported by each polling place, division and state leaving room for parliamentarians to follow what their electorate or state says, not the nation
- Brandis and Ryan did not rule out a voluntary plebiscite if the legislation for a compulsory one is voted down but the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, didnt rule out a free vote either so its unclear what happens if Labor votes it down
bobnowhere
Member
Apparently George Soros is sniffing around the Yes campaign with cash.
'the single most destructive leftist demagogue in the world'
'the single most destructive leftist demagogue in the world'
While I'd prefer a simple parliamentary vote, I really don't see anything wrong with the proposed legislation. Passing this would be good for the LNP in the long run, at the moment it's just something the ALP and Greens can beat them over the head with constantly.
In other news the human rights commission has accepted Leyonhjelm's submission against Mark Kenny. I have no idea if he has a case, but I would like to see a discussion happen. I personally feel 18C is overly broad at the moment, even taking 18D into consideration.
In other news the human rights commission has accepted Leyonhjelm's submission against Mark Kenny. I have no idea if he has a case, but I would like to see a discussion happen. I personally feel 18C is overly broad at the moment, even taking 18D into consideration.
AdventureRacing
Member
It's a massive waste of money. It feels great working in the underfunded health system and seeing huge amounts of public money wasted on bullshit like this.
On top of that just have a vote and a debate on the subject is going to hurt homosexual people. Labor and the greens should absolutely oppose the plebiscite. It's a damn disgrace and everyone supporting it had forever lost my faith as a voter (most had already so I guess no big deal).
The public is clearly in favour of it, it's happening all around the world and it's only a matter of time here. There is no legislation preventing them from just making he change without a public vote. Let's take one more step away from our bigoted past and just do it already. It's so damn frustrating to watch this all unfold.
On top of that just have a vote and a debate on the subject is going to hurt homosexual people. Labor and the greens should absolutely oppose the plebiscite. It's a damn disgrace and everyone supporting it had forever lost my faith as a voter (most had already so I guess no big deal).
The public is clearly in favour of it, it's happening all around the world and it's only a matter of time here. There is no legislation preventing them from just making he change without a public vote. Let's take one more step away from our bigoted past and just do it already. It's so damn frustrating to watch this all unfold.
Oh no doubt, but unfortunately there's no chance of legislation being introduced into the lower house that would pass at this point in time. We can either not have a plebiscite, or gay people can not get married at all. There's no third option during this parliamentary term.
The current LNP has a bunch of social troglodytes that need to be appeased for better legislation to make its way through. I hate that it'll inevitably mean playing politics with people's sexuality and mental wellbeing, but with two bad choices I'll take the less bad choice any day of the week.
AdventureRacing
Member
I'm not sure what the less bad choice is. My personal opinion is that it would probably better to wait till next term if need be then go through with the plebiscite. Not just because it's a huge waste of money but because it will fracture the community. Just having a debate about whether or not gay marriage should be legalised is going to incite hatred towards the gay community. The idea of spending public money on the no campaign disgusts me.
I want to see labor and the greens actually fight on this point. The only reason we're having a plebiscite is because of the bigots in the LNP. They shouldn't vote for it and they should actually fight for the rights of gay people. That plus they should keep reminding people about the cost. We're constantly hearing about budget repair and yet here we are flushing millions of dollars down the toilet.
People won't die if they have to bang on the door for a bit longer. If it were a fair fight with equal stakes, I'd be inclined to say that we should just weather the storm, provide support where it's needed and do our best to get an actual result out of this cowardly shitshow.
But it's not a fair fight and the stakes aren't equal. What's the worst that happens if cunty little bastards use the platform the government's happily giving them to be cunty little bastards? They ruin their own reputation through their own actions. In fact, they get far more credit than they deserve as they cry about their freedom of speech or whatever else. The same can't be said for the other side, where people can't do shit, can't say shit for fear of harassment, abuse, assault.
To say nothing of the weaseling bullshit contingencies being set up to allow MPs to ignore a successful Yes vote. Then all the hurt would have been for nothing.
But it's not a fair fight and the stakes aren't equal. What's the worst that happens if cunty little bastards use the platform the government's happily giving them to be cunty little bastards? They ruin their own reputation through their own actions. In fact, they get far more credit than they deserve as they cry about their freedom of speech or whatever else. The same can't be said for the other side, where people can't do shit, can't say shit for fear of harassment, abuse, assault.
To say nothing of the weaseling bullshit contingencies being set up to allow MPs to ignore a successful Yes vote. Then all the hurt would have been for nothing.
Candescence
Member
Also, Lib Senator Dean Smith, the first openly gay senator, is actually opposing the plebiscite with the reasoning that this sort of shit should not be happening in Australia's constitutional framework, voting on this shit is the responsibility of parliament, a plebiscite is an abdication of that responsibility.
And really, he's completely right. And if both Labor, Greens, Xenophon's team and Hinch vote against the plebiscite, with Smith either crossing the floor or abstaining, the plebiscite is absolutely fucked.
And really, he's completely right. And if both Labor, Greens, Xenophon's team and Hinch vote against the plebiscite, with Smith either crossing the floor or abstaining, the plebiscite is absolutely fucked.
Elaugaufein
Member
The currently declared positions require Labor to support it to go through (NXT + Greens + Labor = Block, adding Hinch retains the block even if SHY crosses the floor (which she has flagged as a potential).
Get on Twitter , and have a look through the #auspol tag and you'll find some stuff. It probably won't be good for your sanity though.
Yeah nah.
WTF is the point even.
Aarglefarg
Member
The nastiness will be detrimental to a lot of people's health including my own.
As you say that. Here is Bernardi with his Common Sense hot take.
https://twitter.com/workmanalice/status/775899071244562432
bobnowhere
Member
The problem is not the Australia people, it's what the politicians do after. Plenty have already said they will ignore the will of the people and vote their own conscientious and these people are exclusively from the right, the very people who are desperate for a plebiscite. Others are looking for outs, did their electorate vote against it? Was it close enough that I can vote no? Was it wet on the day? Is my surname Bernardi? Am I shaped somewhat like a potato?
It's clear that the process will not be respected so how is it any different than a conscience vote on the floor?
There is nothing genuine about the process, it was designed to delay and hopefully fail by Abbott.
Edit:
There you go, Bernardi's out is that overseas money makes the process undemocratic.
Textured Monk
Member
And to emphasis the point, there's a few more fresh Bernadi quotes on that Twitter highlighting that he's full of shit, has no self-awareness, and a plebiscite is pointless.
EDIT: The post above me is also good.
Elaugaufein
Member
Still better than some of the religious opposition:
1: SSM robs a child of the right to a mother and father
1a) Let's ignore same sex couples can adopt already
1b) and that children available for adoption are likely to have neither available to start with.
2: SSM is like incest marriage.
My logic centre can't find enough coherency in this argument to properlry reject it (it's like trying to argue why Hot isn't Melancholic).
- Status