Support NeoGAF

[D.Lo]

They are already like 53-47 2PP and PHON is mildly worse for the Coalition than the Greens for Labor in the electoral sense because the overlap of Nat / PHON support is higher than Labor / Green and the Nats reliance on natural gerrymander seats (large conservative rural areas it's completely impractical for the AEC to make close) which means PHON is equally concentrated and thus capable of winning seats (unlike the Green vote which is still too diffuse to win anything but a handful of inner city and coastal seats in the next decade). It would be hard for a United and Disciplined government with bags of cash for middle class welfare to overcome the current situation and the Coalition is none of that at the moment.

As far as I can tell Labor also has a mild Senatorial advantage too both in terms of fairly safe Greens support and largely easier negotiations with NXT.

Basically if Labor doesn't continue to poll winning numbers until the next election it will be a serious indictment of Shorten.

Yep.

We already had some of that indictment last term IMO. The libs imploded twice in a single term, and yet Labor were still never near winning. Labor were only just ahead even when Abbott was still in and a complete national laughing stock.

In any other scenario except following the long drawn out fallout of the coup on Rudd, any party would have changed leaders. They're gun shy because of that history now.

The ALP just needs to block basically everything and then roll into government next term on the back of 'turnbull owned by the right wing hurr durr'. Who actually needs governance when we can have populist tools harming our future for political points.

Seems that is the current plan. Really just a more polite version of Abbott.

 

[darkace]

Turnbull could prove them wrong. I could also become an anarcho-capitlist.

My point is that any move Turnbull tries to make the ALP blocks and act as if it's from the hard right. Turnbull points out the obvious that removing renewables without adding baseload such as hydro or nuclear will inevitably lead to problems? Held hostage by the hard right! Turnbull attempts to put through tax cuts? Held hostage by the hard right!

There are places his hands are bound (climate action and marriage equality), but the breadth of negotiation that could be undertaken without treading on areas Turnbull cannot legislate on is much larger than the reverse. The ALP is more interested in playing populist bullshit politics for three years than actually doing what's best for the country. This and the fact Shorten has reversed on globalisation makes me ashamed to have voted for them.

Seems that is the current plan. Really just a more polite version of Abbott.

Abbott negotiated on many areas he disagreed with (such as the mining tax). Shorten and the ALP are putting a blockade against everything.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I confess to being mystified why you think Labor is under some obligation to try and allow through as much LNP policy as they can stomach.

Labor had also already passed several LNP proposals , tax cut and Omnibus bill to name too. Some of which I thought was moronic (but I would). So they haven't exactly been an Iron Fortress.

Globalisation is a net good thing, its also had several destructive consequences and severely undermined the ability of nations to do anything about that Bar engaging in races to the bottom. Pretending it's all sunshine and rainbows is not a winning strategy.

Turnbull's position on renewable targets is also completely inconsistent with our agreements which State university targets are much closet to approximating so yes his attacks on that basis are certainly the usual Coal lobby position.

 

[darkace]

I confess to being mystified why you think Labor is under some obligation to try and allow through as much LNP policy as they can stomach.

Unlike the US, generally in Australia policy passed at the federal level has clear backing from experts. Now there's obviously some areas that different parties cannot legislate on due to how the base is (large-scale carbon abatement and the LNP, the ALP and policy harming unions), but with little exception the main difference between parties is the areas they focus on and the rhetoric.

The ALP should pass good policy that has a clear net benefit that is moderately palatable to the base. Not all of the LNP policy will, but their job is to back that which will. Not stonewall the LNP and hope they implode so they can pass their policy.

Labor had also already passed several LNP proposals , tax cut and Omnibus bill to name too.

All of which they went to the election on. That's not negotiation that's just how it functions in Australia.

Globalisation is a net good thing, its also had several destructive consequences and severely undermined the ability of nations to do anything about that Bar engaging in races to the bottom. Pretending it's all sunshine and rainbows is not a winning strategy.

Race to the bottom doesn't exist. That's not how comparative advantage works.

Also his comments are both clearly a dog whistle, and at odds with what his own party has been saying. Yes, people are harmed, but the ALP should be negotiating with the LNP to help them out (say by trading the ABCC for infrastructure development and retraining in Geelong and other areas hurt by the closure of manufacturing.) If they actually gave a shit about these people then why are they not negotiating policy to help them out?

Turnbull's position on renewable targets is also completely inconsistent with our agreements which State university targets are much closet to approximating so yes his attacks on that basis are certainly the usual Coal lobby position.

The problems in South Australia were absolutely part caused by renewable dependence. South Australia has the least reliable and most expensive power in Mainland Australia for a reason. Large businesses have been steadily adding back-up generators for a reason. Renewables are great but wind and solar cannot function without baseload, which the state ALP has steadfastly refused to add (and it doesn't even need to be dirty energy, I don't know about the viability of hydro in SA but nuclear can work as well). They're essentially siphoning off other states while telling their constituents how awesome green energy is.

His comments are reality. Full-scale renewable is basically non-viable at this point at time, and doing so would cause massive strain on lower-income households while seriously damaging the reliability of the energy networks.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Unlike the US, generally in Australia policy passed at the federal level has clear backing from experts. Now there's obviously some areas that different parties cannot legislate on due to how the base is (large-scale carbon abatement and the LNP, the ALP and policy harming unions), but with little exception the main difference between parties is the areas they focus on and the rhetoric.

The ALP should pass good policy that has a clear net benefit that is moderately palatable to the base. Not all of the LNP policy will, but their job is to back that which will. Not stonewall the LNP and hope they implode so they can pass their policy.



All of which they went to the election on. That's not negotiation that's just how it functions in Australia.



Race to the bottom doesn't exist. That's not how comparative advantage works.

Also his comments are both clearly a dog whistle, and at odds with what his own party has been saying. Yes, people are harmed, but the ALP should be negotiating with the LNP to help them out (say by trading the ABCC for infrastructure development and retraining in Geelong and other areas hurt by the closure of manufacturing.) If they actually gave a shit about these people then why are they not negotiating policy to help them out?



The problems in South Australia were absolutely part caused by renewable dependence. South Australia has the least reliable and most expensive power in Mainland Australia for a reason. Large businesses have been steadily adding back-up generators for a reason. Renewables are great but wind and solar cannot function without baseload, which the state ALP has steadfastly refused to add (and it doesn't even need to be dirty energy, I don't know about the viability of hydro in SA but nuclear can work as well). They're essentially siphoning off other states while telling their constituents how awesome green energy is.

His comments are reality. Full-scale renewable is basically non-viable at this point at time, and doing so would cause massive strain on lower-income households while seriously damaging the reliability of the energy networks.

Yes and that policy is frequently mutually exclusive and yet there's expert backing for both. The IPA would find you expert backing for any tax cut you could name and theres Labor-aligned institutes who will back any redistributive policy proposed.

Also you have a recipe for a party with no base, if the best you can do is moderately palatable to your base will (entirely correctly) find someone more in tune with their values. Keating actually basically did this and the ALPs reward was 12 years of Howard.

Components of a budget plan can't be extracted in pieces and claimed as election promises. If I promise to cut funding to existing hospitals by X in order to build a new hospital , I haven't agreed to cut funding to hospitals by X to pay for a tax cut.

The ABCC is pure union bashing, justified by union transgressions that breach other laws already. The ALP trading it for infrastructure would be terrible for them, it'd be like the Liberals trading privatisation of some trivial asset for a permanent coercive body dedicated to monitoring the behaviour
of banks.

Races to the bottom exist that's how transfer pricing and paper headquarters for tax purposes work. You lure money into your jurisdiction by promising to take less of it and then you reap the windfalls. It's not exactly unheard of with regulations either or jurisdiction shopping for court cases.


The outage in SA was caused by fallen power lines and the fault tolerance settings of the wind turbines being too low (They were completely functional mechanically) and then by additional non renewable power failing to step up as it should. And SAs high prices have more than a little to do with their very limited competition non-renewables playing games to maximise their profits (which is admittedly a problem, if your need for non-renewables is low but it's availability importance is high how do you avoid monopolies / cartels ? ).

 

[Yagharek]

The ALP just needs to block basically everything and then roll into government next term on the back of 'turnbull owned by the right wing hurr durr'. Who actually needs governance when we can have populist tools harming our future for political points.

You mightn't have noticed but the LNP are more interested in fighting amongst themselves than actually governing. This has nowt to do with the ALP.

Compare the sheer volume of legislation Gillard got through despite persistent white anting, and the libs cant even get a consistent voice in their own party room, vote against their own legislation, and are ruled by backbenchers throwing hissy fits.

The ALP doesnt need to do a single thing. Not even obstructionism. Just sit there silently and the libs will do themselves in.

 

[Elaugaufein]

You mightn't have noticed but the LNP are more interested in fighting amongst themselves than actually governing. This has nowt to do with the ALP.

Compare the sheer volume of legislation Gillard got through despite persistent white anting, and the libs cant even get a consistent voice in their own party room, vote against their own legislation, and are ruled by backbenchers throwing hissy fits.

The ALP doesnt need to do a single thing. Not even obstructionism. Just sit there silently and the libs will do themselves in.

Now now, the moderates don't get to throw hissy fits because it'd bring down the government. And some of the hissy fits are thrown by front benchers.

 

[darkace]

Yes and that policy is frequently mutually exclusive and yet there's expert backing for both. The IPA would find you expert backing for any tax cut you could name and theres Labor-aligned institutes who will back any redistributive policy proposed.

Think-tanks aren't experts. I'm talking the RBA or Treasury, not the IPA or TAI.

Also you have a recipe for a party with no base, if the best you can do is moderately palatable to your base will (entirely correctly) find someone more in tune with their values. Keating actually basically did this and the ALPs reward was 12 years of Howard.

And also being responsible for the largest gains in living standards any developed country saw during the 20th and 21st centuries. But clearly it's less important than being in power.

The ABCC is pure union bashing, justified by union transgressions that breach other laws already. The ALP trading it for infrastructure would be terrible for them, it'd be like the Liberals trading privatisation of some trivial asset for a permanent coercive body dedicated to monitoring the behaviour of banks.

Labour unit costs of Australian construction workers are the highest in the world. It's putting people out of work. It's an attempt to moderate wages disguised as union bashing.

Races to the bottom exist that's how transfer pricing and paper headquarters for tax purposes work. You lure money into your jurisdiction by promising to take less of it and then you reap the windfalls. It's not exactly unheard of with regulations either or jurisdiction shopping for court cases.

So tax more efficiently.

The outage in SA was caused by fallen power lines and the fault tolerance settings of the wind turbines being too low (They were completely functional mechanically) and then by additional non renewable power failing to step up as it should. And SAs high prices have more than a little to do with their very limited competition non-renewables playing games to maximise their profits (which is admittedly a problem, if your need for non-renewables is low but it's availability importance is high how do you avoid monopolies / cartels ? ).

You've had multiple white papers pointing out that SA's overreliance on renewable energy will cause problems down the line. And it was partially (but not wholly) responsible for the previous black-out. It's why businesses are installing back-up.

Also the 2013 Productivity Commission had recommendations for the government and managing energy pricing if you're interested. You can't avoid monopolies in energy infrastructure but you can design legislation to mimic market forces and avoid cartel behaviour, such as Victoria did in the 90's.

You mightn't have noticed but the LNP are more interested in fighting amongst themselves than actually governing. This has nowt to do with the ALP.

It's helped by the ALP not passing legislation because they want it to happen. It's good politics but it's terrible for our long-term political and economical well-being. Personally I despise the LNP's refusal to modernise but the ALP are also complicit in this through continually playing populist identity politics.

Compare the sheer volume of legislation Gillard got through despite persistent white anting, and the libs cant even get a consistent voice in their own party room, vote against their own legislation, and are ruled by backbenchers throwing hissy fits.

The senate make-up that Gillard has vs. now are night and day.

 

[Yagharek]

The senate make up they had before the DD was lineball. They refused to negotiate, threw yet another tantrum and ended up with an even worse configuration.

Tactics Malcolm needs to rethink the master plan. It's his own fault, his own creation.

Gillard would have been able to negotiate with the 2013-16 senate.

 

[Elaugaufein]

The senate make up they had before the DD was lineball. They refused to negotiate, threw yet another tantrum and ended up with an even worse configuration.

Tactics Malcolm needs to rethink the master plan. It's his own fault, his own creation.

Gillard would have been able to negotiate with the 2013-16 senate.

Actually I think this one is slightly better for the Coalition than pre-DD , PHON has proven to be completely right wing (I was expecting some populist economics but they've got individual linerty and self-reliance instead) so it's a pretty consistent lock for anything Lanod and the Greens tell them to stick it on. NXT is their primary hurdle and he seems manageable on their economics if they are willing to take partial wins and choose appropriate battles. Their primary failing appears to be a complete inability to take low range partial wins or to stop fighting lost battles.

The rest if the crossbench is pretty predictable apart from Hinch, but he's not one to hold cards to his chest, if you asked him for his hypothetical position on a bill , you'd get it.

Leyjonhelm has proven interesting on unions too, his spit argument actually follows his ideology reasonably well. Which I think I expected, I may think he's a bit if a dick but he's a genuine libertarian not shopping for personal aggrandizement unlike a lot of them.

 

[darkace]

The senate make up they had before the DD was lineball. They refused to negotiate, threw yet another tantrum and ended up with an even worse configuration.

Abbott =/= Turnbull.

Tactics Malcolm needs to rethink the master plan. It's his own fault, his own creation.

It's long-term policy designed to better follow the will of the voters. Its weakness was shown at the DD, but after the full six years the fruits will be shown.

Gillard would have been able to negotiate with the 2013-16 senate.

It's really easy to negotiate with populists when you don't care about the budgetary impact of your policies.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Abbott =/= Turnbull.



It's long-term policy designed to better follow the will of the voters. Its weakness was shown at the DD, but after the full six years the fruits will be shown.



It's really easy to negotiate with populists when you don't care about the budgetary impact of your policies.

Honestly I think DDs are better in many ways. The results are more genuinely representative. 9 seats gets representation for groups with 10% support, 19 for 5%, 6 seats is ~14% which is a 3/2 split and a lottery. But the major parties prefer it that way.
The Greens mildly benefit from the current scheme too since they are fairly likely to win the lottery so this isn't political self interest. A 19 Seat / State Senate would cost the Greens ~1 Seat proportionality which would probably go to Animal Justice or Sex.

 

[Shaneus]

Shorten is finally hitting his stride... around 6 months too late

 

[Elaugaufein]

Shorten is finally hitting his stride... around 6 months too late

I think you linked the wrong thing ? That's to Trump promise to accept result if he wins. Unless its later in the piece. I can't see it since I've hit the article cap and haven't opened it incognito yet.

ETA - Ahh yes, it was. 2nd bit.

I'm not sure that it is 6th months too late. Shorten couldn't have survived a narrow squeak in. If he was in the same position as Turnbull is now (1 seat majority) and needing to get bills through the Senate he'd basically need Greens + NXT to pass bills (he might occassionaly be able to get away with (Greens or NXT) + Lambie and/or Hinch and even more rarely Leyjonhelm*, the other paths range from impractical to bleeding left wing votes to the Greens) in the Senate (even giving him 1 extra seat from the Coalition for a higher electoral performance doesn't change that). And the Murdoch media loathe the Greens more than both Labor and how much they love giving PHON tongue baths lately. He'd be getting brutalized every day. He's currently on a good trajectory by contrast (he's still going to need the Greens to pass legislation in the Senate most of the time but having a stronger position makes the attacks weaker).

*SSM definitelye and probably Labors (entirely correct) current stance that Mandatory Minimum Sentences are a bloody stupid idea..

 

[Elaugaufein]

Oh , as a thought that crossed my mind is anyone interested in group subscriptions to media other than Crikey ? Pretty much all papers offer something similar starting at 2 or 3 subscribers. I'm happy to organize such things if people are interested.

 

[Aarglefarg]

Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson has resigned, citing his 'irretrievably broken' relationship with Attorney-General George Brandis http://ab.co/2dO2lfP

 

[bobnowhere]

Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson has resigned, citing his 'irretrievably broken' relationship with Attorney-General George Brandis http://ab.co/2dO2lfP

While Glesson has done the honourable thing and acted properly throughout sadly this is just going to look like a win for Brandis. He successfully bullied him out, one down and Triggs to go. Though she is a far different prospect!

 

[Jintor]

God I don't think I could stand it if triggs got forced out by this fucking garbage

 

[Rubixcuba]

How did Australia respond to last weeks Four Corners on Manus and Nauru? Latest Morgan poll has 75% supporting either the status quo or decreasing our humanitarian intake. 25% want no immigration and 33% a ban on Muslim immigration.

I don't know how the political argument on asylum seekers can ever shift in Australia. We should be put before the ICC, and condemned by the UN but people just don't care.

 

[Dryk]

Brandis is such a disgrace to the office of AG. FFS.

 

[bobnowhere]

How did Australia respond to last weeks Four Corners on Manus and Nauru? Latest Morgan poll has 75% supporting either the status quo or decreasing our humanitarian intake. 25% want no immigration and 33% a ban on Muslim immigration.

I don't know how the political argument on asylum seekers can ever shift in Australia. We should be put before the ICC, and condemned by the UN but people just don't care.

That Morgan is a little wild, though it probably more receptive to all forms of immigration than a few recent ones like the essential one they had to run twice as they though it was a mistake.

The Labor 55/45 2pp is certainly interesting even if Morgan bounces around like a Kangaroo on speed.

 

[Elaugaufein]

That Morgan is a little wild, though it probably more receptive to all forms of immigration than a few recent ones like the essential one they had to run twice as they though it was a mistake.

The Labor 55/45 2pp is certainly interesting even if Morgan bounces around like a Kangaroo on speed.

Technically polls should bounce around ~within their MoE that they don't is because of their data massaging, and can lead to polls sticking if things do suddenly change, so bounce isn't necessarily bad if you're going for instant readings.

 

[darkace]

Bludgertrack has been pretty solid on 51-49 to 52-48 ALP/LNP since July.

I don't see it changing without something serious going down, even if individuals bounce around.

 

[bobnowhere]

Technically polls should bounce around ~within their MoE that they don't is because of their data massaging, and can lead to polls sticking if things do suddenly change, so bounce isn't necessarily bad if you're going for instant readings.

Morgan has always been the most bouncy in my experience, tends to overestimate trends. But there is a trend.

Bludgertrack has been pretty solid on 51-49 to 52-48 ALP/LNP since July.

I don't see it changing without something serious going down, even if individuals bounce around.

Maybe, Turnbull is now more unpopular, personal, than when Abbott was booted. The polls are starting to slowly creep away from the coalition enabling the back bench, not that they needed much encouragement.

Abbott was clearly grossly incompetent and not up to the job and while Turnbull is probably up for it, there is a sense that he has let down the electorate and he's not the man he claims to be. No one cares about the wins from the ABCC or the Registered Organisation bills. All people care about that he capitulated to the backbench on superannuation, capitulated to the cross bench on just about everything else but will not negotiate on the SSM plebiscite. Stick a fork in Turnbull, he's done.

Get ready for Prime Minister Bishop/Frydenberg/Porter

 

[Elaugaufein]

Morgan has always been the most bouncy in my experience, tends to overestimate trends. But there is a trend.



Maybe, Turnbull is now more unpopular, personal, than when Abbott was booted. The polls are starting to slowly creep away from the coalition enabling the back bench, not that they needed much encouragement.

Abbott was clearly grossly incompetent and not up to the job and while Turnbull is probably up for it, there is a sense that he has let down the electorate and he's not the man he claims to be. No one cares about the wins from the ABCC or the Registered Organisation bills. All people care about that he capitulated to the backbench on superannuation, capitulated to the cross bench on just about everything else but will not negotiate on the SSM plebiscite. Stick a fork in Turnbull, he's done.

Get ready for Prime Minister Bishop/Frydenberg/Porter

I can't see how Bishop or Morrison can make it. The Monkey Pod hates them for their "betrayal".

I can't see Porter either given he's got almost no national recognition.

And Frydenberg has a similar problem.

Actually thats the Coalition's problem in a nutshell they've got no one who gets an aversge 50% rating from the donors, the base, the public , the Nationals and the Monkey Pod.

And they need to put in someone who Bolt isn't going to run a(n at least) one man jihad against. Which pretty much torpedoes anyone who could get higher polls than Abbott to start with.

 

[darkace]

Maybe, Turnbull is now more unpopular, personal, than when Abbott was booted. The polls are starting to slowly creep away from the coalition enabling the back bench, not that they needed much encouragement.

Abbott was clearly grossly incompetent and not up to the job and while Turnbull is probably up for it, there is a sense that he has let down the electorate and he's not the man he claims to be. No one cares about the wins from the ABCC or the Registered Organisation bills. All people care about that he capitulated to the backbench on superannuation, capitulated to the cross bench on just about everything else but will not negotiate on the SSM plebiscite. Stick a fork in Turnbull, he's done.

Get ready for Prime Minister Bishop/Frydenberg/Porter

It's pretty sad, because what the Australian public clearly wants is a moderate who will take good ideas from across the political spectrum while representing us competently on the world stage. We loved the centrist Rudd, but hated the leftist Gillard. Loved the idea of a centrist Turnbull, but hated the right-leaning Abbott and Turnbull. We want small pushes in the right direction. And unfortunately I don't see any major political party doing what needs to be done at this point in time. Partisan tensions are running too high to take ideas from the other side. The bases are losing moderates in favour of extremists, leaving all sides retreating from the centre-ground.

 

[Poona]

Abbott negotiated on many areas he disagreed with (such as the mining tax). Shorten and the ALP are putting a blockade against everything.

I thought he was known as the wrecker and Mr No, because of his behaviour of being against so many things.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I thought he was known as the wrecker and Mr No, because of his behaviour of being against so many things.

Darkaces is basically dust dry economically except he seems to genuinely believe that the powers thus created wouldn't hobble any attempts at redistribution of the incredible gains they would thus reap. He's a firm believer in the benevolence of the market.

 

[darkace]

I thought he was known as the wrecker and Mr No, because of his behaviour of being against so many things.

And yet the Gillard government was the most productive Australia has ever seen (assuming amount of legislation passed is a good indicator for productivity). The ALP called him this, and he stood firm against many things, but he still passed a whole heap of legislation after negotiation. And then ran against them at the election.

Darkaces is basically dust dry economically

I prefer to think of myself as moist.

 

[Elaugaufein]

And yet the Gillard government was the most productive Australia has ever seen (assuming amount of legislation passed is a good indicator for productivity). The ALP called him this, and he stood firm against many things, but he still passed a whole heap of legislation after negotiation. And then ran against them at the election.



I prefer to think of myself as moist.

By my count he wasn't really needed. They usually had the numbers in the house without and the ALP only needed the Coalition in the Senate if they couldn't get the Greens (which as a rule of thumb means it's stuff the Coalition would be inclined to support anyway or at least more inclined to negotiate on than allow negotiations with the Greens to move it further from their preference). That said yes, while he was a grandstanding obstructionist on pretty much any new policy or proposal , he didn't nuke the system by refusing to pass the standard business of government stuff (but Labor hasn't either).

 

[darkace]

By my count he wasn't really needed.

Wait you're right. Why did I think that the ALP didn't have the numbers with the Greens?

I retract everything. Fuck tone abbet.

 

[D.Lo]

I can't see how Bishop or Morrison can make it. The Monkey Pod hates them for their "betrayal".

I can't see Porter either given he's got almost no national recognition.

And Frydenberg has a similar problem.

Actually thats the Coalition's problem in a nutshell they've got no one who gets an aversge 50% rating from the donors, the base, the public , the Nationals and the Monkey Pod.

And they need to put in someone who Bolt isn't going to run a(n at least) one man jihad against. Which pretty much torpedoes anyone who could get higher polls than Abbott to start with.

Totally agree. They're a mess.

Morrison should never have accepted treasury either, he's made a fool of himself and ruined his brand.

 

[bobnowhere]

Morrison is Turnbull's Hockey, he'll go down with the ship.

Bishop is the closest to Turnbull's popularity before he became PM. She also has a nice easy portfolio so always looks like she's doing well. Not sure if she's moderate, does support SSM, or hard right to be honest though most of WA is way right economically.

Frydenburg is the darling of the the right, personable, well liked, good at tennis and I think even the right know the likes of Dutton and Andrews would get laughed out of office.

Porter is the dark horse, not well known yet but very ambitious and very talented. Again not sure where he stands but WA...

I really can't think of anyone else. I'd love to see Warren Entsh, he'd probably cross the floor and just hug it out.

Spoiler

Pyne time?

 

[danm999]

Totally agree. They're a mess.

Morrison should never have accepted treasury either, he's made a fool of himself and ruined his brand.

Nebulously popular man takes most hated job in the country. Yep huge error on his part.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Morrison is Turnbull's Hockey, he'll go down with the ship.

Bishop is the closest to Turnbull's popularity before he became PM. She also has a nice easy portfolio so always looks like she's doing well. Not sure if she's moderate, does support SSM, or hard right to be honest though most of WA is way right economically.

Frydenburg is the darling of the the right, personable, well liked, good at tennis and I think even the right know the likes of Dutton and Andrews would get laughed out of office.

Porter is the dark horse, not well known yet but very ambitious and very talented. Again not sure where he stands but WA...

I really can't think of anyone else. I'd love to see Warren Entsh, he'd probably cross the floor and just hug it out.

Spoiler

Pyne time?

Can't see Pyne because everyone else knows he's going to be spending at least the rest of this term trying to stop NXT eating SA and they aren't going to let their pork allocation get diverted that much.

Qld and WA especially, where the Coalition stands a chance of taking back government next year (with 4 year terms now, in a majoritarion unicameral legislature, because we're a moronic state) and is desperately trying to hang on to power respectively.

 

[Omikron]

This is interesting.


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-v-gleeson-feud-personal-20161026-gsb5ww.html

 

[Elaugaufein]

This is interesting.


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-v-gleeson-feud-personal-20161026-gsb5ww.html

That doesn't seem to be a mistake either given the phrasing at the ends. Seems there's a few in the Coalition with knives out for Brandis too.

 

[bobnowhere]

I believe the Senate is going to disallow Brandis' veto order over talking to the now new Solicitor General without his permisson. Labor, The Greens and NXT are grouping up to stop it.

 

[darkace]

IDK how Dutton ended up being the potato in Australian politics when we have Brandis.

 

[Yagharek]

IDK how Dutton ended up being the potato in Australian politics when we have Brandis.

Brandis was already associated with the Muppets by Micallef, wasn't he? Or was that Sinodinos?

 

[Elaugaufein]

I believe the Senate is going to disallow Brandis' veto order over talking to the now new Solicitor General without his permisson. Labor, The Greens and NXT are grouping up to stop it.

Yes, but what Laming has said is that the ban was put in place specifically because Brandis didn't trust Gleeson. So rescinding it is Pro Forma unless Brandis doesn't get to handpick the next SG.

 

[Candescence]

Turnbull can't afford to let Brandis and his office have any say in the selection of Gleeson's replacement, otherwise Labor and the Greens will instantly consider said replacement non-impartial and illegitimate, and thus giving them ammunition to hound Turnbull with for the rest of the term.

Of course, an actually impartial successor to Gleeson would not satisfy Brandis, but that might make Brandis finally fuck up badly enough to force Turnbull to boot him.

 

[darkace]

Brandis was already associated with the Muppets by Micallef, wasn't he? Or was that Sinodinos?

I've never actually watched Mad As Hell. All the lefty bias would rot my brain.

Also Brandis should be sacked if the above is true. The guy's good at his job but that's a fundamental attack on our political institutions.

 

[Candescence]

Being unable to explain metadata, his appalling handling of arts funding, appointing a LNP donor who had previously defended his son in court to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and trying to pressure Gillian Triggs to resign...

If Brandis is good at his job, he sure as fuck hasn't shown it.

 

[darkace]

Eh, Brandis' legal nose is good. And he was right on 'right to be a bigot'. And I don't think anyone could explain metadata in a good way to the public.

I'm not really sure how I feel about Triggs, given she's been found to have lied to the senate and the timing of her investigation into children in detention (although necessary) seems political.

At the end of the day people in politics aren't perfect. Brandis is competent, which is why he had the job. Whether he was competent about things that you care about, well...

That said, if what's been said above is true then he should resign.

 

[Jintor]

I'm not really sure how I feel about Triggs, given she's been found to have lied to the senate and the timing of her investigation into children in detention (although necessary) seems political.

Surely if you're hoping to affect change with an investigation the best time to conduct and publish the results of the investigation is when it will draw the most attention? Should an organisation that is hoping to affect change not do so for fear of being branded 'political'? It's the same with accusations against the ABC; is the fact that media hopes to have real-world affects inherently a bad thing?

 

[darkace]

Surely if you're hoping to affect change with an investigation the best time to conduct and publish the results of the investigation is when it will draw the most attention? Should an organisation that is hoping to affect change not do so for fear of being branded 'political'? It's the same with accusations against the ABC; is the fact that media hopes to have real-world affects inherently a bad thing?

I'd agree with it if it wasn't government run. But it is and it needs to at least look impartial. It's a core part of being in the public service.

I think it fundamentally differs from the ABC in this manner, the ABC is a government owned corporation that reports on the news, which can have bias.

I don't think Triggs should step down, but she's hardly a paragon of virtue fighting against the tyranny of our government that some hold her up to be.

 

[Candescence]

So apparently both the PM and various backbenchers are getting sick of Brandis and are possibly preparing to boot him from the ministry.

As one of the people in the article notes, it's not gonna help much for Turnbull's standing in the party itself, but booting Brandis might actually stave off Turnbull's declining poll numbers a bit.

 

[Elaugaufein]

So apparently both the PM and various backbenchers are getting sick of Brandis and are possibly preparing to boot him from the ministry.

As one of the people in the article notes, it's not gonna help much for Turnbull's standing in the party itself, but booting Brandis might actually stave off Turnbull's declining poll numbers a bit.

I imagine his numbers are going to stabilise anyway, people generally don't like to kick too hard unless you keep messing up.

Deck chair shuffling like Brandis won't do much, for all that Brandis is Brandis his errors have largely been stuff that's lost on the general public beyond a bit of a bad vibe (it's a terrible truth of civil liberties and privacy that the public is relatively unmotivated compared to their adverseries because the damage to each member of the public is dispersed and individually small and the advantage to those who would abrogate such things is large and concentrated even thoug from a societal perspective the net harm outweighs the advantage and as long as there's not a noticeable absence of creative arts the public don't much care about the portfolio ).

 

[bomma_man]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/gday-pepe?utm_term=.suvGAvwb8#.rbakRq3oX