• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm curious why they're pushing so hard on this issue because frankly it makes the ALP look really bad.

Let's see. Need 39 votes to pass legislation / 38 to block. Coalition has 29 on lock.

Ignoring FF for now there's another 6 votes that are let's say Coalition leaning (4 PHON , 1 Conservative, 1 Lib Dem). Thats 35.

Labor has 26 votes , with another 9 that are close to lock (Greens) and 1 more thats reliable in economics and not a lock against otherwise (even when you'd think she would be like the RDA) ( Lambie). Thats 36.

NXT is a swing vote (and enough to block for Labor or to pass Senate motions for them) but they
Government also need Hinch to pass in this case.

And that's the reason with FF in the government only needs to win over NXT (since FF is Coalition leaning) , without it they need Hinch as well.

It would also make passing Senate motions easier for Labour since they wouldn't need Lambie.
 

Quasar

Member
Man...Mal really is leaning into trumpism. Wonder of the old Mal would even recognise himself.

So...a ploy to try and co-opt some Pauline voters? or just making it clear that the LNP will make a deal with her at the next election?
 
Yeah, but its a shit look for labor all the same.

Oh unquestionably, I think it's a dumb move. The chance of success is SFA, the reward is marginal and the optics are terrible. Was just looking for why.

The only saving grace for Labor here is that the overlap between people who could swing to Labor and people who would feel bad for FF could probably hold a meeting in my guest bedroom fairly comfortably.

Man...Mal really is leaning into trumpism. Wonder of the old Mal would even recognise himself.

So...a ploy to try and co-opt some Pauline voters? or just making it clear that the LNP will make a deal with her at the next election?

The former I think. If you were telegraphing a PHON deal you'd keep Turnbull and people in similar seats away from it and have Dutton and such front and centre. That way you contain the association to where it's beneficial as much as possible.
 

legend166

Member
I think he's being pretty smart about it. Really, I don't think it takes much to stave off the nationalist populism that is happening around the world at the moment.

I think the problem with Turnbull is that he's such a bad position now that it's so obviously when he's just posturing for votes. So much so that any move he makes just comes off as desperate.
 

danm999

Member
Symbolic gestures to the right are really all his government is capable of doing. He was stuffed the second his razor thin margins came in on election night last year and he knows it. You could see the fury and the desperation in his face as he gave his salty speech that night.
 
Labor is setting baseline expectations for housing affordability measure ahead of the government's budget by announcing their own intended measures ahead of time, including targeting foreign investors, investors who leave homes vacant and super funds. And let's not forget the killing of sacred cows in the form of negative gearing and the CGT discount.

Considering the conservatives in the government consider extra tax to be blasphemous, it'll be hard for the government to, well, do anything without going below the bar set by Labor or even do anything of substance at all.
 

danm999

Member
To what? TO WHAT?!?

You can just mad libs an answer in and it'll be true.

Labor is setting baseline expectations for housing affordability measure ahead of the government's budget by announcing their own intended measures ahead of time, including targeting foreign investors, investors who leave homes vacant and super funds. And let's not forget the killing of sacred cows in the form of negative gearing and the CGT discount.

Considering the conservatives in the government consider extra tax to be blasphemous, it'll be hard for the government to

This reads as smart politics to me. They've basically taken every idea on the board and put their stank on it, precluding it from being in a Liberal budget without Shorten bragging he thought of it first. I think the only thing missing is the downsize pensioners to smaller houses idea which yeah, don't run a housing affordability policy platform on that.

The super idea remains dumb IMO but I guess it's in there to not give the Coalition any wiggle room to pretend they've got a way out.
 
You can just mad libs an answer in and it'll be true.



This reads as smart politics to me. They've basically taken every idea on the board and put their stank on it, precluding it from being in a Liberal budget without Shorten bragging he thought of it first. I think the only thing missing is the downsize pensioners to smaller houses idea which yeah, don't run a housing affordability policy platform on that.

The super idea remains dumb IMO but I guess it's in there to not give the Coalition any wiggle room to pretend they've got a way out.

The Super idea is actively destructive of both the housing market (where unless investment incentives are altered it will just drive up prices) and the purpose of super (since it's going to mark down super balances impressively if anyone does take steps on housing affordability).
 

D.Lo

Member
Super for housing deposit in the manner being floated is insanity.

Super is a failed policy though. My parents put all their salary into super for the last 5-10 years to pay little tax on it, lived on savings, retired and cashed out their super to have huge expensive holidays and pay off the house, and now get the pension. So what was the point? Baby boomers have had such a ludicrously unfair run. You can basically live comfortably on the pension if you own your house, but it's unsustainable.

On the other hand I can't buy a fucking house but have 100k+ I cannot touch. If I'd had that money in my bank instead I could have bought a house in 2010 which would have gained a million dollars in value since then. Instead my Super has basically flatlined, basically performed at market average (and many have gone backward!). Now (in theory) I could end up retiring in a world without pensions, have a below pension level super flow, and not own a house. Modern medicine also means oldies will live to 100 so even if inheritance comes for some they'll be 65+ when they get it, and there will probably be a huge inheritance tax on it by then lol.

And the super industry is a scam filled nightmare, I worked in it a few years ago and saw millions of dollars siphoned off small balance accounts in monthly fees. Not everybody is smart enough to consolidate all their super, so all those unnecessary but legally mandated accounts have been a gravy train for the disgusting life insurance companies who were given the gift of low-visibility 'management' of 10% of the nation's income.
 

danm999

Member
And the super industry is a scam filled nightmare, I worked in it a few years ago and saw millions of dollars siphoned off small balance accounts in monthly fees. Not everybody is smart enough to consolidate all their super, so all those unnecessary but legally mandated accounts have been a gravy train for the disgusting life insurance companies who were given the gift of low-visibility 'management' of 10% of the nation's income.

So glad I have always consolidated my super whenever I've changed funds...
 

luchadork

Member
Super for housing deposit in the manner being floated is insanity.

Super is a failed policy though. My parents put all their salary into super for the last 5-10 years to pay little tax on it, lived on savings, retired and cashed out their super to have huge expensive holidays and pay off the house, and now get the pension. So what was the point? Baby boomers have had such a ludicrously unfair run. You can basically live comfortably on the pension if you own your house, but it's unsustainable.

On the other hand I can't buy a fucking house but have 100k+ I cannot touch. If I'd had that money in my bank instead I could have bought a house in 2010 which would have gained a million dollars in value since then. Instead my Super has basically flatlined, basically performed at market average (and many have gone backward!). Now (in theory) I could end up retiring in a world without pensions, have a below pension level super flow, and not own a house. Modern medicine also means oldies will live to 100 so even if inheritance comes for some they'll be 65+ when they get it, and there will probably be a huge inheritance tax on it by then lol.

And the super industry is a scam filled nightmare, I worked in it a few years ago and saw millions of dollars siphoned off small balance accounts in monthly fees. Not everybody is smart enough to consolidate all their super, so all those unnecessary but legally mandated accounts have been a gravy train for the disgusting life insurance companies who were given the gift of low-visibility 'management' of 10% of the nation's income.

jesus christ dude. and you havent even touched on the impact of global warming and automation.

~reaches for noose~
 

D.Lo

Member
jesus christ dude. and you havent even touched on the impact of global warming and automation.

~reaches for noose~
Yeah this is just literally housing/savings/living.

Like imagine if Australia had saved all the mining boom cash (and wrung extra cash from the mining companies) instead of handing it out as Family Tax benefit, baby bonus, increased pensions, CTG discounts, super tax concessions etc. Financial crisis stimulus could have been paid for in cash. Instead the money was handed to Boomers/older Gen X, and now younger Gen X/Y have to pay off their debt.

Every single financial policy for the last 30 (50?) years has been aimed at taking money from other generations (earlier and later) and giving it to boomers.
 

Dryk

Member
The government's in a tough position. They can either work to lower house prices now, which will piss important people off, or they can keep kicking the bomb down the road and hope that Labor's in power when it goes off.

Judging from the way infrastructure has been handled in the last 20 year I know what my money's on.
 

D.Lo

Member
I never understood their desperate pitch for 'mum and dad investors' on NG last election. What percentage of the population is that? 3% maybe max? Sure the politicians themselves and some Lib donors but given they're in power they can move their cash elsewhere before the changes if they plan them, and make out like bandits.

It was like all that shit about 'still struggling to pay bills on 250k' the election before that. Median income is 50 fucking K, how the fuck do these people think when they call the top 5% of earners 'strugglers'?

We're going to get a Trump here of some sort, I swear, as soon as someone not as braindead as Hanson gets ahold of the angry population these elite bubble morons will be embarrassed.
 

danm999

Member
The notion of a Trump-esque figure in Australian politics should terrify the Coalition. It would turn them into the default opposition indefinitely.
 
I'm not sure a Trump figure can work here right now. Lambie is actually doing pretty much what Trump said he would and struggles for oxygen in a PHON world (though her approval ratings are decent). Hanson is as fake as Trump and seems unlikely to break 10% despite repeated media tongue baths.

It seems to pull a proper Trump you need to take over a major conservative party while they are on an upswing (Brexit happened because UKIP played Cameron like a fiddle). But the LNP are on a down swing right now. The time to strike would have been during the 2013 Election and Abbott wouldn't have taken much pushing. But even then Abbott pretty much played Trump's playbook and got nothing but a lousy T-shirt for it.
 

D.Lo

Member
I'm not sure a Trump figure can work here right now. Lambie is actually doing pretty much what Trump said he would and struggles for oxygen in a PHON world (though her approval ratings are decent). Hanson is as fake as Trump and seems unlikely to break 10% despite repeated media tongue baths.

It seems to pull a proper Trump you need to take over a major conservative party while they are on an upswing (Brexit happened because UKIP played Cameron like a fiddle). But the LNP are on a down swing right now. The time to strike would have been during the 2013 Election and Abbott wouldn't have taken much pushing. But even then Abbott pretty much played Trump's playbook and got nothing but a lousy T-shirt for it.
Yeah we're structurally more safe from a Trump (or a Bernie) primarily because our parties are fundamentally undemocratic internally. Gotta give the US that, their set-up almost allowed complete outsiders on both sides to win candidacy, turns out the Democrats had better 'protections' against the people.

But they're still just as on the nose as Dems/Reps in the US. Shorten is a Hillary Clinton, Turnbull is a Romney. The thing is that if Hanson (or Palmer before that, or Bernardi) wasn't a corrupt useless moron, I can see 25% potential.
 
Yeah the super idea for housing is awful. It will just send house prices even higher and lead to a whole host of new problems whilst amplifying the existing one.

I agree with a lot of the above re super. It feels like a waste of time now. It's exploited and not used for its original intention anymore. Also as someone who is only 30 I'll be lucky to have access to it for another 40 years. Personally I just see super as essentially another tax for myself, I'm unlikely to ever get that money back so I don't even really think about it. I'm just making sure I'll be fine for retirement regardless of super.
 

danm999

Member
Yeah we're structurally more safe from a Trump (or a Bernie) primarily because our parties are fundamentally undemocratic internally. Gotta give the US that, their set-up almost allowed complete outsiders on both sides to win candidacy, turns out the Democrats had better 'protections' against the people.

But they're still just as on the nose as Dems/Reps in the US. Shorten is a Hillary Clinton, Turnbull is a Romney. The thing is that if Hanson (or Palmer before that, or Bernardi) wasn't a corrupt useless moron, I can see 25% potential.

Eh I'm not fond of the idea Bernie was the people's choice; he lost the primary by millions of votes. Even with shenanigans in closed primaries and superdelegates and the like she just destroyed him in huge, populous states so it didn't matter how much he won smaller contests by.

He also won a lot of his contests on the back of caucuses which was...yeah. The DNC definitely put their thumb on the scale for Clinton but he ran a very flawed campaign basically ceding huge portions of the Obama coalition to Clinton.

Then of course it was Clinton's turn to run a shitty campaign in the general and somehow lose the unloseable election.

Luckily the left of centre in this country doesn't seem as organisationally inept.
 

D.Lo

Member
Eh I'm not fond of the idea Bernie was the people's choice; he lost the primary by millions of votes. Even with shenanigans in closed primaries and superdelegates and the like she just destroyed him in huge, populous states so it didn't matter how much he won smaller contests by.

He also won a lot of his contests on the back of caucuses which was...yeah. The DNC definitely put their thumb on the scale for Clinton but he ran a very flawed campaign basically ceding huge portions of the Obama coalition to Clinton.
I knew I'd get an argument on that ;)

The reality of their situation is the deck was cleared for Clinton, all that superdelegates pure shit lined up as part of the thumb on the scale, and a crotchety old man (normally a type completely unelectable) basically got in at the last minute say 'WTF you can't just coronate someone' and ended up gaining traction simply because he was not an establishment puppet and said things normal people experienced. His campaign started as a protest and became a real campaign later, and still did incredibly well. It speaks well to the ability for democracy to at least overtake that process in the US.

Next Dem primary is going to be fascinating, since the party itself has doubled down on its rich fuck insider shit, but it's been proven an insurgent with no big money and no initial strategy, even if they look and act like Larry David crossed with Doc Brown, can be an actual contender if they just talk about actual progressive ideas.
 
I knew I'd get an argument on that ;)

The reality of their situation is the deck was cleared for Clinton, all that superdelegates pure shit lined up as part of the thumb on the scale, and a crotchety old man (normally a type completely unelectable) basically got in at the last minute say 'WTF you can't just coronate someone' and ended up gaining traction simply because he was not an establishment puppet and said things normal people experienced. His campaign started as a protest and became a real campaign later, and still did incredibly well. It speaks well to the ability for democracy to at least overtake that process in the US.

Next Dem primary is going to be fascinating, since the party itself has doubled down on its rich fuck insider shit, but it's been proven an insurgent with no big money and no initial strategy, even if they look and act like Larry David crossed with Doc Brown, can be an actual contender if they just talk about actual progressive ideas.

First of all, the superdelegates also originally all lined up for Hillary in '08. Then, guess what, when Obama began to actually win states, things changed. It also didn't help that Bernie had never been a Democrat and didn't work well even with other Democrat's that agreed with him on 95% of the issues. I mean, if you want to lead a party, it helps to actually be a member of it and be able to work with those in charge of it. What we're seeing with Trump now is a much worse version of what would've happened if Bernie had won when it comes to shepherding actual policy through Congress.

As an actual American, the reason everybody got out of Hillary's way is because they basically agreed with her on the policies and thought she was the best choice for the job. Were they wrong? Maybe, maybe not. But, there wasn't some backstage shenanigans. It was the fact that Democrat's actually really like Hillary Clinton. She probably has as high or even higher approval rating than Bernie does within the Democratic Party right now.

Also, Bernie's still unelectable. Let's see his approval ratings once the Koch Brothers spend $500 million dollars letting every suburban voter in Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida know he wants to raise middle class taxes, replace the health insurance you've worked hard for with worse government insurance that you'll be forced to pay for, along with a bunch of other stuff that wasn't brought up by Hillary.

Bernie has a high approval rating right now because your average voter knows he wants to raise taxes on the rich and hates the banks.

As far as doubling down on "rich insider shit", which part is that? When they nominated a former civil rights lawyer and Secretary of Labor who was called a Marxist by a Republican? Or was it when they decided not to waste money on a race that didn't become slightly competitive until a week again before the election? Or when Senator and Representative all didn't decide to oppose every single Trump nominee, even the standard Republican ones?

Bernie was never actually close to winning. He ignored the actual base of the Democratic Party, which is middle aged women of color to chase after the segment of the party that thinks they're the base because their loudest on the Internet. He got lots of votes simply because he wasn't Hillary - after all, in a lot of states, he beat Hillary among those who wanted a candidate more conservative than her.

I say all this despite being in the Leftmost 10% of the party - I believe in a wealth tax, mandatory union votes, massive cuts to defense, a carbon tax, and a mess of other incredibly lefty things. But, I accepted that Hillary's platform was the most progressive that could win the most votes that was also realistic. I'd also point out Bernie is now stumping for a guy who has the progressive opinion of being anti-choice, so there's that.
 

D.Lo

Member
What the eff does any of that have to do with what I said?

I said a candidate with no initial plan to run seriously, no money, no initial profile, and a presumably unelectable persona did incredibly well against a big-money-backed anointed insider, simply because people are pissed at the establishment. This is in comparison to Australia where the parties and system are set up in such a way that that cannot happen.

Complain and make excuses all you want about Sanders and his campaign errors or positions or whatever, his success to the level it was was unexpected and quite remarkable, and showed massive weakness in the big money status-quo.
 

danm999

Member
I knew I'd get an argument on that ;)

The reality of their situation is the deck was cleared for Clinton, all that superdelegates pure shit lined up as part of the thumb on the scale, and a crotchety old man (normally a type completely unelectable) basically got in at the last minute say 'WTF you can't just coronate someone' and ended up gaining traction simply because he was not an establishment puppet and said things normal people experienced. His campaign started as a protest and became a real campaign later, and still did incredibly well. It speaks well to the ability for democracy to at least overtake that process in the US.

Next Dem primary is going to be fascinating, since the party itself has doubled down on its rich fuck insider shit, but it's been proven an insurgent with no big money and no initial strategy, even if they look and act like Larry David crossed with Doc Brown, can be an actual contender if they just talk about actual progressive ideas.

The superdelegates are some hot bullshit I agree, but even without them Clinton would have won comfortably so it's kind of eh. Did they make millions of people default to her over Sanders? Some maybe but probably not enough.

Agreed next Dem primary is going to be fascinating. It does make you wonder what sorts of candidates you'll see from the various factions in the party. The juggernaut that was Hillary doubtless encouraged many potential candidates to get out of the way.
 
The way the Dem primary system is setup , the next one will be fairly safe for conventional candidates I'd think, there's too likely to be multiple insurgent types , and after Trump, if someone is looking too successful, the less popular non-insurgent vote splitters will be told to leave (by hook or crook). They​'ve already demonstrated they haven't suffered the institutional collapse necessary for such a thing that to happen.

The only real danger there I can see is that Trump continues to be President and to be so unappealing to Dems that someone on an authoritarian militant platform surges in response.
 
Looks like Cory Bernardi's Australian Conservatives just swallowed Family First in a Merger. Big play, gives him 2 members in the upper house in SA but, comically, Lucy Gichuhi is defying the merger and will enter the Senate as an independent.

Also gives Bernardi all the FF resources Australia wide.

I like how farcical the Bob Day thing has turned​ out now.

I'm a little surprised that they decided to lose the FF name, the 3 Christian parties had extremely good interlocking preference flows for minors, going as Australian Conservatives seems to be risking that recognition.

Its a pretty good fit ideologically though since FF with Day was just dust dry economic , super religious wing of the Libs anyway and so is Bernadi.

Also I wonder what we can expect from NXT since this seems like it's going to get into serious turf war in SA.
 
It always puzzles me how you can have a super religious Christian party that is also all about free market economics coupled with the smallest welfare state possible.

The New Testament appears to hold up a form of communism as the model the early Church took. Even when people compromised on that and allowed believers to keep their private property (a form of opt-in communism), the Church itself was still running a massive wealth redistribution operation that eventually rivalled the Roman state for its impact on the lives of the urban poor.

Of course, this was all a long time ago and religion for these people has been used, as it has been used since people first set up permanent settlements, as merely a vehicle to confirm their own righteousness and justify their own social power.
 
Partially I suspect it's because state welfare inhibits the ability to proseltyze in exchange for church welfare.

There's also the "just world fallacy" such that clearly and suffering people go through must have been ultimately their fault so they shouldn't be helped , once they've suffered enough for their sins they'll be fine.
 

D.Lo

Member
It always puzzles me how you can have a super religious Christian party that is also all about free market economics coupled with the smallest welfare state possible.

The New Testament appears to hold up a form of communism as the model the early Church took. Even when people compromised on that and allowed believers to keep their private property (a form of opt-in communism), the Church itself was still running a massive wealth redistribution operation that eventually rivalled the Roman state for its impact on the lives of the urban poor.

Of course, this was all a long time ago and religion for these people has been used, as it has been used since people first set up permanent settlements, as merely a vehicle to confirm their own righteousness and justify their own social power.
A certain brand of Christianity has been re-worked to claim that success in life is a 'blessing' for having worked hard for god. It's often referred to as 'prosperity gospel'. The TV evangelists from the 70s/80s are the beginning of this brand. Out of this certain people also push that failure is your fault too. What the bible actually says is 'yeah success is a blessing, but non-success is great too you will be rewarded in heaven - just look after people you idiot' so yeah (and that philosophy was also the basis on which the pilgrims established America). On top of this, the conservatives also push social values which are closer, to sour them on liberals. Look up how the vicious capitalists managed to co-opt the bible belt in America to create the Reagan coalition.

And now polarisation and politicisation of religious groups means people are forced to choose between Capitalist, environmental destroying, welfare crushing conservatives that are against abortion and gay marriage, or environmentalist wealth sharing people who seem against the traditional family, which the Christians value. I've seen massive struggle in Christians I know (I come from a church background but haven't been involved for years myself) who really really want to vote Greens for their welfare and environmental policies, but struggle with their social policies.

(This is all separate from people like Bernardi who is just a human shit piece, and I would say not a bible following Christian, even though he might think he is).

Reality is Salvation Army, Anglicare, Wesley Mission, Catholic Care etc, largely apolitical (maybe not the Catholics...) 100% Christian organisations, do the vast majority of charity work I've seen in Sydney. I've done lots of work with the homeless, especially homeless youth in Sydney over the last 20 years, mostly with Salvos and Youth Off The Streets, and holy shit Salvos, Wesley, Anglicare, Father Chris Riley's Youth Off The Streets, these guys do vital work where the government does fuck all.
 
Judging by how the merger worked it looks like Ego is probably an excellent contendor.

Yeah pretty much. FF was essentially the Bob Day party, he bankrolled the whole thing as his own personal vanity project and there was no way Cory was going to share the limelight with anyone else.

FF didn't break 2% outside of SA and even there they only made it in in the last slot with 2.87% primary. With the crowded field in SA Cory is pretty unlikely to get the 6th spot in a half-senate election.

There was a good article in somewhere (The Guardian, Saturday Paper, some lefty fake news site, forgotten which one!) last week that analysed how right-wing religious conservatives has forgotten how to care.
 

hirokazu

Member
It always puzzles me how you can have a super religious Christian party that is also all about free market economics coupled with the smallest welfare state possible.

The New Testament appears to hold up a form of communism as the model the early Church took. Even when people compromised on that and allowed believers to keep their private property (a form of opt-in communism), the Church itself was still running a massive wealth redistribution operation that eventually rivalled the Roman state for its impact on the lives of the urban poor.

Of course, this was all a long time ago and religion for these people has been used, as it has been used since people first set up permanent settlements, as merely a vehicle to confirm their own righteousness and justify their own social power.
They basically run on the ideology that God rewards those who worship him and if you're not being rewarded, that's cos you're not doing enough to please God or that's just his plan for you. So fuck you, got mine, hands off.
 

D.Lo

Member
There was a good article in somewhere (The Guardian, Saturday Paper, some lefty fake news site, forgotten which one!) last week that analysed how right-wing religious conservatives has forgotten how to care.
I'd be interested if you find it.
 

danm999

Member
Mark Ellis, a One Nation candidate who once allegedly threatened to kill an employee over Facebook, and who as a copper drove several children 14kms from their homes, took their shoes and abandoned them, has resigned.
 

legend166

Member
It always puzzles me how you can have a super religious Christian party that is also all about free market economics coupled with the smallest welfare state possible.

The New Testament appears to hold up a form of communism as the model the early Church took. Even when people compromised on that and allowed believers to keep their private property (a form of opt-in communism), the Church itself was still running a massive wealth redistribution operation that eventually rivalled the Roman state for its impact on the lives of the urban poor.

Of course, this was all a long time ago and religion for these people has been used, as it has been used since people first set up permanent settlements, as merely a vehicle to confirm their own righteousness and justify their own social power.

I mean, just on a basic level you give the answer yourself - the church is not the state, and the state is not the church. There is a difference between free will giving to a church to help the poor and the state taking taxes from you to help the poor and threatening you with force (imprisonment) if you don't pay up. I find it a disingenuous argument. The New Testament makes no arguments as to how a civil government should function, other than that Christians should submit to their authority.

Now, saying all that, I agree that it's incredibly difficult to marry laissez faire capitalism with Biblical Christianity. Just on the basic tenants of compassion and empathy for the poor, oppressed and alien which is all through both the Old & New Testaments. Modern capitalism with its worship of monetary success and materialism is antithetical to biblical values.

Heck, that's why I even voted for the DLP in the Senate last election! I am certain a capitalist, but with a strong regulatory system and a generous safety net befitting a wealthy nation. But I also hold to traditional Christian social and family values.

From my experience, and the discussions I've had with most fellow Christians, is that it's a matter of social issues first, then perform the metal gymnastics to support the economic policies second. I mean, that's probably what I do too.
 

Omikron

Member
Mark Ellis, a One Nation candidate who once allegedly threatened to kill an employee over Facebook, and who as a copper drove several children 14kms from their homes, took their shoes and abandoned them, has resigned.

The threat seemed to be over a photo posted of him saluting a swastika mowed into his lawn. Isn't the internet wonderful.
 

bomma_man

Member
To be fair to who ever does ON's vetting, it's hard to have a bigoted party without bigots. Like is it possible to simultaneously be a well respected, intelligent person with no wacko skeletons in your closet and a die hard member of One Nation? Characterising it merely as an administrative blunder downplays how fundamentally kooky and bigoted One Nation's platform is.
 

D.Lo

Member
To be fair to who ever does ON's vetting, it's hard to have a bigoted party without bigots. Like is it possible to simultaneously be a well respected, intelligent person with no wacko skeletons in your closet and a die hard member of One Nation? Characterising it merely as an administrative blunder downplays how fundamentally kooky and bigoted One Nation's platform is.
Yeah the 4Corners episode showed they are all simpletons, idiots or nasty.
 
To be fair to who ever does ON's vetting, it's hard to have a bigoted party without bigots. Like is it possible to simultaneously be a well respected, intelligent person with no wacko skeletons in your closet and a die hard member of One Nation? Characterising it merely as an administrative blunder downplays how fundamentally kooky and bigoted One Nation's platform is.

Sure it is. There's not that much philosophical distance between the Nats and some Libs and PHON, PHONs problem is that most of the candidates who can keep their wacky within acceptable bounds are already taken for that reason (eg Dutton and Christensen even) and they lack the resources to sift through such a high chaff to wheat ratio.
 

danm999

Member
To be fair to who ever does ON's vetting, it's hard to have a bigoted party without bigots. Like is it possible to simultaneously be a well respected, intelligent person with no wacko skeletons in your closet and a die hard member of One Nation? Characterising it merely as an administrative blunder downplays how fundamentally kooky and bigoted One Nation's platform is.

You don't need to be fair to theoretical people.
 
Seems to be a big change in language from ScoMo today, talking about "Good Debt" and "Bad Debt." I smell a big infrastructure spend coming via long term bond issues, well I hope. It's might just be good debt equals LNP, bad debt equals ALP though.

Anyone keeping up on the Dutton madness going on on Manus Island? So first there were shots fired into the compound from the PNG Navy. The Local MP and Police said it was about a fight at a local soccer game but Dutton insists a group of refugees were trying to abduct a 5 year old boy. The PNG police and the MP call BS but Dutton insists and says he has top secret intelligence which he has now leaked in a pathetic dog whistle. Said MP is suspended from PNG parliament for buying a boat so Dutton pounces and claims you can't trust a dodgy MP. PNG courts reinstates MP, Dutton digs in and finally where did Dutton's "top secrect info" come from? Well it looks as though it came from a facebook post on Reclaim Australia's homepage. Complete Madness from out future Potato Minister.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom