For a while he was pretty good at pretending he didn't want the job.
-
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 |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
For a while he was pretty good at pretending he didn't want the job.
bobnowhere
Member
A few days ago he said he was "decent." Decent intellect? Decent ability to continually keep the population scared of brown people? Decent ability to recognise edible mushrooms around Canberra from the deathcaps? Decent ability to ride a pushbike (he fell off recently)?
Got newspolled earlier, really considered saying PUP!
So far today:
In non-political but just-as-depressing news the former headmaster of Knox Grammar has admitted to impeding a police investigation into child sex abuse at the school.
Oh and the GP Copayment got dropped yesterday I think but the Libs apparently have no idea what went wrong or some shit
- Palmer says "So go committ suicide Tony Abbott, you know [laughs]" at a press conference. Later clarified he was talking about political suicide, but, y'know.
- The Guardian reveals that the Immigration Department has asked the AFP to investigate the whistleblowers who alerted the AHRC to child sexual abuse, violence and self-harm on Nauru. (!!!)
- Defence Personnel gonna get more buckaroonies, perhaps freeing up Independent Jacqui Lambie from stonewalling all government legislation
In non-political but just-as-depressing news the former headmaster of Knox Grammar has admitted to impeding a police investigation into child sex abuse at the school.
Oh and the GP Copayment got dropped yesterday I think but the Libs apparently have no idea what went wrong or some shit
So is I-can't-tell-who-it-is-it-might-be-Greg-Hunt-though. Julie's shiny blazer is also close enough to red. And a guy in the next row, but he kind of looks like he's trying to hide it. Joyce seems to have settled somewhere in the middle with one that's vaguely purple. Maybe he's conflicted?
God, that look on Abbott's face, it's just so... characteristic of him. In a bad way. The kind of way that, theoretically, would make someone - definitely not me - just wanna slap him silly.
Disgusting but, sadly, completely expected. At what point does the government just come out and say "We consider human rights to be a suggestion"?
God, that look on Abbott's face, it's just so... characteristic of him. In a bad way. The kind of way that, theoretically, would make someone - definitely not me - just wanna slap him silly.
Disgusting but, sadly, completely expected. At what point does the government just come out and say "We consider human rights to be a suggestion"?
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...-womens-day-event-to-be-held-at-men-only-club
*facepalm*
Makes total sense!
*facepalm*
Makes total sense!
Why would you bring Persona 4 into this?
Candescence
Member
In other news, the Australian Progressives is now an official non-parliamentary political party, as approved by the AEC.
And, yes, the APP now has established policies. Just a few, currently just including dental under Medicare, establishing a federal ICAC and other anti-corruption measures and whistleblower protections, and restoring funding to the ABC, SBS and restoring the Australia Network back to the ABC's management. They've also devised a solid format for conveying individual policies, which includes a summary, reasoning and background information for why they support a policy, and the inclusion of references in order to support the reasoning.
And, yes, the APP now has established policies. Just a few, currently just including dental under Medicare, establishing a federal ICAC and other anti-corruption measures and whistleblower protections, and restoring funding to the ABC, SBS and restoring the Australia Network back to the ABC's management. They've also devised a solid format for conveying individual policies, which includes a summary, reasoning and background information for why they support a policy, and the inclusion of references in order to support the reasoning.
So how are they different from the Greens?
They're not tree-huggers. I'm somewhat serious - I think this might be a stigma that turns away people who otherwise might give the Greens a chance.
So basically the Greens are a lost cause and these guys might be the solution?
Because if that's what you are hoping for then I've got bad news for you.
It won't happen.
Nah, the Greens just need to re-brand. Should've done it a while back.
Women's rights! But wait please don't hate us men and keep oppressing! Also white history month!
Yes. The environment is fine now. Mission accomplished.
The greens don't need to rebrand. People who hate the greens will hate a progressive party too.
The greens have been successful in becoming more than a one issue party.
Do work hard at being so obtuse, or does it come naturally?
Almost okay. Almost.
I actually agree with you that the Greens would benefit from a re-branding, albeit one that acknowledges their environmental as well as other activism.
But surely that would be a better solution rather than starting a new party?
But there is no way in hell this micro-party will go anywhere or have any chance of success unless it gets lucky with preferences.
The Greens seem to have reached a point now where they aren't really able to win over any more substantial support.
A re-branding might help with that if they are to become something but from where we are right now they best they will ever have is what they had in 2010-2013 with the minority government and full balance of power in the Senate.
The green movement was born out of the rather terrible environmental stuff happening in the 80s, it still largely reflects that, not just the environmental stuff, but the wider political shift to the right.
The name is part of their identify and history.
Labor was born from the stirrings of the labor movement in the early 1900s.
The name matters and represent things. The problem with labor isn't that its name is wrong now, its that it has largely forgotten what it's soul was about.
Those things matter. The democrats stood for keeping the bastards honest, then it got power and realized it has to stand for things themselves, the party died soon after.
The greens have been in power sharing governments, they have not been weakened, because they already had a broad policy base, beyond the image of the tree hugger.
The name is part of their identify and history.
Labor was born from the stirrings of the labor movement in the early 1900s.
The name matters and represent things. The problem with labor isn't that its name is wrong now, its that it has largely forgotten what it's soul was about.
Those things matter. The democrats stood for keeping the bastards honest, then it got power and realized it has to stand for things themselves, the party died soon after.
The greens have been in power sharing governments, they have not been weakened, because they already had a broad policy base, beyond the image of the tree hugger.
Elaugaufein
Member
I can't see rebranding helping the Greens much. They got their initial start because both sides perceived them as tree huggers (ie better than the other party and a useful token towards environment consciousness). The Greens are loathed by the right as much for their non-tree hugging as their tree hugging these days. And they are pretty much loathed by Labor's Left for the same reason (since the Green vote largely comes from them).
They can't really pick up votes from the center , while maintaining a link to their current base. a) The perception of the Greens being far left is too strong. Whereas I'm not even sure the Greens (as a party, rather than some individuals) make the cutoff for democratic socialists b) Labor is between them and the center and there current base will likely move to Labor if Labor ends up being the leftmost.
Basically everyone ,its likely to affect, knows what anything the Greens rebrand themselves as would represent and aren't likely to change their feelings based on a rebranding.
I imagine the Australian Progressives are going to have the same problem, the political spectrum has been recast such that even Labor (an ostensibly center-left party) won't reliably act on progressive ideals that have over 50% popular support, which makes it incredibly difficulty for progressive parties to gain ground. There options are basically to try and squeeze in between Labor and the Greens or to flank the Greens to the left. I'm doubtful there's actually enough room to carve out a distinct position between Labor and the Greens. And I don't know if you can outLeft the Greens well enough to steal their base without being subject to 24/7 accusations of being Communists in the News Corp Media.
They can't really pick up votes from the center , while maintaining a link to their current base. a) The perception of the Greens being far left is too strong. Whereas I'm not even sure the Greens (as a party, rather than some individuals) make the cutoff for democratic socialists b) Labor is between them and the center and there current base will likely move to Labor if Labor ends up being the leftmost.
Basically everyone ,its likely to affect, knows what anything the Greens rebrand themselves as would represent and aren't likely to change their feelings based on a rebranding.
I imagine the Australian Progressives are going to have the same problem, the political spectrum has been recast such that even Labor (an ostensibly center-left party) won't reliably act on progressive ideals that have over 50% popular support, which makes it incredibly difficulty for progressive parties to gain ground. There options are basically to try and squeeze in between Labor and the Greens or to flank the Greens to the left. I'm doubtful there's actually enough room to carve out a distinct position between Labor and the Greens. And I don't know if you can outLeft the Greens well enough to steal their base without being subject to 24/7 accusations of being Communists in the News Corp Media.
Candescence
Member
Thing is, the Progressives, while it'll inevitably be 'left' of Labor in many issues, instead frames itself around evidence-based policy rather than a specific position on the ideological spectrum. While I have seen the notion of a universal basic income kicked around the Reddit, those same discussions also agree that such a policy could frighten a chunk of the electorate if not handled properly and if announced too early. That being said, considering the economy is the biggest issue on voters' minds, the Progressives are actively researching alternatives to neoliberalism, which has basically been rejected by most of the electorate on both sides of the spectrum, much to the irritation of both major parties. Neoliberalism is pretty much the accepted policy 'wisdom' as far as the political elite as concerned, which makes me hope that the Progressives get the clout to shove the issue into the limelight, and start momentum to take a sledgehammer to it in favour of an alternative system of government interaction with capitalism.
Besides, we've been seeing a shift away from the major parties for a good while now, Abbot's frustrations in the senate is mainly due to a diverse set of crossbenchers, plus the Greens seeing eye to eye with Labor on many things aside from foreign policy and the war on terror and thus able to form a bloc to make the government's life hell in the senate. Palmer United is inevitably gonna fall by the wayside now that everyone realizes that he's pretty much an opportunist and his main goal of knocking off Campbell Newman has been achieved (and soon, likely Tony Abbot as well). State elections have dumped single-term governments spectacularly, and I think a good number of people eligible to vote are extremely frustrated by the status quo, but the difficulty is getting them to not only engage but also vote for a credible third party.
As well, a brand new 'left' party can win a major share of the vote with enough effort - just look at the likes of Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece (though that one took the people getting utterly fed up with the existing parties in charge enforcing austerity, but still). It's still two years before the next election, and that is a LONG time in politics. I think all the Progressives really need to do is 1) make sure the public actually know they exist, 2) position themselves as a credible alternative to the major parties with an alternative economic policy backed up by solid evidence, and 3) keep the brand broad, rather than be shoved into being viewed as single-policy-wonks.
That being said, it will take a considerable amount of dedication and effort of getting the word out, and the Progressives will at least need a proper economic policy first before more people will really sign on, I think, but considering the Greens became a credible political force in their own right despite Greens parties very often being incredibly niche elsewhere in the world, it's certainly possible. The Progressives mainly just need good policies that the public can understand and can get behind.
Besides, we've been seeing a shift away from the major parties for a good while now, Abbot's frustrations in the senate is mainly due to a diverse set of crossbenchers, plus the Greens seeing eye to eye with Labor on many things aside from foreign policy and the war on terror and thus able to form a bloc to make the government's life hell in the senate. Palmer United is inevitably gonna fall by the wayside now that everyone realizes that he's pretty much an opportunist and his main goal of knocking off Campbell Newman has been achieved (and soon, likely Tony Abbot as well). State elections have dumped single-term governments spectacularly, and I think a good number of people eligible to vote are extremely frustrated by the status quo, but the difficulty is getting them to not only engage but also vote for a credible third party.
As well, a brand new 'left' party can win a major share of the vote with enough effort - just look at the likes of Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece (though that one took the people getting utterly fed up with the existing parties in charge enforcing austerity, but still). It's still two years before the next election, and that is a LONG time in politics. I think all the Progressives really need to do is 1) make sure the public actually know they exist, 2) position themselves as a credible alternative to the major parties with an alternative economic policy backed up by solid evidence, and 3) keep the brand broad, rather than be shoved into being viewed as single-policy-wonks.
That being said, it will take a considerable amount of dedication and effort of getting the word out, and the Progressives will at least need a proper economic policy first before more people will really sign on, I think, but considering the Greens became a credible political force in their own right despite Greens parties very often being incredibly niche elsewhere in the world, it's certainly possible. The Progressives mainly just need good policies that the public can understand and can get behind.
Elaugaufein
Member
Pretty much every party believes that its policy position is arrived at based upon evidence. In some cases the sources of that evidence are of questionable relation to the modern world (eg Family First) , in some cases that research is obviously fairly shallow (eg Palmer United: many of their policies actually seem quite good but if you look into them, the supporting evidence is either rife with silly mistakes (like the idea you get 100% of money in the economy back in GST following 10 transactions) or they aren't very fleshed out) , but in the case of Liberal and Labor parties they are both drawing on over 100 years of economic research and societal theory and they've still arrived at noticeably different positions even given that they both view the world largely through a neoliberal lense. I'm pretty sure that the Progressives will end up being able to be positioned on the ideological scale (maybe not perfectly, but I can't think of a party that fits 100%) as a descriptive of any set of coherent policies devised.
Don't get me wrong, I wish you (and them) luck. I've usually supported a micro party for the Senate (though I check preference flows for shenanigans first). I am seriously considering becoming a member of the Greens at the moment though, so my opinion + salt etc.
Don't get me wrong, I wish you (and them) luck. I've usually supported a micro party for the Senate (though I check preference flows for shenanigans first). I am seriously considering becoming a member of the Greens at the moment though, so my opinion + salt etc.
Nice job hamstringing the economy dip-shits
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...re-shutdown-government-refuses-secure-funding
Elaugaufein
Member
Hmmm. I can't see this ending well. This is maybe the best chance to get their university deregulation through, so I can't see them removing it and presenting it separately. Which means that either these research facilities are SOL or that the Senate needs to cave on university deregulation (to say I'm skeptical of the benefits this will bring to students is something of an underestimate).
Tim the Wiz
Banned
Blackmail worked for them before with Scott Morrison, why not try again?
I actually just heard a news clip on ABC about this debacle and it literally was just Pyne putting the funding behind uni deregulation as if its some kind of game to him. We have the worst politicians ever for Australia, to the point where they are keeping funding of the most important field we should be heading into hostage because they want us to be more American and push more debt onto those learning a skill.
Elaugaufein
Member
Between the course fees increase (anyone who thinks deregulation is going to reduce the costs is insane) and the interest on HECS debt , I'll be surprised if the debt only doubles,
They said this in England, that deregulation will reduce costs because there are numerous universities competing there. We all know how that turned out.
So here is Pyne and co. saying a country with a third of England's population spread out over an area comparable to the lower 48 states will avoid that same outcome? Ridiculous.
roosters93
Member
That's noble and all... but as soon as the party achieves a notable public profile, despite their unwillingness to label themselves on the political spectrum, it will be done for them anyway and it will stick.
Worst thing is that I reckon he'll get his way.
Yep, because those not at uni don't give a shit how it impacts uni students because they either got their degree already or never even went to uni and somehow feel like they don't need to give a shit. I'm currently finishing off my games degree before moving into the police force, but boy I can't wait to have even more interest!
It is utterly ridiculous that people are giving Pyne's backwards thinking ideas even the slightest bit of acknowledgement when evidence is so clear from other countries that have done it. It is the very definition of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "lalalala" until we just give up and accept that we can't get proper scientific funding unless we give up.
But hey, Australia is going to be a trillion dollars in debt because "muh Labor" so what about throwing some more on?
The government goes "buh buh buh intergenerational theft" while simultaneously trying to condemn the next generation to increased debt in a way that seems straight up malicious. And instead of actually calling them out on their blatant hypocrisy, Labor is sitting there like "Well uh we disagree uh because uh opposition uh yeah."
I don't have an economics degree, but I'm fairly certain putting young people in a position where they have less money to spend isn't actually good for the economy.
Deeply frustrating.
I don't have an economics degree, but I'm fairly certain putting young people in a position where they have less money to spend isn't actually good for the economy.
Deeply frustrating.
Well some unis already put out fees they planned under the deregulated system, so thers no guesswork involved. It was like a 30% increase.
Meanwhile you have Germany and some nordic countries giving a fee free uni education even to foreign students. I know where I'd be going if I wanted to study say medicine or some other expensive program. Well if i spoke the language.
And of course you already had TAFE (well NSW at least) move to dramatically increase their course costs. TAFE Diplomas now in the several thousand dollar range rather than hundreds (or less if you are receiving a benefit). That will really encourage the unemployed to skill up.
Sadly a good part of the older population still believes in the way of Liberal politics, be it "tradition" or ignorance for anyone bar themselves.
I'm sure a few student protests here and there will sway people's minds.
"At last, the grown-ups are back in charge" (original quote by Vanstone, 2013)
Hahah, fucking paywall. Lemme see if I can get around it...
Nope. You might get lucky and see the article. Here's the text:
Hahah, fucking paywall. Lemme see if I can get around it...
Nope. You might get lucky and see the article. Here's the text:
Tim the Wiz
Banned
That's some next level pettiness. Tony really is a child.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked