Depends on whether the defense of innocent dissemination applies. Usually if you're not the first person to publish it, or if it was reasonable for you not to know the thing was defamatory, you're ok.
-
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
Depends on whether the defense of innocent dissemination applies. Usually if you're not the first person to publish it, or if it was reasonable for you not to know the thing was defamatory, you're ok.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
In b4 Arksy says this makes it the best government ever.
It really is very strange. By and large nobody on the frontbench appears to have any ability to negotiate much of anything. I always thought it was strange Tony Abbott didn't become Prime Minister in 2010 given all he had to do was win over 2/3 rural MPs whose electorates were already more disposed to the Coalition than Labor, and that he simply couldn't was a very ominous portent of things to come.
Putting aside what I think of the policy, a lot of things the government want to do seem to have been designed with no contingency in place in case everybody didn't line up behind it. University reforms are a good example.
The government and Pyne talked about it for about 12 months. They brought forth the Bill. They had to at least suspect the possibility there would be opposition from the crossbenchers and Labor and the Greens and the result seems to have been a take it or leave it position which the Senate simply did not take.
Shit, they nearly fucked up the repeal of the carbon and mining taxes when they only had to secure the support of the countries largest fucking mining magnate.
So, the numbers say that this is the least effective government for 60 years.
Too bad we can't get numbers for how ineffective the damn opposition has been.
(although, I guess we could say that even though Abbott hasn't passed many bills, the opposition has run lock-step with all/most of them...)
Too bad we can't get numbers for how ineffective the damn opposition has been.
(although, I guess we could say that even though Abbott hasn't passed many bills, the opposition has run lock-step with all/most of them...)
Considering most of the things they have tried to push through parliament this can only be seen as a good thing
Even Julia's minority government passed more legislation. Shows how well Abbots LNP works with others.
The smell of political desperation hangs heavy.
Using bracket creep as an excuse, despite wage growth being at record lows.
Now now, don't let facts get in the way of a good headline.
Fuck me, those comments
australias largest lolbertarian blog, folks
Fuck me, those comments
I thought my brain's capacity to process abject stupidity about this topic had already reached its monthly quota after reading recent comments on gay marriage in the Herald Sun (yes, I know, I'm a masochist). Christ.
Elaugaufein
Member
Someone please explain to me a rational libertarian objection to same sex marriage, that also allows for state endorsed heterosexual marriage (bonus points if it still allows infertile couples to marry).
It doesn't exist.
Mark Scotts head on a trident
Candescence
Member
In other news, the two Progressive parties have merged under the banner of the party that's actually registered. Apparently both parties decided that they had so much in common that two parties was entirely unnecessary. People on Twitter are already joking that they can't make "Progressives' front of Judea" jokes anymore, even though the non-registered party was practically dead anyway.
Though apparently Tim Jones has been stirring up trouble behind the scenes and on Twitter, he's been ranting and raving that a couple of upstarts have 'hijacked' the party away from his original vision, and he's basically on long-term probation for verbal abuse. Granted, he always did seem like something of a nutter to begin with, so nothing much of value was lost.
Though apparently Tim Jones has been stirring up trouble behind the scenes and on Twitter, he's been ranting and raving that a couple of upstarts have 'hijacked' the party away from his original vision, and he's basically on long-term probation for verbal abuse. Granted, he always did seem like something of a nutter to begin with, so nothing much of value was lost.
Even Newspoll has Shorten ahead as PPM now in what cannot be very comforting to the government.
I suppose Four Corners may take the wind out of his sails a bit but it all seemed like old information repackaged to me so I dunno.
Canning really does seem more and more like it will decide who the next PM is.
I suppose Four Corners may take the wind out of his sails a bit but it all seemed like old information repackaged to me so I dunno.
Canning really does seem more and more like it will decide who the next PM is.
I've read that by-elections tend to be poor indicators for a coming general election. I think a loss at Canning would be it for Tony, but that will probably be ultimately a good thing for the election chances of the Libs. If Morrison has a good honeymoon period in the polls, he has a DD trigger up his sleeve that he can use to get the timing right to ride that wave.
Yep I'm guessing that's the conversation going on behind closed doors.
If they pull through at Canning they'll likely stay the course.
David Marr mini bio will likely do more damage than the 4 corners thing since he will likely uncover new information.
I really wish Shorten wasn't head of Labor right now. There's nothing about him that strikes me as leadership material, or inspiring or anything. Plibersek or Wong would be much better options IMO, although obviously they'll appeal far less to the swinging right.
I would think so.
And after that bio he did on Abbott it's much harder to claim he's partisan to one side.
I continually imagine how things would have gone in a world where Albo had won the leadership and wasn't overruled by the Union caucus.
Albo would've been great, a solid Hawke-esque head of state I think. Australia really needs someone we can get behind, and we honestly haven't had that since... um... shit, Hawke I think. Everyone since has been weasely and somewhat shameful (with the exception I'd say of Gillard, but she wasn't incredibly strong).
In terms of ideology he'd be Abbott 2.0 no doubt, but Abbott has more problems that. They need someone with the ability to negotiate policy positions that aren't going to please everyone all of the time, especially their own friends, and the ability to negotiate the bills that come from those policy through the senate. I have no idea if Morrison would be better at this than Abbott, but tbh it's hard to imagine worse.
Whatever else happens Labor/Greens will very likely control the next Senate so it'd be a tough job no matter who got it on the Coalition's side.
Morrison is kind of an unknown in that sense we've never really seen him have to negotiate much; his defining Ministerial position at Immigration and Citizenship he didn't have to negotiate or even really disclose what he was doing so I dunno.
He's been Minister of Social Services for (effectively) the past six months or so but it's been especially chaotic so there really hasn't been much moving or shaking there either.
Morrison is kind of an unknown in that sense we've never really seen him have to negotiate much; his defining Ministerial position at Immigration and Citizenship he didn't have to negotiate or even really disclose what he was doing so I dunno.
He's been Minister of Social Services for (effectively) the past six months or so but it's been especially chaotic so there really hasn't been much moving or shaking there either.
Barnaby Joyce. Christopher Pyne. Corey Bernadi. Bronwyn Bishop. Mal Brough.
Joyce and Pyne would be better. I think Pyne would be the best of those. He's smart and a good communicator, made to look worse by having to defend Abbott over and over again. Bishop would be worse without a doubt, that's a good point. Kevin Andrews too possibly.
Is that likely? I haven't really done the numbers, but Labor and Greens weren't that strong in the last election, and that half will be one the that is retained. The half that will be up for re election will be from the hung parliament election. If Tony stays in, Labor would realistically only be slightly better than 2010, giving them not much advantage in the senate. In the scenario that a new leader takes them to a DD on the back of some honeymoon polls, I think the senate makeup would represent those polls as much as the house of reps, and with no senate reform that means a bunch of microparties again and a potentially slightly stronger Liberal position. So without putting enough though into it, I reckon Lib+Micro is more likely.
I say that because I'm guessing about half of the 18 Coalition seats from 2010 are going to be pretty vulnerable, since half of them are from Victoria, Queensland and South Australia where Labor is basically running away with the 2PP vote (and the Green primary vote isn't too shabby either).
It's difficult for me to see Labor or the Greens going backwards in those states (without driving down to individual candidates appeal). The only place there might be a reversal is in NSW I guess. But the Coalition already controls half of those Senate seats anyway, which is why I come back to not seeing where they can do better given 2PP polling.
It's a shame there isn't more Senate polling data, given how important it is, but all I can basically do at this point is look at which seats in which states are up for re-election, look at the state level polling and make a guess.
If there's a DD all bets are off.
Fair point, the kind of poll reversal I'm imagining seems fairly unlikely in those states.
Abbott is using the opportunity to attack the program again:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...gises-to-tony-abbott-over-qanda-tweet/6722874
Candescence
Member
I imagine the tweets are picked automatically, if it was manually, it wouldn't have gotten on air.
But, yeah, it's another storm in a tea cup.
But, yeah, it's another storm in a tea cup.
I did see one tweet pointing out that if the government didn't want dopey interns vetting the Q&A tweets they should've funded the ABC properly
Elaugaufein
Member
Crikey had an article about this, there's 2 layers of review before tweets go to air (there's an automatic process, interns and then a final decision maker). I imagine this is what happened when people are focusing primarily on the tweet content rather than who sent it (the automated picked is also supposed to remove anything obscene so I guess it doesn't scan names either XD).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked