Australian Politics thread

And now we broadcast a message to the nation from The Hon. Julia Gillard MP on the matter of recent opinion polling.

^ She looks like Tilda Swinton as the White Bitch, I mean Witch.

tiffanywint wrote:

^ She looks like Tilda Swinton as the White Bitch, I mean Witch.

You got it right the first go, but I'll accept "witch" as well. :)

The question remains. Would you tap that?

Sharky wrote:

The question remains. Would you tap that?

No :affraid:

Sharky wrote:

The question remains. Would you tap that?

The follow-up question being: If you had to tap that, would you choose a blindfold or earplugs?

Quote :

Australia commits suicide

One of the worst aspects of living in these apocalyptic times is that whenever you look around the world, wondering where you might escape to, you begin to realise that everywhere else is just as bad if not worse.

Take Australia, an island built on fossil fuel with an economy dependent on fossil fuel. What would be the maddest economic policy a place like that could pursue as the world tips deeper into recession? Why, to introduce a carbon tax, of course. Which, for reasons just explained above, means a tax on absobloodylutely everything. Which is exactly what Julia Gillard's Coalition (why is it that word always makes me want to reach for my Browning?) has just gone and done, obviously.

What must be particularly galling to all the Australians (the majority) bitterly opposed to this lunatic measure is the unutterable feebleness of the arguments the Coalition is using to justify it.

Here, for example, is its Chief Scientist Ian Chubb in action:

"With respect to this cooling stuff, I have seen the claim, but the evidence that I have seen is that the last decade has been the warmest decade that we have ever had on this planet, so I do not know what this cooling stuff means.”

Let's just run that one by you again, in case you thought you'd been overdoing the Cane toad juice. The man who came up with that scientifically inaccurate, historically ignorant, Greenpeace-like enviro-hysteria drivel is AUSTRALIA'S CHIEF SCIENTIST.

What this lunacy will do the Australian economy Gaia only knows. But one thing's for certain: Opposition leader Tony Abbott has got the next election in the bag.

Here's what he had to say on the subject when the carbon tax package was voted in by just the tiniest of margins (74 votes to 72):

“I am giving you the most definite commitment any politician can give that this tax will go. This is a pledge in blood this tax will go.

“If the bills pass today this will be an act of betrayal on the Australian public. We will repeal the tax, we can repeal the tax, we must repeal the tax.”

A promise like that, as Andrew Bolt notes, is not one he's going to find easy to break. Had he made his promise merely "Cast Iron" on the other hand…

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100110321/australia-commits-suicide/

And opposing any tax package is always a vote winner.

But somehow I do not believe that any taxmoney will be returned to the ones who pay it. The state will undoubtely find a reason to get that money anyhow.

I was meaning to post that Deillingpole article a couple of days ago. Always nice to see someone outside Australia realise how batshit insane this is. A stake through the heart of the Australian economy at the worst possible time. Treachery is too nice a word for these Gaia-humping vandals.

If you didn't want me to move to Oz, you only had to say so, you didn't have to destroy the whole country.

I'm kinda flattered you'd go to so much trouble just to keep me out, tho.

The world is running out of boltholes ...

“I am giving you the most definite commitment any politician can give that this tax will go. This is a pledge in blood this tax will go.

“If the bills pass today this will be an act of betrayal on the Australian public. We will repeal the tax, we can repeal the tax, we must repeal the tax.”


This is refreshing talk from a politician at least. There may be hope for the world yet. This is how conservative politicians in Canada would like to talk, but they are too afraid to make the straight talk for fear of being labeled anti-green. A carbon-tax and wacko cap-and-trade schemes are probably the most brilliant scams that liberals have ever come up with, to suck even more money out of economies and build up their public-sector power bases. Opposition can be dismissed as climate deniers or even worse as anti-planet. The horror.

Somewhat amusing story. Susan Mitchell is writing a book about how Tony Abbott (leader of the opposition) is a sexist misogynist dinsoaur etc. A total hatchet job peppered with anti-Catholicism. Well, here's a transcript of an interview that displays just how bright she is:

(after being asked about which of Abbott's view are so repugnant)

SUSAN Mitchell: Let’s put women aside. Let’s talk about voluntary euthanasia. A lot of people, a majority of people in this country, want to see that actually happen. They want to be given the right to choose, or they want [it] to be, they want [it] at least to be on the agenda. Tony Abbott is against that. A lot of people are in favour of . . .

Chris Kenny: So where does Julia Gillard line up on gay marriage or euthanasia?

Mitchell: I’m not talking about Julia Gillard.

Kenny: Exactly. You’re talking about Abbott but both sides of politics are in furious agreement on these social issues.

Mitchell: Excuse me, excuse me, Chris. Julia Gillard’s not within [a] whisker of becoming prime minister at this stage. That is my point.

Kenny: No, actually, she is the Prime Minister.

Host Ian Henschke: She is the Prime Minister. Actually . . .

Mitchell: I mean of becoming, you know, the next prime minister.


This is the best Australia's faltering Left can come up with at this point. Meanwhile, Abbott is in far north Queensland physically building a house for Aborigines. The fascist bastard.

Quote :

SUSAN Mitchell: Let’s put women aside. Let’s talk about voluntary euthanasia. A lot of people, a majority of people in this country, want to see that actually happen. They want to be given the right to choose, or they want [it] to be, they want [it] at least to be on the agenda. Tony Abbott is against that. A lot of people are in favour of
. .

This is typical of these liberals. It's fine that she loves euthanasia. Whatever. However its clear she also can't abide any dissenting opinion. Its just incomprehensible to her that others might not agree. These people are all about establishing correct thinking. She doesn't want to debate the issue. She simply wants to complain about the audacity that non-comformist thought might exist. "Tony Abbott is against that" :affraid: The horror! He disagrees with us. Aiieee.

I tell you, they are all imported direct from Pluto. It's an invasion. Its the only explanation.

Julia Gillard plans to sit next to Tony Abbott, whom she has villified non-stop for four years as "Dr No" and all sorts of lame ad hominem bits of spin that have never stuck, to oppose a gay marriage bill that nobody believes she's truly against, for the sake of appearing not to backflip on another supposedly ironclad political conviction, that is her own party's policy, and the commentariat are still trying to sell this as a political 'win'.

And never mind the Carbon Tax and Mining Resource Rent Tax that will cost the budget bottom line money.

This country is seriously like living in an Orwell novel.

Vesper wrote:

"Dr No" and all sorts of lame ad hominem

Next person that's not employed by the ALP who uses that should cop a chair to the face. Lamest political line of attack ever. Where was the bipartisanship under Menzies, Fraser or Howard? Why wasn't Kim "I only agree with the Liberals when they're eating fried chicken" Beazley called negative? Why should Abbott be in furious agreement with a Government so inept its primary vote is hovering around 30%? Talk about a born to rule mentality.

Vesper wrote:

oppose a gay marriage bill that nobody believes she's truly against

I dunno, she did once idolise a country that threw gays into gulags...

Weakest moment of the conference was Conroy tearfully opposing uranium sales to India on the basis that six years before he was born there was a nuclear incident in Blighty that killed no one and merely resulted in his uncle not getting any milk while it was being tested. This is the guy that wanted to regulate what we could and couldn't see on the internet.

CJB wrote:

Where was the bipartisanship under Menzies, Fraser or Howard?

And why did it take so long for the Labor party to get back in power? As someone who's currently considering themselves a swinging voter, a bit of positive thinking from Abbott, which hopefully would mean some articulating of his own policies, would be nice to see. Because his current shtick is going to wear out long before the next election, like Beazley's did.

There were many reasons why the ALP was out of power for 11 years. Howard's political smarts, terrorism and borders, Latham's mental instability, good economic times etc. Certainly not "negativity." The GST was unpopular, Labor pounded it relentlessly and came perilously close to winning in 1998. If Howard didn't have a big electoral buffer from 1996 he would've been swept away. Gillard has no such buffer.

Remember, the Coalition supported the major Hawke/Keating reforms and went on to spend 13 years in Opposition. Long before the 1993 election the Coalition released Fightback! - an immersive, detailed and comprehensive policy document the likes of which few Oppositions would dare to construct. The result? The unloseable election was lost. Tactically speaking, big ideological tomes two years out from an election deliver few benefits to an Opposition.

Point being, constant bipartisanship is not always tactically sound. You need to give voters a reason to believe you're different from the other party. Also, even when a government is unpopular, lugging around a thick policy document two years out from an election will give the government a distraction and an avenue of attack.

As far as "positive" policies go, I think razing a couple of government departments would be a good start. :) Welfare statists get a very generous paid parental leave policy, environmentalists get a "green army." I don't think there should be too many extravagant, big ticket spending promises (what the media commentariat calls positive policies) as an incoming Abbott government would be likely looking to cut spending greatly.

Quote :

And why did it take so long for the Labor party to get back in power? As someone who's currently considering themselves a swinging voter, a bit of positive thinking from Abbott, which hopefully would mean some articulating of his own policies, would be nice to see. Because his current shtick is going to wear out long before the next election, like Beazley's did.

By all accounts I've seen, blundered strategic thinking, a refusal to acknowledge the good (if non-traditional labor) reforms of Hawke and especially Keating, and bad attempts to please the electorate that are all the reasons they've become such a disarray now. Howard was on a knives edge twice, post-GST and pre-9/11 and with Latham in the hot seat. Latham (and later New Beasley) wound up being unelectable because they were seen as too nasty/ruthless by the electorate. However I think there's an important distinction here in that Abbott, for all his relentless negativity (though frankly, justified, IMHO), plays the ball and not the player. Gillard and the government are either playing the man or playing the umpire. I've yet to see a logical and detailed argument (let alone passionate) from the PM describing why we need a Carbon Tax, let alone an explanation for her backflip that isn't condescending. I've yet to see a logical and detailed defense or argument as to why the complete coincidences over the Jenkins/Slipper affair are just that - coincidences - and that no funny business went on. I could continue going on through policy after policy and scandal after scandal (the latest being the frankly inexcusable mess with the AN tender) but I won't waste my breath. This is a government who are constantly on the back foot, who rather than depriving their opposition oxygen give him more; who rather than let a positive accomplishment sit either marr it with 'clever' backroom politics that get the press gallery running for their smelling salts while middle Australia's eyes roll deeper into the back of their heads, or follow it up with ridiculous organisational blunders of the highest order (why on earth did the Malaysia solution go back to parliament the day after the Carbon vote?) and equally pathetic policy failures (again, Malaysia solution being the frosting on the cake).

Gillard has no credibility and is dead to the electorate. Those she didn't impress with her Carbon Tax swap aren't going to vote for her. Those who want gay marriage aren't going to vote for her a) because she is personally against it, b) because it's been Green's policy for a long, long time, c) because they can't reconcile that with the galling move to adopt offshore processing as official labor policy, and d) because the bill has a snowball's chance in the outback of getting up. Those who don't want gay marriage aren't going to vote for her because she's still seen to initiate the entire thing and in process has militarized the Chistian and Muslim power bases against her. Club workers and patrons won't vote for her because she'll either be introducing the bill that will cut their wages, believes they're so dense they need a card to stop them from gambling, that there will be a cut to either community or hospitality services those venues offer due to decreased revenues, or if she does ditch it, it will be seen as yet another backflip on yet another policy she's committed to.

And that's not getting to the Peter Slipper and Kevin Rudd nonsense, which I don't think anybody but the Labor-ati see as categorically Not-A-Problem.

And again, I haven't touched IR, medical care, Public Service efficiency, small and big business, mining communities, immigration, NBN, internet filter and a raft of other issues yet. Germany never managed to fight a war on two fronts, what makes Labor think they can win a war on twenty?

After all those hot issues, who is left to vote for Labor?

Once you throw in the fact that she's neither a great orator or a great storyteller (you need to be at least one or the other), has a front bench that is largely lacking in them and to top it off is widely seen to be, frankly, a slimy, cunning, ruthless, lying and manipulative political operative with an eye for power and not governance. These might be admired inside the beltway but they're not in the wider community.

Abbott just has to stay who he is. Disliked or no, consistency and character go a long way in the electorate. Keating won an election for Christ's sake. Howard was 20 or 30 points behind Keating on personal polls when he won government. Even people who loathed Howard knew what he stood for.

As to positive agenda setting, they need to start to do it, but they're clearly conscious of the Hewson mistake of releasing their policy so early the Gov't spin doctors have months to test ad campaigns against them. I don't doubt they have numerous policies in the wings, it's just when we see the.

Reshuffle = reorganising deck chairs so they can get a pension.

And I say that as someone who likes Shorten and Roxon.

Plibersek in something as high profile as health will be a disaster. Regardless of competence (and frankly, I'm yet to see evidence of it, housing is a portfolio only an absolute idiot can stuff up) is there anyone more smug and more patronising on the front bench? She's the worst qualities of Joe Hockey and Christopher Pyne rolled into one with a dash of Andrew Robb, a nip of Kevin Rudd and a vagina.

Via The Oz:

NICOLA Roxon, who will be sworn in as the nation's first female attorney-general, plans to toughen anti-discrimination laws, promote human rights and reignite the debate on Australia becoming a republic.

Gag. They know they'll lose the next election so they'll crap out as much Leftist, authoritarian legislation as possible and the next Coalition government will be too timid to repeal it, lest they be accused of supporting discrimination.

And dont get me started on Tanya fucking Plibersek!

The reality is she got promoted just at the right time to oversee the battle with the cigarette companies about plain packaging. Of course, that should rightfully get destroyed or come at a massive cost to the government (it's a catch-22. If the packaging really isn't worth that much why have they poured money into it, why are they spending the money to defend it etc are the kind of arguments Roxon makes to justify her policy, but accepting those justifications as fact, the IP that the gov't is stripping away is worth billions and needs to be compensated)

And another HC rejection of the policy (and I suspect, but am not certain, that the High Court would block the policy. The cigarette companies will have the QCs to make sure that the slippery slope and Orwellian overtones are well presented) will be such a humiliating policy blunder that I could easily imagine Labor's primary support dipping even further.

As to Plibersek - please do. After the press gallery and Labor-ites calling her a good performer hearing other people confirm my opinion is validating.

Where to begin? She's achieved nothing of note since Labor come to power. Housing, as you mentioned, isn't brain surgery and she's since been the Minister for... Social Inclusion? How the fuck can that seriously be something that you get paid to do? And now she gets promoted to a ministry as vital as Health simply because she managed to bum around and not rock the boat in a position that should not even exist.

But let's get down to business. She’s supremely condescending, smarmy, and so very slimy. A dim bulb who thinks we're in imminent danger of starving to death if the carbon tax isn't implemented. A mendacious quasi-fascist who thinks right-wing commentators need to be gagged because they encourage their audiences to, in her words, "kill all Muslims." A quick glance at her bio would confirm what is plainly obvious: she is yet another leech who has never sought real work in her life and has never known a day in her adult existence when she has not pocketed the money of society's productive class. That's not unusual for a parliamentarian but, nevertheless, few can match her supercilious attitude to the plebs. She oozes a smugness so richly undeserved for someone whose Slovenian forebears achieved more in their working lives by shoveling snow and horse shit. Plibersek is nothing more than a harridan who exemplifies Australia's most loathed modern government: a soft-autocratic, talentless spiv turning her nose up at the masses who've been handing her paychecks for decades of non-work, someone with a born-to-rule mentality that not even the most cashed-up Tory could possess.

She has neither the skills, intelligence, nor track record to be Minister for Health. She doesn't even have those all-important communication skills. She's an inept worm who should be flicked onto the backbenches.

CJB wrote:

Where to begin? She's achieved nothing of note since Labor come to power. Housing, as you mentioned, isn't brain surgery and she's since been the Minister for... Social Inclusion? How the fuck can that seriously be something that you get paid to do? And now she gets promoted to a ministry as vital as Health simply because she managed to bum around and not rock the boat in a position that should not even exist.

But let's get down to business. She’s supremely condescending, smarmy, and so very slimy. A dim bulb who thinks we're in imminent danger of starving to death if the carbon tax isn't implemented. A mendacious quasi-fascist who thinks right-wing commentators need to be gagged because they encourage their audiences to, in her words, "kill all Muslims." A quick glance at her bio would confirm what is plainly obvious: she is yet another leech who has never sought real work in her life and has never known a day in her adult existence when she has not pocketed the money of society's productive class. That's not unusual for a parliamentarian but, nevertheless, few can match her supercilious attitude to the plebs. She oozes a smugness so richly undeserved for someone whose Slovenian forebears achieved more in their working lives by shoveling snow and horse shit. Plibersek is nothing more than a harridan who exemplifies Australia's most loathed modern government: a soft-autocratic, talentless spiv turning her nose up at the masses who've been handing her paychecks for decades of non-work, someone with a born-to-rule mentality that not even the most cashed-up Tory could possess.

She has neither the skills, intelligence, nor track record to be Minister for Health. She doesn't even have those all-important communication skills. She's an inept worm who should be flicked onto the backbenches.

:)

I think I like her less than La Guillotine

Worst example I think:


Also on the note of her taking over health, at the risk of getting my liberal party membership revoked, I find it shocking that nobody in that portfolio has the gumption or vision to truly commit to a universal dental scheme a la medicare. Granted, committing to it would've been a lot easier if Labor hadn't both destroyed the surplus and raided the future fund for short term stimulus, but it should still be a goal and is a far more worthy investment than a new government telecom monopoly. And in light of that video, I also think that a legislated (and ideally constitutionally enshrined via referendum) freedom of speech is something this country needs badly and soon. Australians' believe in it, most don't know they actually don't have a legal right to it. I'm against any other bill or charter of rights, but something that fundamental needs to be in there, in my view. Particularly with the Greens insidiously attracting more and more votes as the ALP crumbles without a credible centre-left alternate.

My hope out of this whole fiasco of the last four years is that the non-factional, non-union alligned and (I imagine) disenchanted Labor MPs and members split and form a new party. There are plenty of reasonable and rational centre-left voices in this country who have been screwed by the ALPs factions and outdated political operations (Kristina Keneally comes to mind; plenty more have been f*cked over at the preselection stage by a Young Labor alumni who's done the yards). It's not healthy to have extremes (the Greens are stuck in the 70s) and one-sided policy debates. I doubt Work Choices would've been as toxic as it was if it hadn't gotten right through the Senate in a form that even the government wound up acknowledging needed revising.

Oh, and on another note, I suspect Joe Hockey and Robb will get one budget as treasurer and finance minister respectively once they're in government before they're replaced by the Turnbull-Sinodis tag team.

Looks like there'll be a Labor leadership challenge within the next eight weeks.

What kind of a joke country has a governing party that dumps a first-term PM and then brings him back less than two years later?

Regardless of who ends up with the leadership, the ALP deserves a Menzian lengthed stint in Opposition until they learn they can't run a country like a bitchy trade union.