Australian Politics thread

Differs state by state. For Queensland it's 12 if it's with a blood relative.

In news that comes as no surprise to anybody, Gina Rinehart has opened her mouth and said something stupid. Again.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/rineharts-welfare-comments-an-insult-to-millions-treasurer-20120830-251u5.html

Attacking and throwing accusations of misogyny to defend a blatant misogynist. Brilliant. Gillard is a genius.

Also Roxon should resign.

Or at least read the ASCR. She might learn something.

Vesper wrote:

Attacking and throwing accusations of misogyny to defend a blatant misogynist. Brilliant. Gillard is a genius.

She does have a point. When Abbott appeared at the Juliar rallies, some of the things that were being bandied about were quite sexist, the clear implication being that a woman was not fit to run the country and that a male prime minister would be considerably more trustworthy. Abbott didn't lift a finger to shut that sexism down. He indirectly supported it by supporting the protest in general.

It doesn't excuse Gillard for what she's doing in defending misogyny with accusations of it, but it does prove that Tony Abbott is a hypocrite. Neither is fit to run the country.

Gillard is a fucking disgrace and the ALP made idiots of themselves. They've certainly lost the right to throw the "sexism" card at anyone after they lined up one by one to defend Peter Slipper.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Abbott didn't lift a finger to shut that sexism down.

The fuck is he? A cop? I didn't see Labor MPs in anti-Howard rallies giving a flying fig about anything that was written about the Prime Minister (BTW, I declare any criticism of a male PM to be misandrist - it's only fair).

At least that one was a peaceful rally, unlike the one Julia Gillard's friends conducted outside (and then inside) Parliament House in 1996 and the race riot her office organised on Australia Day this year.

To quote myself elsewhere:

Where is the logic, failing that the moral integrity, in attacking a misogynist to defend a misogynist? Isn't this another example of the intellectual hypocrisy of the government? Why should Abbott be responsible for the conduct of Young Liberals and Alan Jones when Gillard is not responsible for Craig Thompson? Or her staffer and the union official who incited the Australia Day riot? Was Gillard as offended when she read Slipper refer to a woman as an 'ignorant botch' or referring to female genitalia as resembling 'Shelled mussels' and cracking jokes 'Salty C***S in brine'? Especially when, in light of Roxon's over-involvement in the Ashby litigation, she no doubt knew of these texts long before they made it to the press? Because she, along with every female member of the ALP in the House, voted to endorse Slipper as speaker yesterday despite these messages coming to light.

Is misogyny permissable when it coincides with one's interests?

CJB wrote:

The fuck is he? A cop?

So it's okay for him to ignore a sexist attitude one day, but go after it the next? What was stopping him from getting on the radio - Alan Jones would have been happy to let him do it - or television or some other medium and preach rational discourse?

CJB wrote:

I didn't see Labor MPs in anti-Howard rallies giving a flying fig about anything that was written about the Prime Minister

That's a very timely argument.

Vesper wrote:

Is misogyny permissable when it coincides with one's interests?

No. Which is exactly what Abbott is doing. He ignored the misogyny of the protesters, but he went after the misogyny of Peter Slipper. And to make it all the more galling, he went after Slipper's misogyny because it was misogyny.

Mind you, I'm not saying that Julia Gillard is the right person to be running the country - only that her being wrong doesn't automatically make Tony Abbott the right person to run the country. I have no idea who the right person might be, but I do know that it's not Tony Abbott. If he were to become Prime Minister, then I can see him doing exactly the same things to the country that Julia Gillard has done, and he'd probably expect us to thank him for it.

Personally, I don't like either of them. Every time Gillard says something, I think "This isn't what's best for the country, it's what's best for keeping her in power". And every time Abbott says something, I think "This isn't what's best for the country, it's what's best for getting him into power".

I'm sorry, but there's a long drawn out distance between a protester with a sign saying 'ditch the witch' and the speaker, the second highest office in the parliament after the Prime Minister, calling a member of parliament an ignorant bitch, and referring to womens genitalia as 'Shelled mussels' and cracking jokes about 'Salty C***S in brine' - the magnitude of the comments are miles apart, and the standards to which they are held are in different solar systems altogether.

They are hardly commensurate. Every single member in that house should have been voting to have him removed.

Both sides gave up on doing the right thing a long time ago, Vesper. Now they just do whatever they think is best for them. That will only coincide with the right thing for as long as it suits them.

Ideally, this should have waited until after the outcome of the Ashby sexual harrassment case. Trying to use a piece of the constituion that has never been used to force Slipper out of his position while a verdict in a civil suit is still pending feels like it's trying to sway the decision one way or the other. If such a provision exists, why didn't the coalition try to use it to force Slipper out when the Ashby case first came up? It wouldn't be a stretch to have Slipper removed on the grounds that he brought the position of Speaker into disrepute.

And now, less than twenty-four hours after trying to force him out of the Speaker's chair, Abbott wants Slipper's vote:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/after-calling-for-him-to-quit-as-speaker-tony-abbott-seeks-peter-slippers-vote/story-fndckad0-1226492602026

Nor does the coalition see any problem in taking Slipper's vote, even though they condemn the government for accepting Craig Thompson's.

Everything they have done reeks of gamesmanship. They don't want to remove Slipper from his position because it's the right thing to do. They don't give a flying fuck about the right thing to do. They just want to remove Slipper from his position to marginalise the government's power and force an early election. Right and wrong don't come into it.

And that's why Tony Abbott should not be Prime Minster. He is more interested in getting into power than he is in actually runnign the country.

Quote :

Wayne Swan: ...we've got an Opposition Leader who is a policy weakling, and of course, a thug when it comes to personal attacks.”

I think that's the most succinctly ironic statement of this strategy of McTiernan's

So Julia Gillard is now in the business of turfing out experienced, elected representatives so she can shoehorn people into parliament - people who aren't even members of her degenerate party - simply on the basis of their race.

Did anyone need a reminder of what a terrible person she is?

La Albrechsten nailed it in the Oz:

Quote :

Despite her eagerness to play the gender card, Australia's first female PM is a role model for nothing more than a politician who chases power at any price and will do whatever it takes to keep it.

As for Peris, if Trish Crossin was as liked in the NT as is being reported, it will probably lose them votes in NT, which is beyond facile when Labor's already looking at losing around nine seats to the Coalition outright when they need to win seats in this coming year. Baby with the bathwater.

I also have to wonder what Peris has to contribute to national politics beyond a black, slightly feminine face? 12 year old athletic achievements seem to be the extent of her resume. Even when Grant Hackett was floated for the Liberal Party, he had at least accomplished something in the media and in banking.

Caught a ten second clip of Peris on the news. She sounded inarticulate and out of her depth.

Peris is literally only going into the senate because she's a black woman. This is the state of our democracy. For all the talk that Abbott & Friends are Americanising our politics, it's Labor that's engaged in Democrat-esque identity politics time and time again.

And considering the first Aboriginie to be elected to federal parliament did so over forty years ago why exactly should anyone be impressed? Why is it a matter of "national significance", as the Prime Mouthbreather put it?

I despair.

I'm really glad this Peris thing has spectacularly backfired.

The disturbing thing is Gillard seems to think she's done something on par with Wik, Mabo etc.

Not politics, but this had me in stitches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23pdMWladwE#t=3m24s

Vesper wrote:

I'm really glad this Peris thing has spectacularly backfired.

Why, because it's diverted attention from the way Tony Abbott has pledged to repeal the carbon tax, repeal the mining tax, deliver a budget surplus and promise a fully-funded parental leave scheme - all in the same breath?

In comes PM with something completely irrelevant.

CJB wrote:

In comes PM with something completely irrelevant.

I may not be an economist. I may have no aptitiude for numbers. But even I know that promising to repeal taxes is diametrically opposed to promising a budget surplus and a fully-funded parental leave scheme. If Abbott is getting rid of two major revenue streams that the current government had every intention of using to achieve a surplus in this financial year, then how does he expect to deliver a surplus and totally fund a nation-wide parental leave scheme in his first year? Where is the money going to come from?

I look forward to hearing Joe Hockey's blustering non-answer.

That's cool, but what's your opinion on people losing their jobs because they're not black?

CJB wrote:

what's your opinion on people losing their jobs because they're not black?

That if Gillard wasn't pushing for Peris to take the position, you'd be criticising Gillard for having a white person trying to represent the interests of the Aboriginal population.

Right, because I'm a well-known advocate of racial affirmative action.

And I often sit and think to myself that senators - who have no retirement plans - from states and territories I don't even reside in need to be turfed in favour of ex-sportspeople who tick all the feel-good boxes.

You've got me pegged.

CJB wrote:

Right, because I'm a well-known advocate of racial affirmative action.

No, because you'll criticise Gillard whatever she does. It's like a foregone conclusion with you that she deserves cirticism; the only particulars are the precise wording of said criticism depending on the event in question. If she did everything that you thought she had to do in order to be remembered as the greatest leader in Australian history, you'd probably criticise her for needing someone else to tell her what to do, and/or for doing it far too late.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

No, because you'll criticise Gillard whatever she does.

Says the bloke who brings up Tony Abbott in a discussion about a Labor senate seat.

In any case, you're talking crap. I don't think everything Gillard does is bad. I think her upcoming concession speech will be one of the most beloved pieces of oratory in human history, regardless of what comes out of that uncouth mouth.

Tilda Swinton for Julia Gillard biopic - if there ever is one (hope there isn't, but I'd see it if she plays her!)