Australian Politics thread

Tanya Plibersek is the natural choice for the Labor leadership I reckon.

I think Plibersek is a smart politician but that's all I can really say in her favour. On policy I have yet to hear more than a motherhood statement out of her mouth. Unlike others I don't believe her husband's drug conviction is a political liability for her, especially given it happened before they met. It'd get a brief run from Ackerman and Bolt but most sensible journalists and the majority of the public wouldn't care or would drop it once she provided a no doubt sensible explanation.

I don't know why Shorten is bothering at this point. He'd be better to recede for a couple of years and then go for it once the stench of the Rudd/Gillard brouhaha dissipates. He actually has potential as a PM so it'd be a shame to waste him in the vanguard for the first charge.

I hope Albanese gets up. He is such a lightweight outside of internal politics, with the communication skills of a mute Chinaman. He got royally flounced when he went head to head against Turnbull in the election campaign and he would do worse against Abbott. And given the voters found Gillard's accent irritating, he is on another level entirely. His praise in the media just goes to show the ease of winning over the Canberra press gallery lies with drinking with them. Bowen's supposed brilliance is similarly baffling.

Also of concern is that two of Rudd's most trusted lieutenants are now two major voices within the Labor party. While he is still in the parliament. He's such an egomaniac I would not be surpised if he thinks he can manipulate them/bring them down with the dirt he inevtiably has on them. The fact that he is now trying to win the history wars against Gillard by backgrounding journalists rather than anything as remotely thoughtful or introspective as Gillard's essay, let alone without being willing to put his name to anything, is classic Rudd.

I suggest people read "The Stalking of Julia Gillard". It's a good read and while it doesn't aplogise for Gillard's failings, it paints a pretty fair picture of the stacking of the deck against her internally by the press gallery and Rudd's faction. Kerry-Anne Walsh has always come across as rather level-headed as well so it's not like she has an axe to grind.

Also, I find it incredibly refreshing that the new government has opted not to feed the beast that is the 24 hour news media. It's nice to read and watch more about legitimate news than political minutia.

Vesper wrote:

I think Plibersek is a smart politician but that's all I can really say in her favour

She would go down like a lead balloon in "Middle Australia" which is why I'm ever so dissapointed she's not in the running.

I agree on Albo. The guy's a political brawler in the Old Abbott mode, but I have less faith that he could grow out of the student pollie mould (should he become leader) in the way nu-Abbott did. He'd have to dump his "fighting Tories" rubbish if he wants to appeal to the large number of Australian voters who aren't university Marxists.

Also, between Albo and Ed Milliband, one wonders why Labor rank-and-file types go for leaders with lisps.

Vesper wrote:

Also, I find it incredibly refreshing that the new government has opted not to feed the beast that is the 24 hour news media. It's nice to read and watch more about legitimate news than political minutia.

Yes indeed. The adults are back in charge.

Good start so far with the cleaning out of mandarins, booting of Flannery, and the prompt commencement of Operation Sovereign Borders. No wonder our old friend Monkey Man has gone into hiding.

Vesper wrote:

Also, I find it incredibly refreshing that the new government has opted not to feed the beast that is the 24 hour news media. It's nice to read and watch more about legitimate news than political minutia.

Speaking of not feeding anyone, one of the key points of "Operation Soverign Borders" is to give it military control, so that they don't have to inform the public when boats arrive as it would be "in the interests of national security" to keep things quiet. Because who needs transparency in government?

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Vesper wrote:

Also, I find it incredibly refreshing that the new government has opted not to feed the beast that is the 24 hour news media. It's nice to read and watch more about legitimate news than political minutia.

Speaking of not feeding anyone, one of the key points of "Operation Soverign Borders" is to give it military control, so that they don't have to inform the public when boats arrive as it would be "in the interests of national security" to keep things quiet. Because who needs transparency in government?

They're also holding weekly press conferences about the ongoing successes and failures of the operation. Plenty of transparency there and plenty of opportunities for the press to scrutinise the project.It's also a bit rich for the Labor party to arc up about transparency when in Government they sought to legislate control over newspaper editorial pages because they didn't like what they were saying.

Vesper wrote:

It's also a bit rich for the Labor party to arc up about transparency when in Government they sought to legislate control over newspaper editorial pages because they didn't like what they were saying.

Exactly what came to mind when Monkeyman (thankfully back from his sabbatical) recited the latest directive from Sussex Street.

Frankly I find it a bit repulsive when Laborites and members of the Australian Left generally try to score points on the issue, when their removal of a working policy to spite the Libs led to thousands of people drowning at sea. On this isssue they should plead for forigveness and kindly shut the fuck up.

No, they didn't like the idea that one person could influence public opinion simply because they had more money than anyone else. That legislation was in response to Gina Rinehart buying a 5% stake in Channel Ten and immediately giving the Coalition's mouthpiece Andrew Bolt a show of his own and carte blanche to attack the government. And not because we live in a country with freedom if speech, but because Rinehart didn't want to pay the mining tax (as if she would not pass the tax on to her employees to protect her bottom line and then blame the government for it). Labor lost in the court of public opinion because the media is largely controlled by the Murdochs and the Rineharts of the world. Under Gillard's leadership, Labor achieved some pretty big things, like DisabilityCare and the Gonski reforms, but did we hear a word of it in the mainstream media? No, Rupert Murdoch was off running a disgusting smear campaign because the government wasn't looking out for his interests. That's what Labor was trying to limit: the ability of one person to dramatically shape public opinion. I suppose you didn't notice since you're pro-liberal yourself, but didn't you think it was a bit too much of a coincidence that the fight between the government and the media was so one-sided and that the media was largely controlled by people who supported the oposition? When Murdoch started his crusade to remove Labor from government, a voter advocacy group made an ad that featured a man walking his dog. When the dog did its business, the man used a Murdoch-owned paper to clean it up, at which point, he turned to the camera, and addressing Murdoch by name, informed him that the people would puck their own government. But the commercial networks refused to broadcast it, because they didn't want to upset Murdoch, the Packers or the Rineharts. That's hardly freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

That legislation was in response to Gina Rinehart buying a 5% stake in Channel Ten and immediately giving the Coalition's mouthpiece Andrew Bolt  a show of his own and carte blanche to attack the government.

Monkeyman: Defender of government transparency in one post, opponent of dissent the next.

(Predicted reply: Mealy-mouthed, typo-riddled response along the lines of "I'm not opposed to criticising the government but you can't just criticise the government").

Actually it's a shame Labor didn't get its media laws passed. The Coalition would now be in control Finkelstein's Ministry of Troof.

CJB: Prides himself on intelligent and well-balanced opinions, but stops reading the post he is replying to after about three lines.

Predicted response: Run to the arms of our resident agony aunt, Ambler, for reasssurance that he is right because he is Liberal, even if being Liberal means eating babies. Usually quibbles over inconsequential details like spelling as a parthian shot because he's got nothing better to criticise.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Predicted response: Run to the arms of our resident agony aunt, Ambler, for reasssurance that he is right because he is Liberal, even if being Liberal means eating babies. Usually quibbles over inconsequential details like spelling as a parthian shot because he's got nothing better to criticise.

Uh, Ambler's banned. Check his profile.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

No, they didn't like the idea that one person could influence public opinion simply because they had more money than anyone else. That legislation was in response to Gina Rinehart buying a 5% stake in Channel Ten and immediately giving the Coalition's mouthpiece Andrew Bolt  a show of his own and carte blanche to attack the government. And not because we live in a country with freedom if speech, but because Rinehart didn't want to pay the mining tax (as if she would not pass the tax on to her employees to protect her bottom line and then blame the government for it).

No, it was an exceptionally cynical response to the News of the World scandal despite no evidence of similar cultures existing within News Ltd. Fuelled by a blatantly self-serving white paper where the author suggested none-other than himself to be the arbiter of what is fair commentary or not!

And if you read the Media pages, the Bolt Report (at least the idea of something similar) had been in the works for some time as part of Channel Ten's enduring crusade to find some kind of audience. They're still searching.

PrisonerMonkeys wrote:

Labor lost in the court of public opinion because the media is largely controlled by the Murdochs and the Rineharts of the world.

Labor lost in the court of public opinion because constitutionally validated or not, a freedom of speech is seen as an entitlement by the bulk of the civilised world and accordingly by most Australians. Rightly, it is a fundamental part of a free society. Oddly enough, journalists are fans of it too. Credit to Labor, it was a pretty amazing feat to galvanise the opinion pages of The Age and The Spectator. Ambitious, too, to try and turn the tide against 400 years of philosophical thought since the Enlightenment.

Quote :

Under Gillard's leadership, Labor achieved some pretty big things, like DisabilityCare and the Gonski reforms, but did we hear a word of it in the mainstream media? No, Rupert Murdoch was off running a disgusting smear campaign because the government wasn't looking out for his interests.

She got plenty of credit for it all through the media and still does, including from Liberal heavyweights like Michael Kroger. History will be kind to Julia Gillard. And the smear campaign was coming from within Labor. When Kevin Rudd is giving you the inside scoop on every Cabinet meeting and leaking all about Gillard's decisions behind closed doors what journalist wouldn't write about it? This all stemmed from Labor's inability to keep their own house in order. THAT's what was frustrating them. It was a mistake not to boot Rudd from the party the minute he leaked cabinet proceedings.

Quote :

That's what Labor was trying to limit: the ability of one person to dramatically shape public opinion. I suppose you didn't notice since you're pro-liberal yourself, but didn't you think it was a bit too much of a coincidence that the fight between the government and the media was so one-sided and that the media was largely controlled by people who supported the oposition?

People don't have to buy Murdoch's papers. If they do they don't have to read them. And if they do they don't have to agree with them. People funnily enough have the ability to make up their own minds about things.

And if you don't like the editorial line in their papers? There is the Age and the SMH which editorialise heavily in Labor's favour, and the ABC who do their darndest but do have a tendency to lean a bit more left than right (I really don't think this is institutional, as much as it is a natural result of the fact that most of their reporters skew Labor or Green, and a certain degree of bias will creep through even as they do their best to adhere to impartiality procedures).

And if you still aren't satisfied? There is nothing stopping you from starting a rival newspaper. There is nothing stopping you writing submissions to The Oz, or the Tele, or the Courier. There is nothing stopping you from starting a blog; a website; a magazine.

And for all the supposed bias, where is the first place Labor front benches have run to have their editorials published for the past four years? The Oz. Where are Graham Richardson, or Troy Bramston, published every week? The Oz. Who have Albanese, Emerson, Bowen, Roxon, Plibersek, Rudd and Gillard been published by across the past four-six years? The Oz. Which I have to say while its house columnists lean right, always has numerous editorials each week from opposing viewpoints.

The whole debate also completely overlooks that the Labor government flew in in 2007 on the back of endorsements from the Murdoch papers and Sky News. They weren't complaining of bias or crusades then.

Quote :

When Murdoch started his crusade to remove Labor from government, a voter advocacy group made an ad that featured a man walking his dog. When the dog did its business, the man used a Murdoch-owned paper to clean it up, at which point, he turned to the camera, and addressing Murdoch by name, informed him that the people would puck their own government. But the commercial networks refused to broadcast it, because they didn't want to upset Murdoch, the Packers or the Rineharts. That's hardly freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

Ah, the very decision not to air it is a demonstration of freedom of speech. The companies made their decision. There is no human right for a platform. Merely a human right to say what you want. And consider other reasons: maybe because so many people read the Murdoch papers they didn't want to offend their viewers? Maybe the voter advocacy group could not afford the premium for the timeslots they wanted to air in? Maybe it was during the election, and said voter advocacy group is pretty widely known as a front for a certain political party that shall remain nameless.

The ad wound up on Youtube no? Other websites? It wasn't censored. A media company merely refused to air it. It's no different from a supermarket refusing to stock a certain product.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Uh, Ambler's banned. Check his profile.

How'd that happen?

CJB wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Uh, Ambler's banned. Check his profile.

How'd that happen?

He asked for it. Literally.

Ah. Fair 'nuff.

May he find his quantum of solace while avoiding Quantum of Solace.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-28/shorten-wants-quotas-to-boost-number-of-gay-politicians/4987276

Quote :

Labor leadership candidate Bill Shorten wants to introduce quotas to boost the number of gay and lesbian politicians in Parliament.

Mr Shorten is continuing his pitch to the party membership, sending out a manifesto that calls for the introduction of quotas for politicians representing minority groups.

He says the party should consider quotas for Indigenous Australians and the lesbian, gay, bixsexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community.

Neil Fharaoh, the national convenor of Rainbow Labor, which represents the party's LGBTI members, says it is a step forward.

"The LGBTI community has been underrepresented, particularly in political seats, both at a state and federal level in Australia," he said.

"There's probably only 12 gay and lesbian identifying politicians across the country and probably not too much more in the history and its definitely underrepresentative.

"So we'd welcome any moves to increase the representation in politics."

Mr Shorten also wants to redouble the party's efforts to boost the number of female candiates to 40 per cent.

The leadership contest between Mr Shorten and his rival, Anthony Albanese, will be decided by a Caucus vote as well as a nationwide ballot of party members.

Party members have already been mailed out their ballot papers.

They will cast their vote, then the Caucus will meet for their vote on October 10, three days before the successful candidate is announced.

 

Shorten is trying to out-Left Albo by being some kind of caricature.

Apologies for treating this thread like an echo chamber (I think Monkey's directive from Sussex Street got lost in the mail) but I thought this was interesting.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/cutandpaste/theres-no-walking-down-the-aisle-for-julia-gillard-what-happened-to-that-special-status/story-fn72xczz-1226731126420

She doesn't support marriage after all? Gillard questioned during Anne Summers's interview, Sydney Opera House, Monday:

SIX-YEAR-OLD boy: How come you didn't let gay people get married?

Gillard: That's a politician in the making right there, I think. I do understand that the position I took on gay marriage perplexed many people, given who I am and so many of my beliefs. I've actually had lots of conversations with many of my old friends, some of whom have got a different view than me, but I'm a lot older than you and when I went to university and started forming my political views of the world, I mean, we weren't talking about gay marriage - indeed, as women, as feminists, we were critiquing marriage. And if someone had said to me as a 20-year-old, 'what about you get, you know, into a white dress to symbolise virginity and you get your father to walk you down an aisle and give you away to a man who's waiting at the end of the aisle', I would have looked with puzzlement like, What on earth would I do that for?

I was always amused that bobble-headed centre-left dolts were in constant amazement that a "childless, unmarried, atheist etc" opposed gay marriage. All along I maintained Gillard's opposition came from her opposition to marriage in general, stemming from the New Left ideology she'd adhered to since her uni days.

It's more likely that opposition comes from politicians listening to each other, rather than listening to the people they represent. Which is really the problem with Australian politics in general.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

It's more likely that opposition comes from politicians listening to each other, rather than listening to the people they represent. Which is really the problem with Australian politics in general.

What does that even mean?

Bill Shorten has been elected leader of the ALP (with the majority of caucus backing, but a minority of rank-and-file members).

His head has an annoying shape. He'll probably never be Prime Minister.

Glibersek is Labor deputy. There goes Melbourne Ports.

On Day 1 of the new government, Tony Abbott announced that the galls of parliament should be free of character assassination.

On Day 2, the government started the day by refusing to refer to Bill Shorten by name or his title, and instead insisted on calling him "Electricity Bill".

Despicable. Little Willy Shortarse is his name.

My favourite part of yesterday's proceedings was when Graham Ferret said Bishop was unfit to be speaker because she was within the general vicinity of someone else's "ditch the witch" sign and - not five minutes later - Tony Burke compares Bishop to a witch. Dribbling retards.

I liked the way the Liberals were warned that their immigration policies could cause tensions with Indonesia, which they denied. And then we wound up in a stand-off with the Indonesian navy over the first asylum seekers. And now Indonesia is pretty much calling the shots on asylum seekers while the government hides behind the military so they don't have to explain themselves.

Say what you will about the previous government, but they were right about one thing: people smuggling is a regional issue, and is only going to be solved through regional co-operation. And as flawed as their policies may have been, at least they didn't take the position of "fuck you, we'll do what we want, and if you don't like it, then that's too fucking bad" and then wonder other countries don't take kindly to it.

Even if Jakarta was only stirring things up to test the new government's mettle, they very definitely came out on top.

75% reduction in boat arrivals under Abbott.

Thousands drowned under Labor.

Abbott has already outperformed Rudd and Gillard as prime minister and he's only been in the job five minutes. It's a sweet time to be anyone other than Monkeyman.

Is that you, Andrew Bolt? I mean, the obvious pro-Liberal bias is there, but now we'be got faulty "facts" in play.

After all, we had six years of Labor government. But we've had six *weeks* of Liberal government, so of course illegal arrivals are down. And since the government can hide behind the military, they don't have to reveal how many arrivals there have been, skewing the statistics even further.

At the rate he's going, Abbott will be lucky to see out a term of government. He's already said one thing and then let his ministers do the opposite in parliament, and he's completely mis-handled the situation with Indonesia. Surely even you agree that since people-smuggling is an issue that affects both countries, the solution should be one that both countries support, rather than one country doing whatever it wants and demanding that the other country live with it? Abbott has said that he won't let Indonesia dictate Australia's foreign policy, and that's a perfectly reasonable stance to take. But not when he's trying to do the opposite and dictate Indonesia's foreign policy by trying to force them to accept boats that they are under no legal obligation to accept.