Home » Australian Politics (Page 2)
Category Archives: Australian Politics
I don’t sleep very well at the bets of times but I have spent most of last night listening to the rolling coverage of the siege in Sydney and I am both desperately saddened by the death of two hostages and annoyed that a sniper did not take the scumbag out before any hostages could be killed. Further I can not comprehend why he was out on bail after being changed with murdering his wife and how he was able to get hold of a hand gun.
Finally I have been utterly sickened by all of the obsequious excuse making for Islam We, as a society well understand that the the majority of this in this country who follow that religion are decent people who mean their fellow Australians no harm so we do not need the sort of endless excuse making for the religion that has been so evident in the Media coverage for this atrocity done in the name of Allah. Simply put, if this was not an act based upon an “Islamic” motivation then why was it clothed in Islamist vestments?
Sadly nothing to cheer about on this one Comrades
At last after seven years of madness the country can draw a line under the Asylum seeker disarray created by Kevin Rudd
I must say that waking up to the news that the government has finally manged to secure the passage of a bill to reintroduce TPVs has really brightened my day.
“The crossbench shouldn’t have been put in this position, but we have,” the Motoring Enthusiast party senator said.
Independent senator Nick Xenophon also wrestled with the decision, but like Muir believed the amendments would give hope to thousands of refugees stuck in detention.
In return for their support – and that of the Palmer United party – the government agreed to quickly process the claims of 30,000 asylum seekers languishing in detention centres across Australia.
PUP leader Clive Palmer said that backing the legislation meant 1,500 asylum seekers – including 468 children – would soon be leaving Christmas Island.
But Labor and the Greens accused the government of using those children as a bargaining chip, arguing that the immigration minister, Scott Morrison, could release them at any time, if he wished.
Independent senator Jacqui Lambie – who opposed the legislation – attacked the government for keeping children detained for so long.
“These kids have been sitting there for 15 months, and you want a pat on the back? You’ve got to be kidding yourselves,” she said.
Particular concerns were raised about the return of TPVs, a Howard-era policy condemned by refugee advocates and repealed by the previous Labor government.
The government also agreed to increase Australia’s humanitarian intake of refugees and to give those on bridging visas the right to work.
Now the government can virtually clear the legacy backlog of mendicants that we can thank the Labor party for creating way back at the beginning of the Rudd regime. Long time readers may remember when I correctly predicted the subsequent flood of boats Further despite voting against the bill in the Senate I very much doubt that any future Labor government will be rushing to repeal the legislation because they will not want to endure being thrashed for their stupid position of the issue for another seven years. Any one who looks back on the this part of our political history must surely recognize that the whole problem is a consequence of the Labor party making a bad call and then being political cowards unwilling to undo their mistake or even admit that it was a mistake. All because the Labor party have been trying to court the very loopy left who support the Greens position on the Asylum seeker issues. That sort of thinking from the ALP is of course rather mad because there is no way that a sensible ALP person can possibly sink deep enough into the slime of Green political idea without alienating their center.
The thing that we should always remember is that the measure of the ALP’s position on any issue where it is at odds with the current government is not the posturings of Electricity Bill Shorten and his motley crew but their answer to being asked “will you repeal it if you win office?” and my guess is that The ALP answer will almost without exception fudge it and make excuses and prevaricate because the last thing that they want to do is commit themselves to giving the public a very spiky stick to beat them with for the next seven years.
Why on earth are the ambos and fireies allowed to use work vehicles for such activities is what I want to know along with the abuses you cite in your . as usually comprehensive article there is the other part of the tactic namely create a pretext for industrial action in the lead up to the election and then sing loud and long that the evil Tories can’t or won’t fix the problem.
Its enough to make anyone hot under the collar Comrade Yale
(by Ray Dixon ~ a proud Vic)
“See ya later Denis”
I have to admit that in the last week leading up to Saturday’s Victorian State election I had this nagging and worrying feeling that Labor would fall at the last hurdle and fail in its bid at history to out a Coalition Government after just one term in office.
After all, despite the opinion polls showing Labor still in winning territory at 52-48 two-party preferred, the fact is the gap had narrowed from 56-44 just a few weeks ago and any further narrowing would see an anything result.
There’s also the fact that Governments, be they State or Federal, be they dysfunctional, incompetent, disunited, changing leaders, do-nothing, semi-corrupt and obnoxious (i.e. be they just like the Victorian Coalition Govt of Ted ‘Bailed Out’ Baillieu & Denis ‘The loud mouth Vet’ Napthine), are usually given a second term just to see if they can finally get their act together. It’s almost – or was – an Australian tradition to give a ‘Fair Go’ to the incumbent and not throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak.
Making matters worse (for Labor supporters like me) it was Denis Napthine who stole all the thunder and limelight in the last week of campaigning, aggressively ramming home his message that if Labor tears up the contract for the East-West tunnel project, as they had promised to, Victorians would not only lose the $3 billion in infrastructure spending promised by Federal PM Tony Abbott, they would also have to pay a compensation bill of $1.1 billion to the appointed contractor (due to a ‘side deal’ Napthine had secretly signed).
Meanwhile, Labor leader Daniel Andrews remained at the one-pace, not ramping up his campaign or attack on the Government one little bit (it’s noticeable that throughout the campaign, Andrews actually steered away from any such negative tactics and, instead, focused on what he would do rather than what Napthine was doing or not doing).
Instead, Andrews simply stuck to his guns: the East-West tunnel would not be built; the so-called contract was “invalid” and “not worth the paper it was written on”; no compensation would be paid and what Victorians needed more was improvements to outer areas, removal of level crossings and a much improved public transport system. Andrews gambled on the wider electorate not really seeing yet another freeway link as an important election issue. And won.
He focused his efforts on those outer areas particularly the so-called ‘Sandbelt’ areas from Bentleigh in the south east all the way down the Frankston railway line to, well, to Frankston itself. Those were the seats that cost John Brumby office in 2010 when he was surprisingly voted out having focused his efforts primarily on protecting 4 inner-city seats from the Greens. He held those seats but lost the ‘burbs … because he ignored them … which saw Ted Baillieu become the accidental Premier, a job he never seemed to expect or want, and one that he eventually walked away from at the first hint of dissatisfaction from his party, thereby handing Denis (the forgotten man) Napthine the premiership by default.
No, Andrews totally ignored the Greens and let the inner-city latte set have ‘em if they wanted them. The Greens actually took the seat of Melbourne from Labor and may end up with one or two more, but that didn’t matter because Labor won enough seats back from the Liberals in those outer suburbs to form Government in their own right. Sure, the Greens can claim ‘history’ in getting their first MP(s) elected to the lower house but it’s a totally hollow victory as Labor can (and will) govern without them.
Andrews’ script was copybook. He gambled (correctly) that Napthine’s aggressiveness and threats over the $3 billion Federal funding and $1.1 billion compensation package would not wash with an electorate that clearly did not like Napthine’s stance and tone that amounted to an effective attempt at blackmailing them into voting for a return of the Coalition, in order to save $4 billion. He let Napthine rattle on and, as it turned out, gave him enough rope to hang himself.
Make no mistake, in the last week the election was still there for the taking by the Coalition. It was still up for grabs. If only Napthine had not chosen to emphasise how he was using the East-West tunnel funding as a sort of booby trap to ward off people from voting Labor. If only he hadn’t underestimated the voters’ intelligence. And if only if he’d had the balls to tell Tony Abbott NOT to announce in that last week that the threat of withdrawing that funding if Labor won was very real.
Much to my delight, Victorian voters reacted quite angrily to being treated like second class idiots and the polls did not shift one little bit. Well, actually they did shift marginally … to Labor. The final result on a two-party preferred being Labor 52.5, Coalition 47.5, a remarkable result to actually not only halt the trend back to the Coalition but to even turn the tide back in their favour.
All thanks to 3 people being (in order):
Daniel Andrews for sticking to his guns in the face of a full on Coalition onslaught throughout the final week.
Denis Napthine for going over-the-top in aggressively threatening voters would be ‘punished’ (by both him and Abbott) if they dared to vote Labor.
Tony Abbott for publicly endorsing Napthine’s gun-at-the-head approach.
Victorians (well, Aussies in general) don’t take kindly to that sort of political bullying. Denis Napthine certainly shot himself in the foot with his semi-blackmail tactics, aided and abetted by Tony Abbott.
BUT, does this result mean anything Federally? According to Opposition Leader Bill Shorten it does:
“They said this couldn’t happen. They said that a first term government couldn’t lose… (this is) history in the making … Victorians have made a clear choice that will be heard all across the nation.”
I think Bill might be getting a bit carried away. I mean, it’s not like Abbott is on a knife-edge majority like Napthine was. It’s not like the ALP only has to pick up 4 or 5 seats in 2016 to defeat Tony Abbott. No, they actually need to win at least 20 seats to do that.
This result makes it clear that Abbott is on the nose in Victoria at least and will suffer some kind of reduced numbers next time around. But I hardly think Tony Abbott is losing much sleep over it. Let’s face it, Victoria doesn’t really figure on his radar. Does he even know where it is? Does he even care? I doubt it.
Anyway, it’s well done to Daniel Andrews. At 42 years of age he should easily be Premier for at least 8 years – i.e. two terms – because I seriously doubt Victorians will turn back to the Coalition again anytime soon, having seen how unready they were to resume Govt in 2010 after 11 years in Opposition. And having seen how little they’d learnt.
On the other hand, Labor is back in its right place in the great southern State of Victoria while the Coalition of Crap is in disarray with both Napthine and Ryan (the Nats leader) stepping down.
It just shows you that doing favours for your big construction company mates and property developers – as the Coalition in Victoria is renowned for – is a real voter turn off. I doubt they’ll ever change. Not down here.
You people up north in NSW & Queensland probably don’t understand that, in Victoria, the Liberals are not so much about governing the State as they are about carving up public property for developers and doing big favours for their big mates. It’s been that way since Kennett won office in 1992. They won’t (and can’t) change. And that’s why Vics can’t stomach them.
Victorian Labor, on the other hand, is actually about responsible and conservative Government, exemplified in such conservative stalwarts as Steve Bracks, John Brumby and (now) Daniel Andrews. They hold all the important and relevant political ground from moderate left to centre to moderate right, whereas the Libs down here actually seem to operate outside the political sphere in some kind of corporate and secret deals la-la land.
Good riddance to them. And well done to my fellow Victorians for having the good sense (and guts) to call the Coalition on their phony projects, side deals, hollow threats, bluffs and outright bullying. It’s certainly a better State today. Sanity has been restored.
I don’t know if readers have noticed but I have not been feeling the blogging muse much lately. Its probably a combination of my health issues, a couple of domestic issues and just feeling rather uninspired by current events. That said though the news reports suggesting that Clive Palmer’s eponymous party is getting close to imploding has brightened me up no end. You really know that its over when Palmer starts sprouting conspiracy theories
Palmer told ABC radio Lambie was sent to “infiltrate” the PUP, a claim Lambie has shrugged off.
“When you start a new party like our party, the established parties and others try to wreck it,” Palmer said. “She’s been sent in there by someone to cause trouble and I think that’s the reality of it.
“You’ve only got to look at what happened to all the other parties, the tactics that were used to discredit them … and there’s no reason to think that wouldn’t happen to our party,” he said.
Palmer went on to reiterate his concerns on Channel Seven on Monday morning, accusing the senator of being “controlled by lobbyists” and seeking to “blackmail the government”.
But it gets better (well in soap opera terms it does) with the scuttle butt being pushed by the Guardian now claiming that Lambieis not only about to leave Palmer but will be forming her own party as well:
Just back to Jacqui Lambie briefly to outline the events of the weekend, just in case you were having a life. Lambie was in Tassie consulting with her voters, supporters and mentors, including an unnamed large poppy grower on what to do about her predicament.
Clive Palmer was getting more and more frustrated that he could not control Lambie. By last night, as Lambie was flying in, Palmer put out a statement raising allegations that Lambie had accepted disability payments at the same time she was on a fulltime salary for Palmer United.
Furthermore, Palmer alleges that in January 2014, before she started in the senate but while she was a paid member of PUP, Lambie supported the establishment of an Australian Defence Veterans Party (Lambie Party). He accused Lambie of acting dishonestly, lying about him and using veterans to increase her public standing without acting on their behalf.
Having a person of questionable honesty who had previously been charged and convicted by the Australian Army has been a disappointment for the Palmer United Party. Senator Lambie never declared her convictions prior to her endorsement for the Palmer United Party.
Lambie’s chief of staff Rob Messenger said Camp Jacqui will be putting out an “in-depth” statement later today.
Schadenfreude does not quite do it as a descriptor but further to that I can’t I can’t help but thinking that this whole kit and caboodle is a wake up call to our polity that should be reminding us that the way that our Senate is elected needs reform.
Stay tuned because the road is getting bumpy and the seat-belts have been removed…
The only question that we have to consider is will the rise of Lambie be worth the fall of Palmer
This is a terribly sad story not so much because this not entirely unattractive young woman was sad and stupid enough to root Rover but because she was also dumb enough to record her shameful perversions on her mobile phone and then keep the recordings! How dumb is that? Heck I think even Socky would be uninterested in this skanky excuse for a woman now….
Hat tip to Andrew Bolt on this one:
WHY is it bad to hack and expose photographs of a woman’s naked body but apparently OK to steal and make public the contents of a man’s soul?
This is the question that should burn in our minds in the wake of the Barry Spurr scandal.
For just a few weeks ago, when a hacker invaded the iCloud accounts of female celebs and rifled through their intimate snaps, there was global outrage… To peer into a woman’s most intimate moments was a “sexual violation”, said a writer for Guardian Australia…
Fast forward to last week, and some of the same people whose jaws hit the floor at the audacity of those who leaked these women’s private, unguarded pics were cheering the hacking of Spurr’s private, unguarded words.
Spurr, a professor of poetry at the University of Sydney, has had his private emails pored over and published by pseudo-radical, eco-miserabilist website New Matilda. In some of his emails, in what he has since claimed was a cheeky competition between him and his friends to see who could be the least PC, Spurr used words that would no doubt cause pinot gris to be spilled if they were uttered at a dinner party.
He described Tony Abbott as an “Abo lover”, referred to a woman as a “harlot”, called Nelson Mandela a “darky”, and used “Mussies” for Muslims and “chinky-poos” for Chinese. He now has been suspended by the university.
Many people will wince on reading those words. Just as we will have winced if we happened upon those photos of well-known women doing porno poses or engaging in shocking sex talk in videos shot by their boyfriends.
And that’s because these behaviours, both Spurr’s knowingly outrageous banter and the actresses’ knowingly sluttish poses, share something important in common: they were private acts, not intended for public consumption. They were things done or said between intimates, far from the eyes and ears of respectable society. Yet where right-on commentators and tweeters stood up for the right of famous women not to have their private nakedness splashed across the internet, they have relished in the exposure of Spurr’s soul to the panting, outraged mob.
A most worthy argument from one of the lefties I truly respect.
With the reports of the attack on the Canadian parliament still echoing around the mainstream media it seems that this is, surprise surprise another Jihadist attack :
Ottawa was put into lockdown overnight Australian time after Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, 32, shot to death a Canadian soldier standing guard at the nation’s war memorial on Wednesday, then stormed Parliament in a hail of gunfire before he was killed by the sergeant-at-arms.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared the act a “terror attack” as he said that Canadians would not be intimidated by such actions.
I do think that I may be re reading a rather well worn sermon if I say that this is yet another proof that allowing ourselves to be blind to the religious affiliations of the immigrants that have flooded into the western countries after the second world war. To some extent this is the truth that dare not speak its name. You see if anyone dares to say that there is a problem with so many of those who follow the religion invented by Mohammad we are shouted down as if we are advocating under age buggery. just look at the sort of panicked tweet from from the deputy leader of the Greens:
— sarah hanson-young (@sarahinthesen8) October 23, 2014
The far left are altogether too keen to make excuses for Muslim migrants and one of the big ways they do this is to denounce anyone who even implicitly questions the bonafides of any Muslim . However I think that there have been enough instances of Jihadists emerging form the western communities of the Muslim Diaspora for us to at least question the wisdom of allowing the importation of further Muslim immigrants.
No matter how many virtues that we may find in multiculturalism, like the things that have clearly enriched our society, we can’t pretend that it is a rose without thorns and our task as a culture is to find a way that we can enjoy the blossoms without bleeding profusely from the thorns, and that may require some very tough decisions, decisions that sir Humphrey would describe as “very courageous”