Home » Posts tagged 'Penny Wong'
Tag Archives: Penny Wong
Its rather apt that no matter how much cash the Gillard government throw around the polls remain in the wipe out zone. Any other government would be reconsidering their entire political agenda but we are not talking about any other government we are talking about the Gillard Labor Government who are the masters of only one thing, the self inflicted wedgie.
Hmm did anyone really expect that the cash splash of pre-emptive compensation for the despised Carbon tax would give the Gillard any bounce? Frankly it can’t be doing them any good if they have made the Carbon Tax into the contemporary equivalent of buggery in the age of Mr Wilde, “its the tax that dare not speak its name” if the Government ads are anything to go by. I’m sure that the advertising spin merchants who pitched the latest campaign had the right idea to down play the connection between the cash splash and the carbon tax but the way that they refuse to mention it at all just ads to the public perception that Gillard is a sneaky and deceptive political operator. That is of course the very last thing that she needs if she hopes to even improve Labor’s chances from dire to just very bad. Are there no wise heads in this government that are willing to point out the last thing the voters will tolerate is bullshit on an issue that is the very reason that Labor is despised?
- Abbott won’t repeal carbon tax: Gillard
- Carbon Cops: Educate or Else
- The Gillard government’s deliberately deceptive advertising
- Gillard steps up carbon price defence
- Julia Gillard’s $700m carbon tax sweetener
- When’s a good time to introduce a great big new tax?
- Firms that Mislead Customers on Carbon Tax Face Up to $1.1 Million Fine
- Australia Government’s ‘Cash Splash’ Aimed At Calming Carbon-Tax Fears
- Carbon Tax Worries Australian Businesses
- Team Abbott and Prophecies of Doom
- Ask not for whom the bell tolls Julia, it tolls for thee
- Sould Bill Shorten be on suicide watch?
I vividly remember laughing heartily when I first saw this skit in the early seventies, in fact calling each other Bruce, to avoid confusion, was a running gag between my late father and I for quite a while, as Pommies living here we sort of got the parody of Australians in this sketch they were loud brash and often intolerant of difference. However over the last thirty odd years I have seen them change to be far more inclusive tolerant and welcoming of diversity. Its also clear that the attitude to homosexuals has changed a great deal over the intervening years since this sketch was made and now we live in an age when a homosexual person can be entirely open about their sexuality and that the law recognises their unions for all of the practical issues that matter. As a libertarian when it comes to the way that individuals choose to love I am more than happy to endorse the social changes that have been wrought on this issue . However I can’t help but be amused by the way that certain polies try to balance the competing imperatives of their support base, top of my jollies list is Julia and the ALP who have devised a really cute way of having the cake and eating it as well:
It seem to me that this is a grand way to please nobody and yet appease all, the grand gesture is there but it is also sure to fail a conscience vote in the house if the opposition refuses to allow a conscience vote on any bill to change the definition of marriage.
Up here in Queensland we have just had the parliament pass a law recognising civil unions for same sex partnerships and to be frank this is something that I endorse:
I have always favoured a separate legal recognition of enduring homosexual partnerships and the civil unions legislation here in Queensland seems to me to be a very reasonable reform. It is however not something that the opposition feels that it can’t just endorse for rather obvious political reasons. Some of its supporters clearly object to any changes to the law that gives any marriage like recognition to the partnerships of those who bat for the other team. Clearly one of the reasons that this law has materialised now is to attempt to wedge the LNP and alienate some of its more religiously conservative supporters. To counter this possibility Campbell Newman is trying a rather amusing tack :
The Bligh Government will race to make same-sex civil unions available within the next few months, amid a Liberal National Party threat to tear up the law if no one had registered their relationship by the time of a change of government.
During an interview with brisbanetimes.com.au on Friday, LNP leader Campbell Newman vowed to repeal the recently passed civil unions law if the LNP won the election and no ceremonies had occurred by that time.
But Mr Newman said the abolition of civil unions after couples had already entered into such arrangements would be “unacceptable and intolerable” and signalled an LNP government would not pursue repeal in that case.
Life must be a barrel of laughs if you are a Green Gay activist because it looks to me that the Gay marriage push has just crashed into the reality that the people do not actaully support any change to the marriage act as so may proponents of Gay marriage have been insisting . If nothing else the greens parliamentary stunt of a making the members seek the mood of their electorates on the issue seems to have gone really bad for the Greens with nearly two thirds of the members reporting that the people do not support any change to the act:
I do note that there is a fair bit more support for civil unions for homosexual couples according to the Age piece that I cite above so It looks to me that As the Labor party makes a move to give its members a conscience vote the efforts to bring about Gay Marriage in this country will amount to nothing. Is anyone really surprised by this? I for one am not especially when you take into account that a homosexual couple are treated the same way as a heterosexual couple by Centerlink, the tax office and for the purposes of inheritance (a good reform from Labor on that* 😉 )
I must say that I thought that this quote from Graham Perrett is particularly stupid
But Queensland Labor MP Graham Perrett, a Catholic, pointing to bullying and suicides, said it was ”time for everybody, every adult in Australia to be given the same opportunity … to wake up with their own loved one”.
Its stupid because there is absolutely no legal reason that would prevent a gay person doing what Graham Perrett thinks is a problem for homosexual couples who don’t need to be married to sleep together as often as they please.
* I am praising Labor for something here 🙂
Ah I bet all of the Luvvies are just going all gooey at the idea that this lesbian couple are bringing a child into their relationship and at the prospect of its arrival in December. Personally I wish them fair winds and fine weather in what can be a worrisome period of anticipation, however I can’t help thinking that there is and element of self deception here and the clear possibility that the child will be deprived of a father despite the claim that the father will have some (very limited by the sound of it) contact with the child. Sadly I suspect that all of the commentary is going to be about the “right” of Gay couples to have children rather than the rights of a child to know both of their biological parents …
Oh and am I the only one out there who gets peeved when they insist on describing this as an “IVF” conception when it is more likely to be just a case of artificial insemination by donor? My guess is that by calling it an ” IVF” process it disguises the fact that there is no fertility problem here rather it is a consequence of a homosexual lifestyle and lesbian misandry.
personmanship in the political process, or a good reason not to whine about sarcasm in debate
If anyone were to take the time to peruse the pages of Hansard or even the media’s public record you would soon be struck by one very obvious fact and that is the tendency for our MPs and senators to use cheeky sarcasm towards their political opposites. After all our politics is a combative and competitive sport of the tongue and the clever retort or put down is the stock in trade of any skilled politician. Even in a senate committee the Chair exists to act as umpire and if any comment is actually going too far in its content or taste then it may be withdrawn or apologised for. That is entirely reasonable.
Frankly I have watched the vision of this little spat several times and I would really like to see more of the meeting that preceded Wong spitting the dummy here because I suspect that it would contain a fair bit of the usual tendency of government minister trying to avoid providing real answers to reasonable requests. That said the conflated outrage about one off the cuff “Meow” is ridiculous and to some extent hypocritical. Personally I think that there is a real and admirable beauty to the clever use of sarcasm (think of Oscar Wilde) and those who would ban it must be terribly dull and dreary people. However as the piece in today’s OZ points out the Labor party are being particularly hypocritical over “Meowgate” because even Gillard has played the same sort of game herself:
But yesterday, Liberals Sophie Mirabella and Kelly O’Dwyer questioned Labor’s sincerity.
Ms Mirabella, who in 2008 was told by Labor MP Belinda Neal that evil thoughts could turn her unborn baby into a demon, told The Australian yesterday that none of the Labor women had complained when former Labor leader Mark Latham described a female journalist as “a skanky ho”.
“It was just hypocrisy for a Labor woman to raise this when the silence has been deafening when conservative women — politicians or journalists — have been attacked in the past,” Ms Mirabella said.
Ms O’Dwyer said Senator Bushby’s comment had been injudicious but he had apologised to Senator Wong.
“The Labor Party is absolutely hypocritical,” Ms O’Dwyer said.
“On one hand they get righteously indignant on this, where an apology was made right away. But you have other examples where there hasn’t been the same level of intensity.”
Senator Wong told ABC radio she also objected to the Opposition Leader’s recent comment that he wanted to “make an honest woman” of the Prime Minister when discussing Ms Gillard’s breach of her pre-election promise not to impose a carbon tax.
Senator Wong said: “We all know what that generally refers to, and that’s making sure the woman’s married. So, I think, Tanya’s quite right to name what she perceives is happening.”
Special Minister of State Gary Gray said Senator Bushby had apologised for his “inappropriate, dumb observations” and he hoped politicians would learn from the incident and accept that parliament was “not the place for reverting to type”.
Earlier, when Ms Gillard was challenged about her description of Mr Pyne, she accused journalists of misreporting her comment, urging them to check the record.
“I actually never used that terminology,” she said.
However, a copy of the parliamentary Hansard makes clear that Ms Gillard, comparing the relative merits of Mr Abbott and Mr Pyne, described the pair as a doberman and a poodle and noted that choosing between the two for a job was “a choice between macho and mincing”.
There are clear and reasonable constraints upon the way that participants in our democracy are expected to behave as they go about the business of politics and it is hardly surprising that players form all sides try to push the envelope as they sharpen and hone that most important political weapon, a clever tongue, to seek advantage in debate or any other element of the political process (like committee meetings). Now I very much prefer that such things are done with perfect sweetness and good manners but realise that when dealing with human beings perfect manners and absolute consideration of every word before it is set free upon the world would make for a very dull political process.
Politics is a tough sport and those who play at the elite level should realise that it is a game played on the basis of no quarter given and none expected in return. Which is why conflated outrage like that form Penny Wong and her supporters just reflects badly upon her and them rather than the man who made a vaguely insensitive remark in a senate committee meeting.
There are few efforts at promoting the AGW proposition that are as facile and stupid as the Cate Blanchette Carbon tax ad, presumably this is a professionally produced item but the iconography of the thing is just woeful, In the first instance just what credibility does Michael Caton or Cate Blanchette have on the topic?
But more importantly there is a wonderful Irony that the ad should feature professional actors as front people because actors are by profession tellers of lies. The carbon tax is not about addressing “climate change” , even its plaudits like Tim Flannery admit its not going to make a difference for at least a millennium (if at all), its about this stuff:
A good breakdown of the ad:
and finally Barnaby Joyce sums up perfectly why this tax is just plain BAD: