Jump to content
Melbourne Football

Domestic Politics


cadete
 Share

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Deeming said:

I'm surprised that people are surprised by this.

ANTIFA and the rest of the Alt-Left have become increasingly violent over the last few years. When the media refuses to cover their stories it condones their violence 

I wonder where these "increasingly violent" types have come from... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tesla said:

TBH the only thing that will save the Yes vote is that brexit and trump already happened, surely removed the novelty of the troll vote

I received mine a few hours before going overseas. Voted yes and posted it as quick as I could before the yes campaign went full retard and made me change my mind. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cadete said:

How the fuck could someone be so dumb that they would think headbutting Tony Abbott will help the "Yes" campaign?

Can’t stand Abbott but I do wish he gave him an uppercut and KO’d him similar to when the Federal Police pulled over a motorist for abusing Abbott while cycling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shahanga said:

Libs going shit, getting smashed in the polls. Surely Mal No 2 won't still be there at the next election? 

@Deeming @cadete

The polls are faltering him as well and $1.55 are good odds IMO on the ALP, 

The ALP have been pretty quiet on the new Education Funding system for a reason as well... too use as election fodder.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shahanga said:

Libs going shit, getting smashed in the polls. Surely Mal No 2 won't still be there at the next election? 

@Deeming @cadete

Depends if those that installed him are willing to stick to their decision and lose by keeping him there.

The problem is lack of viable alternatives. Anyone associated with Turnbull is tainted. And no one else who has a high profile has been seen to have an alternative vision other than Abbott and the left won't be willing to go back to him. Dutton could be an alternative but that's about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deeming said:

Depends if those that installed him are willing to stick to their decision and lose by keeping him there.

The problem is lack of viable alternatives. Anyone associated with Turnbull is tainted. And no one else who has a high profile has been seen to have an alternative vision other than Abbott and the left won't be willing to go back to him. Dutton could be an alternative but that's about it.

It would not matter if they changed Turnbull unless they also ditched several of his policies, most crucially his SES Policy.

Even then I cant see how the Swinging Voter getting behind the Libs who "understandably" spent years pointing at the unsuitability at three ALP Leadership Changes whilst in office for two terms... to then do the exact same thing.

ESP because despite being not a great Speaker or TV Personality - Bill Shorten has been the official leader of the ALP since they lost office and the unofficial leader for a far greater period of time.

It sounds ridiculous in hindsight but come next election a vote for Shorten the Kingslayer is now the Australian Public's best chance of returning to having a Federal Government with a Leader who can control his own party room as well as being PM.

Edited by cadete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tesla said:

Communists generally are good at controlling their party room

You now throw around the term "Communist" around like a SJW does the same with term "Fascist".. its starting to become meaningless.

If you despise "Leftards" (Your Word) so much then you would should realize that the biggest block to actual Socialist like parties (eg. The Greens) gaining more traction is a strong ALP. 

You can say that you despise them as well (Which fair enough) but at least for you the ALP is bound by the electorate as a Major Party with what policies they can actually implement as they always want to seek re-election. 

It is the same case with how when ever their is a strong Liberal Party the Redneck Right are usually non players in Australian Politics.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly can we start sending bills to protestors for police time wasted? Every thing has protests and counter protests these days with a bunch of police having to be there. 

Surely we're talking at least $250 an hour per police officer if a billing rate was to be calculated. 

Wonder how many protests you'll have when $30k needs to be paid every time. 

Edited by Tesla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, HeartFc said:

Ye I've talked to a copper about it, they love it. Getting called into to man a protest would mean about 5 hours overtime which is about $900 per copper for a small protest. They'll usually take about 50 cops just incase violence breaks out, so thats about $45k a pop.

It's more than that, if it's 45k just in pay to the cops than its probably over 100k in total cost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thisphantomfortress said:

@HeartFc you going to milo? I'm thinking of just to watch the protests. 

Had no idea he was coming, just got back yesterday from the Marshall Islands in the North Pacific where I had shit internet. I probably would go for a laugh but I'm gonna continue traveling, next stop NSW central coast, QLD then South America  B).

Went fuck it and quit my job. Seriously can't stand Victoria anymore so off to where ever I feel like. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
15 hours ago, Tesla said:

Electricity market broken due to bad government regulations. 

Solution is apparently more regulation. 

:hmm::hmm::hmm:

 

Isn't that government in a nutshell. Fuck something up then open a new department to fix the fuck up but fuck up that up too... its ok though because we just "created" 12000 new "jobs".

#Recession2018 #1776willcommenceagain

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HeartFc said:

Isn't that government in a nutshell. Fuck something up then open a new department to fix the fuck up but fuck up that up too... its ok though because we just "created" 12000 new "jobs".

#Recession2018 #1776willcommenceagain

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jw1739 said:

Victoria to ban "single-use plastic bags."

FMD - another regulation. This state/country is so over-regulated. The answer is not just to ban something - the answer is to learn how to use something properly.

The best bit is that the two major supermarkets already decided to get rid of them.

The state government is literally just trying to look like they're doing something. 

Fwiw, they should have just put a tax on them rather than banning them. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plastic bags have been priced in the UK for years. 5p when i left (years ago). Gives consumers the choice, pay a minimal amount which covers the manufacturing, environmental and disposal costs or bring your own. I dislike new taxes as much as the next person, but at the very least i prefer having the choice to avoid them.

^ as @Tesla had said above.

Edited by Tangerine
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tangerine said:

Plastic bags have been priced in the UK for years. 5p when i left (years ago). Gives consumers the choice, pay a minimal amount which covers the manufacturing, environmental and disposal costs or bring your own. I dislike new taxes as much as the next person, but at the very least i prefer having the choice to avoid them.

^ as @Tesla had said above.

I don't think of "user pays" as a tax as such, because there is (usually) an alternative to paying. A casual search seems to indicate that the U.K. initiative has had good success.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/30/england-plastic-bag-usage-drops-85-per-cent-since-5p-charged-introduced

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/tesco-to-end-sales-of-5p-carrier-bags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

44 minutes ago, GreenSeater said:

The Coalition have lost their majority as Barnaby Joyce is ruled ineligible for parliament. Wowee

....I'm still puzzled how this works , he's ruled ineligible for Parliament , but can contest a bye election and be voted back into Parliament ....

this is for  all the  7

Sounds like a huge waste of time money and resources, for someone who was born here with a parent born overseas , FFS we've had 2 recent Prime Ministers that were born O/S and not a mention of conflict of interest, perhaps I'm just a naive old bastard 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, japiedog said:

 

....I'm still puzzled how this works , he's ruled ineligible for Parliament , but can contest a bye election and be voted back into Parliament ....

this is for  all the  7

Sounds like a huge waste of time money and resources, for someone who was born here with a parent born overseas , FFS we've had 2 recent Prime Ministers that were born O/S and not a mention of conflict of interest, perhaps I'm just a naive old bastard 

1. I'm assuming that Barnaby can stand again because he's now renounced his NZ citizenship.

2. The law is an ass. The Court has applied the strictest interpretation of S44, and followed the precedent of previous judgements on the matter, based on the interpretation of a document framed over 116 years ago. I'm not surprised. I've looked through the judgements, and I'm actually surprised that Canavan and Xenophon have survived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jw1739 said:

1. I'm assuming that Barnaby can stand again because he's now renounced his NZ citizenship.

2. The law is an ass. The Court has applied the strictest interpretation of S44, and followed the precedent of previous judgements on the matter, based on the interpretation of a document framed over 116 years ago. I'm not surprised. I've looked through the judgements, and I'm actually surprised that Canavan and Xenophon have survived.

The law is not an ass, its the constitution a separate document altogether and the wording in S44 is of course fairly unambiguous. The alternative was to accept that ignorance was an excuse would open a huge can of worms. So the choice was clear: accept the wording or accept ignorance.

As for the fact that it was written 116 years ago, well ancient rome decreed that murder was not acceptable and that was over 2000 years ago.

When it comes down to it, the candidates and the political parties should have checked. Their failure indicates that they dont pay attention to detail or they just don't care. It is a reflection on the candidates and the parties rather than the constitution.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

The law is not an ass, its the constitution a separate document altogether and the wording in S44 is of course fairly unambiguous. The alternative was to accept that ignorance was an excuse would open a huge can of worms. So the choice was clear: accept the wording or accept ignorance.

As for the fact that it was written 116 years ago, well ancient rome decreed that murder was not acceptable and that was over 2000 years ago.

When it comes down to it, the candidates and the political parties should have checked. Their failure indicates that they dont pay attention to detail or they just don't care. It is a reflection on the candidates and the parties rather than the constitution.

Fuck me a lot of Bundy will be being knocked back tonight...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/10/2017 at 9:05 PM, NewConvert said:

The law is not an ass, its the constitution a separate document altogether and the wording in S44 is of course fairly unambiguous. The alternative was to accept that ignorance was an excuse would open a huge can of worms. So the choice was clear: accept the wording or accept ignorance.

As for the fact that it was written 116 years ago, well ancient rome decreed that murder was not acceptable and that was over 2000 years ago.

When it comes down to it, the candidates and the political parties should have checked. Their failure indicates that they dont pay attention to detail or they just don't care. It is a reflection on the candidates and the parties rather than the constitution.

I have no sympathy for the ones born overseas or the bloke who said "my mum did it" (though he seems to have got off), for those whose parents were born OS I have a bit of sympathy, but without knowing the details, only a little, I mean I know heaps of people who have used this situation to get "passports of convenience" to make international travel easier, so citizenship through your parents is hardly a secret.

After the Heather Hill case I would have thought all politicians and parties would have been all over this law. Paints the greens and nationals in particular in a poor light.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

I have no sympathy for the ones born overseas or the bloke who said "my mum did it" (though he seems to have got off), for those whose parents were born OS I have a bit of sympathy, but without knowing the details, only a little, I mean I know heaps of people who have used this situation to get "passports of convenience" to make international travel easier, so citizenship through your parents is hardly a secret.

After the Heather Hill case I would have thought all politicians and parties would have been all over this law. Paints the greens and nationals in particular in a poor light.

I'm more sympathetic, but I agree that people standing for "high office" should pay more attention to these things than Joe Public. IMO "citizenship through your parents" (which my son has acquired by deliberate action on his part) is not quite the same as my own assumption that when I became an Australian citizen (which was before my son was born) I automatically cancelled my British citizenship. Only through these recent events have I learned that in fact that is not the case and that I am technically still a British citizen even though I enjoy no rights and privileges in the U.K. without "re-activating" that citizenship.

My basic contention is that when the Constitution was framed the intent of S44 was to exclude from Parliament people who might have or harbour hostile intentions towards Australia, not to disqualify people who left Canada when one week old, or were born in Australia and lived here all their lives but through some quirk of the laws of another country are technically a citizen of that country, etc. etc. I understand that the recent census reveals that nearly 50% of us were born overseas (and are therefore likely to fall foul of S44) and it just seems utterly stupid to me that the current situation has occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2017 at 2:40 PM, GreenSeater said:

The Coalition have lost their majority as Barnaby Joyce is ruled ineligible for parliament. Wowee

Not lost their majority.

They had 76 out of 150

Now they have 75 out of 149

If Barnaby loses the bye-election (highly unlikely) then they will have lost their majority.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jw1739 said:

I'm more sympathetic, but I agree that people standing for "high office" should pay more attention to these things than Joe Public. IMO "citizenship through your parents" (which my son has acquired by deliberate action on his part) is not quite the same as my own assumption that when I became an Australian citizen (which was before my son was born) I automatically cancelled my British citizenship. Only through these recent events have I learned that in fact that is not the case and that I am technically still a British citizen even though I enjoy no rights and privileges in the U.K. without "re-activating" that citizenship.

My basic contention is that when the Constitution was framed the intent of S44 was to exclude from Parliament people who might have or harbour hostile intentions towards Australia, not to disqualify people who left Canada when one week old, or were born in Australia and lived here all their lives but through some quirk of the laws of another country are technically a citizen of that country, etc. etc. I understand that the recent census reveals that nearly 50% of us were born overseas (and are therefore likely to fall foul of S44) and it just seems utterly stupid to me that the current situation has occurred.

I have been thinking about this. And I am leaning towards the view that the constitutional framers have it right still. Three examples as to why this remains the case: Russian interference in the USA and German elections, the repeated attempts by hostile parties to break into defence (and recently succeeded), and the number of IS terrorists who were offspring of migrants but were born in the new country. This tells me that although it is a simple check it could remain effective on a first pass.

Conversely, there is nothing to stop an Australian citizen who meets S44 requirements from having a conflict of interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NewConvert said:

I have been thinking about this. And I am leaning towards the view that the constitutional framers have it right still. Three examples as to why this remains the case: Russian interference in the USA and German elections, the repeated attempts by hostile parties to break into defence (and recently succeeded), and the number of IS terrorists who were offspring of migrants but were born in the new country. This tells me that although it is a simple check it could remain effective on a first pass.

Conversely, there is nothing to stop an Australian citizen who meets S44 requirements from having a conflict of interest.

Nor, indeed, someone who has formally renounced their citizenship of a country that becomes hostile towards Australia from sympathising (and possibly actively working clandestinely for) that country. Hence, I suppose, the internment of German-Australians in WW1 and WW2.

The more we think about it, the murkier the whole business becomes.

I'm not actually arguing that the Constitution had it wrong at the time, more that IMO the High Court has erred in in its judgement in (perhaps only some of) these recent cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...