BF2S Forums Australian politics thread.

Cy's hit the nail on the head basically, at least from a practical/legal standpoint. The other matter to point out would be just how ridiculously behind Australia is and how recently most of the discrimination has been. There are laws still on the books which may make you reconsider your suggestion that "Aboriginals have equal rights". People talk about "reconciliation" as if the world alone achieves anything but it's just a gesture and seemingly that's all a lot of Australians are willing to offer.

Dilbert_X wrote:

How are Maoris represented in the NZ constitution? Or Indians in the 'Land of the Free' US constitution?

Not sure about the US but in NZ we have an uncodified constitution like the UK and Israel. It means our constitution isn't a written document as it is in Australia and the US but is made up of a number of different elements, among them is the Treaty of Waitangi which is our founding document signed in 1840. The purpose of the Treaty was to enable the British settlers and Maori to live together in New Zealand under a common set of laws and agreements. It... sort of worked, though in fairness the impacts of colonialism was never going to be completely mitigated with a scrap of paper, (the fact Maori had guns and knew how to use them helped too.) The Treaty wasn't very highly regarded but it established something of a blueprint for some form of racial harmony by recognising Maori and giving them a voice. It at least treated Maori like, you know, humans - which is more than Australia did for Aboriginals until the 1967 Aboriginal referendum, before which had Australia's Indigenous people considered under flora and fauna.

New Zealand still has its problems in terms of relations between the indigenous and non-indigenous population but any comparison with Australia will always make us look like fucking saints.

Will the double dissolution shenanigans distract everyone from the fact the coalition have no economic plan and no plan to plan to get a plan.

Yes [  ]

No  [  ]

Dilbert_X six months ago wrote:

I don't care for Abbott, I predict Turnbull will be a Gordon Brown - smug in his own cleverness but out of his depth when it comes to actually doing anything productive in the long term for the country.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-03-21 01:35:53)

Turnbull was never going to be able to do anything. He was voted in because the Coalition could no longer shoulder Abbott's tendency to bleed political capital. Turnbull was a way to cauterise that but they were never going to let him actually govern. Abbott's lot control the Liberals and they can't stand Turnbull. Remember they replaced him in 2009 - for Tony Abbott. That's how much they don't like him.

Every decision Turnbull has made has been to appease the malcontents but it hasn't been enough. He's had to keep all of Abbott's policies and abandon his own values and even then he still gets pricks like George Christensen making trouble over Safe Schools - a program that started under the Abbott Government.

Add to that a hostile senate and Turnbull's paralysed. Of course he wants an early election and a double dissolution one at that. With election victory he can use his mandate to tell the malcontents to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up, (to a certain extent,) and with senate voting reform and a double dissolution he can get rid of the cross-benchers and get the placid senate the Coalition has always needed to make up for its inability to negotiate. His only problem is that he risks running an election campaign on nothing as the only accomplishments he can speak of are Abbott's. Rudd had the same problem last time. Fortunately for Turnbull though he's running against a poorly-constructed sock puppet, (though to Shorten's credit he seems to have hired a new speech writer.)

So with a mandate and cooperative Senate Turnbull may be the PM people hoped he'd be. He might risk taking a few steps back from Abbott's idiotic policies and re-frame the Liberals' overall politics to a more centre position. The LNP right will still make trouble but they'd be rendered toothless if he gets the right results. And they'll behave to a point as well given their primary motivation as always is to keep their jobs.

The main problem is still the low standard of the political class across Australia. And you have to say, regardless of Turnbull's leadership skill or his business nous or political experience, no one person could fix that mess.

Dilbert_X wrote:

He still comes across as a smug git dicking around with political games while the country needs things done.

Absolutely and this is going to be one of his main hurdles. Labor as well as right wing Macquarie and News Ltd media will be hitting him with this big time, (and already have been.)

"Continuity and change?" What does that even mean?

To be fair Gillard's "Moving Forward" didn't mean shit either. Though at least she didn't steal that from "Veep".

Think it's a very Malcolm Turnbull slogan. Attempting to capture the same electoral lightning as Tony Abbott's lines but failing to make it as snappy by choosing a five syllable word to start with. People don't have the attention spans for five syllables, Mal! Scott and Mat had it right with their "work, save and invest", they'd have told you if you'd asked them and they didn't subconsciously want you to fail.

All this needs is Bill Shorten to announce "Can't Someone Else Do It?" as Labor's slogan and Aussie politics can rightfully take its place as a piece of living satire.

Ty wrote:

To be fair Gillard's "Moving Forward" didn't mean shit either. Though at least she didn't steal that from "Veep"

I have no idea what Turnbull is thinking now.

The Construction tribunal is good and must be created in the face of senate opposition.

The Road haulage tribunal is bad and must be closed down in the face of senate opposition.

Either way with falling opinion poll results now is the time to trigger an election and let Labor back in.

If labor wanted to be any less painful than what they already are they should probably drop that robboting auto prompter buzzword reader shorten.

Actually I've noticed a huge improvement in Shorten. I guarantee he's been receiving coaching. He's coming across as less wooden and dropped the zingers.

Look at what happened after the ABCC bill failed and Turnbull sort-of announced the July 2 election. Shorten held a press conference flanked by his Deputy and Shadow Treasurer, declared Labor ready for an election and outlined what they would fight the election on.

Compare that to what happened on the other side. Bishop and Morrison were obviously nonplussed about whether Turnbull would actually call the election. Joyce deflected by telling people that the Budget was the most important thing. After that display of shoulder-shrugging Turnbull comes out and says there will be an election on July 2 but he isn't calling it yet. Or something. No word on what exactly the Coalition will be fighting it on though it seems to be "we'll do what Labor says it'll do but we promise we won't spend as much or tax you as much."

What he could have done is face the media in the same way Shorten did, say that an election would be held on July 2 but would be actually called after the Budget to avoid the Government immediately going into caretaker mode. If questioned on what the Coalition would campaign on he could use some poli-speak bollocks about how their performance is their campaign and come up with something better later.

Shorten actually looks like he's leading a party. Turnbull looks like he's conducting an omnishambles.

As a plus I've been listening to Alan Jones and I swear by the time the election is over he's going to look like that Cohagen guy at the end of Total Recall.

OK, Abbott wasn't very good, Turnbull is not much better, or maybe worse.
I'd still pick either of them over anyone in Labor.