fuck offFatherTed wrote:
neighbours is a pretty good tv show.
Last edited by Spark (2009-11-28 23:33:00)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Is he spamming?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
was making a funny since neighbours isnt shown in convict land afaik.
OT, wtf your politics are nearly as mental as NI
OT, wtf your politics are nearly as mental as NI
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
That's why I asked. I'm following this thread with hopes of actually learning something.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
same, never really given much thought to aussie politiks, but they are seemingly crazy.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
We have a tv show called Neighbours here, Ted.FatherTed wrote:
was making a funny since neighbours isnt shown in convict land afaik.
OT, wtf your politics are nearly as mental as NI
So, now that you know.
Spark wrote:
fuck off
no, it's just that neighbours is a shitpile that should be burnt with a blowtorch.Kmarion wrote:
Is he spamming?
---
Well Turnbull ain't going down quietly, in fact he doesn't seem to be going down at all:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 … 756567.htm
Federal Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has attacked his Liberal opponents as wreckers who are destroying the party.
There is a strong feeling within the Opposition that the embattled Mr Turnbull cannot hold onto the leadership when his party votes in a spill on Tuesday.
This morning on Channel Nine he launched an attack on his critics, singling out Nick Minchin and Tony Abbott, calling their strategies "catastrophic" for the party.
"They will not give up until they have bullied and intimidated the majority into agreeing with their position," he said.
"These men are leading us into an electoral catastrophe."
Last edited by Spark (2009-11-28 23:47:06)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I've never liked the Liberals, and thought Turnbull really bungled the "Utegate" affair badly, but he is dead right with this one.
The Coalition is tearing itself apart and to not act on climate change would be the death of them for many elections to come.
The Coalition is tearing itself apart and to not act on climate change would be the death of them for many elections to come.
What specific action on climate change? What has the opposition presented?AussieReaper wrote:
I've never liked the Liberals, and thought Turnbull really bungled the "Utegate" affair badly, but he is dead right with this one.
The Coalition is tearing itself apart and to not act on climate change would be the death of them for many elections to come.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I really respect Anthony Greens take on things, but he is way off on this one. Numerous polls have shown that people actually want an ETS, and are worried about Climate change. I think if they opposed it totally they would be relegated to obscurity for a long time.Anthony Green wrote:
Antony Green wrote:
If the party can't unite behind a decision to say yes to the CPRS legislation, I'm not sure they are any more likely to unite behind saying no. With the exception of Michael Johnston in Ryan, it seems to me the strong opponents of the CPRS hold safe seats or are Senators. It may be that the Coalition could adopt a stand in total opposition to the CPRS and go on to win the next election. I'm just yet to hear a senior Liberal frontbencher suggest that is what they want to do.
The opposition basically amended the govt's proposed cap-and-trade scheme (the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Pol … ion_Scheme
Essentially an C/T scheme beginning in the middle of 2011 with 5% 2020 target of 2000 levels that is raised to 25% if a suitable global agreement is reached.
The wiki page is not very good as it doesn't list all the subsidies and compensation packages given out the coal/oil/LNG/industry, which is the main point of contention between the govt and opposition... basically the amendments Turnbull negotiated increases the amount of compensation to industry. However, despite supporting the amendments the party seems to not want to pass the scheme
EDIT: The actual legislation is here http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/gove … ation.aspx
PS. The reason this has all come to a head now is that for no apparent economic, diplomatic or environmental reason (but a very, very obvious political one) the government wants this passed before Copenhagen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Pol … ion_Scheme
Essentially an C/T scheme beginning in the middle of 2011 with 5% 2020 target of 2000 levels that is raised to 25% if a suitable global agreement is reached.
The wiki page is not very good as it doesn't list all the subsidies and compensation packages given out the coal/oil/LNG/industry, which is the main point of contention between the govt and opposition... basically the amendments Turnbull negotiated increases the amount of compensation to industry. However, despite supporting the amendments the party seems to not want to pass the scheme
EDIT: The actual legislation is here http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/gove … ation.aspx
PS. The reason this has all come to a head now is that for no apparent economic, diplomatic or environmental reason (but a very, very obvious political one) the government wants this passed before Copenhagen.
Last edited by Spark (2009-11-29 00:02:57)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
It looks like a disagreement between the house/senate.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Basically.Kmarion wrote:
Looks like a disagreement between the house/senate.
The government, on its own, does not have the numbers to pass legislation in the senate:
Party Seats Held
Australian Labor Party 32
Liberal/National coalition 37
Australian Greens 5
Family First Party 1
Independents 1
In essence: Labor has 32 seats, the Coalition has 37, the Greens have 5 (that number will rise), and then there's Fielding and Xenophon.
So in order to pass the legislation, the Government needs the support of both the Greens and either Fielding or Xenophon, or it needs the support of the Coalition. It can't get Greens support (they think the scheme is pathetically weak and the compensation to polluters is nothing short of a sellout), Xenophon usually sides with the Greens and Fielding... let's not go there, thus it needs Coalition support.
Last edited by Spark (2009-11-29 00:12:22)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Do they vote against the party platform at all? I imagine not so much with an issue like climate.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
There currently is no party platform, that's the problem. The liberal-progressives like Turnbull, Hockey et al want action on climate change but are wary of economic costs. The conservatives like Minchin, Abbott etc. aren't climate change deniers per se but they are skeptics and while not opposed to the idea of an ETS are extremely cautious of economic costs. Then there are the crazies like Tuckey and the Nationals who use eyebrow raising arguments and rail against the ETS in the first place ("carbon dioxide is a fertilizer!").Kmarion wrote:
Do they vote against the party platform at all? I imagine not so much with an issue like climate.
But generally crossing the floor is extremely rare on an issue like this.
Last edited by Spark (2009-11-29 02:19:06)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
That depends. The Labor party seems to do all of its negotiating behind closed doors (Labor Caucus). The negotiations are pretty fierce, but when they come to a decision they generally tow the party line ( whether individuals like it or not).Kmarion wrote:
Do they vote against the party platform at all? I imagine not so much with an issue like climate.
The Liberal party does this to some extent but there seems to be more of a degre of lattitude. If individuals dont agree with policy they may not always tow party line. More often than not , they do though. This makes the Labor party slightly inflexible, but sort of solid. But the Liberals have a bit more chance to speak their mind, although it can make the party seem weaker.
With this issue, Labor is staying with party platform, while the Liberals seem to be following a number of positions.
Also looks like Hockey as opposition leader on Monday, Dutton as deputy. He promised he wouldnt challenge Turnbull yesterday. But seems happy to break that promise today. I also saw on the news that Hockey came out of a meeting with John Howard today. I am not suprised he had his mits all over this one. He is probably the most cunning/conniving politician there ever was. And he hated Turnbull for being too liberal.
Hockey is probably a smarter idea for the Libs because he is reasonably moderate, and seems to have some standing with the ultra conservatives. I guess he feels that the party cant afford to continue to take this political damage, and he must stand up and take the leadership.
Like I said before he is a political lightweight, so its interesting to see if he can make a go of it.
Hockey is probably a smarter idea for the Libs because he is reasonably moderate, and seems to have some standing with the ultra conservatives. I guess he feels that the party cant afford to continue to take this political damage, and he must stand up and take the leadership.
Like I said before he is a political lightweight, so its interesting to see if he can make a go of it.
Meh. I hope that Turnbull wins, personally. Guy has balls and brains, a rarity in politics.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Totally agree there. Turnbull is the kind of person that should be leading the liberals. Having said that, I get the impression that his position is untenable, and the party seeks to limit the damage its receieved lately. They want to clear the slate, and thats where Hockey comes in. He talks to the moderates/ and can deal with the ultra cons. This may also make him a bit of a jack of all trades , good at none ( so to speak).Spark wrote:
Meh. I hope that Turnbull wins, personally. Guy has balls and brains, a rarity in politics.
I would point something out here. Everyone talks about Turnbull alienating the base, but this isn't America and since there is compulsary attendance here, how many wouldn't bother to vote? The overwhelming majority would vote liberal come rain hail or shine. Alienation of the base only comes when the base doesn't bother to show up, but since you have to show up... I'm pretty sure most, having been made to show up at the voting hall, would actually vote.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
The point is spark, that those who are die hard Liberals and would vote Liberal anyway, are the people that are arguing to Abbott that they should reject this bill.
Why the Coalition think moving further to the right is good strategy is anyone's guess. They are fighting for votes they would be getting anyway.
edit:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/op … 5804740400
This was a good take on it ^
Why the Coalition think moving further to the right is good strategy is anyone's guess. They are fighting for votes they would be getting anyway.
edit:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/op … 5804740400
This was a good take on it ^
Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-11-29 03:35:05)
Right, but that's a rather hollow argument don't you think?AussieReaper wrote:
The point is spark, that those who are die hard Liberals and would vote Liberal anyway, are the people that are arguing to Abbott that they should reject this bill.
Why the Coalition think moving further to the right is good strategy is anyone's guess. They are fighting for votes they would be getting anyway.
edit:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/op … 5804740400
This was a good take on it ^
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I was just browsing Tuesday's Hansard (that was the day of the first leadership spill), on question time: and I found this gem:
More, from the same Question Time:
Insert derisive laughter from about 50 opposition members at about every pause in Rudd and the Speaker's bits and you might get a sense.Mr RUDD—I do admire the member for Farrer’s treatment of chronology! For the actual years that she is talking about, I do not have those figures in front of me—I just do not. But I do happen to have a few other figures for the years that she spoke about, because I thought she might ask this question, which has just been asked in the Senate, which is about arrivals by plane. Let me go to the years that she was just talking
about. Total asylum seekers arriving—but we do not want that, do we?
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Pyne—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister of course is extremely powerful but it is not within his gift to change the question to a question about plane arrivals. It was a question about boat people and that is how he should answer it.
The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. Order! The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
Mr RUDD—I said in terms of the figures that the honourable member is in search of that I did not have them available to me. But what I do have available, because it has been a matter in the public debate and I have just been informed that it has been raised in the Senate, and obviously the member for Sturt is very sensitive about the thousands who came here—
Mr Pyne—Mr Speaker, on a point of order, the Prime Minister is a member of the House of Representatives. It is not up to him to answer questions that have been asked in the Senate. If he wants to get a question on people who arrive by plane he should answer a dorothy dixer from his own side.
The SPEAKER—Order, the Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER—The member for Sturt is warned! I am not sure when he was at the dispatch box the Manager for Opposition Business was actually raising a point of order on relevance, because he referred to the Senate question. But I just say that the Prime Minister is responding to the question. The chair has not got the power to decide the way in which the Prime Minister responds to questions. With due respect I will assist the Manager of Opposition Business by indicating to him that I suggest he research the conduct of this place during the last parliament. He will find that the Prime Minister of the day would say that where terminology, as in this question, used asylum seekers, unauthorised arrivals, if in fact the response made reference to those things it fulfilled the relevance standing order, and I am in agreement with that until the Procedure Committee gives the House a suggestion about different standing orders.
Mr Pyne—On the point of order, Mr Speaker, with great respect to your ruling, the standing order 104 says that an answer must be relevant to the question. If you, as the Speaker, are not prepared to rule that a question that was asked in the Senate about boat people arrivals from plane is relevant to this question, then who is supposed to rule that it is irrelevant to the question? Who is supposed to do that if you do not do it? The
SPEAKER—I am not ruling anything about the possibility that you have a problem about a Senate question. A question was asked in this place by the member for Farrer. Included in that question was reference to unauthorised arrivals and asylum seekers. I am saying to you—
Mr Snowdon—Shut up, loser!
The SPEAKER—Order! The Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Service Delivery is warned! We will move on. The Prime Minister has the call.
More, from the same Question Time:
Mr KEENAN (3.00 pm)—Mr Speaker, my question is again to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister says, as he did in relation to my previous question, ‘From my perspective, good news all round,’ does he mean that it is good news to see the back of the CFMEU and he gets to keep their money? Or will he instruct the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party to send those donations back?
Mr RUDD—Mr Speaker, on the first part of the question—
Ms Gillard interjecting—
The SPEAKER—Order!
Ms Gillard interjecting—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER—Order! The Prime Minister has the call!
Mr RUDD—This seems to result in considerable animation all round!
Ms Gillard interjecting—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER—Order! A number of members on the frontbench on my left and the Deputy Prime Minister are denying the Prime Minister the call.
The SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney on a point of order.
Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—
Mr Crean interjecting—
The SPEAKER—Order!
Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—
The SPEAKER—The member for North Sydney on a point of order.
Mr Hockey—No brown paper bags on our side, mate.
I suppose they ban all objects that can be swung or thrown during Question Time lest an all out brawl start.Mr SULLIVAN (3.06 pm)—Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Hockey interjecting—
Mr Dutton interjecting—
Mr SULLIVAN—Mr Speaker, do I have to wait for Tweetle-dee and Tweetle-dumb?
The SPEAKER—Has the Treasurer concluded? Has the Treasurer concluded? Treasurer?
Mr Hockey—Just bring Ken Henry in
Mr Albanese—Mr Speaker, that was an outrageous slur on the Secretary of the Treasury, which is now on the record.
An opposition member—He’s an ignorant Treasurer!
A government member—Don’t be so ridiculous!
Mr Anthony Smith—Well, he is an idiot! Put that on the record, too.
Last edited by Spark (2009-11-29 04:31:50)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Mind you, thanks to Senator Fielding the Senate is no less good at providing a source of hilarity:
Senator FIELDING (Victoria—Leader of the Family First Party) (10.23 am)—I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT—Leave is granted for two minutes.
Senator FIELDING—A bloke cannot marry his brother; it is not right. A woman cannot marry their sister; it is not right. A bloke cannot marry a bloke because it is not right and a female cannot marry a female because it is not right.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator FIELDING—No, I don’t support this.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Tbh Question Time for the house of reps has some of the best insults I've ever heard thrown around.
Often very glib, subtle and witty. Always entertaining.
Often very glib, subtle and witty. Always entertaining.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.