The Liberal Party - How long? - Part 2

[Saint]

Eradicate Islamic extremism

Eradicate and define antisemitism


They need to define the levers they would use to achieve that

But you can't pass a law with the word "Islam" in it, because it would be unconstitutional.

So you'd be banning all religious extremism.
And Eradicating all religious discrimination.

But the God-botherers in the LNP don't want that at all. They spent all of their last Government trying to approve more religious discrimination.

 

[peetoo]

But you can't pass a law with the word "Islam" in it, because it would be unconstitutional.

So you'd be banning all religious extremism.
And Eradicating all religious discrimination.

But the God-botherers in the LNP don't want that at all. They spent all of their last Government trying to approve more religious discrimination.

Totally agree

 

[Kirby]

"Be careful what you wish for".

Truer words have not been spoken.

 

[ferball]

I've been pointing out all along with this post-Bondi political attack.

They're all saying the ALP didn't do enough, but none of them have actually said what they want.

That's the whole point tho.

If they don't commit to a position they can't be criticised for a position when its flaws are shown.

 

[Saint]

Considering the leverage on the buildings on hotel accommodation, it's just paying off someone different's mortgage.

If they just built ~200 houses and paid them off, they wouldn't be paying off a new mortgage every 10 years for every new parliamentarian.

 

[Permission Capable]

But you can't pass a law with the word "Islam" in it, because it would be unconstitutional.

So you'd be banning all religious extremism.
And Eradicating all religious discrimination.

But the God-botherers in the LNP don't want that at all. They spent all of their last Government trying to approve more religious discrimination.

Speaking of unsalvageable.

 

[The Punter]

If they just built ~200 houses and paid them off, they wouldn't be paying off a new mortgage every 10 years for every new parliamentarian.

So the MPs get allocated houses but their staff can stay wherever they want?

 

[Saint]

So the MPs get allocated houses but their staff can stay wherever they want?

Yep.

I also think MPs should be paid more. But the whole accommodation thing is a rort currently.

 

[The Punter]

Yep.

I also think MPs should be paid more. But the whole accommodation thing is a rort currently.

So, we have staff getting more of a say in where they stay than their bosses, and multinational hotel conglomerates having their investments paid off before MPs (from another poster).

IMO the current situation is clearly in the "this is the worst solution, except for all the other ones" category.

My solution would be simple: take all the entitlements, give them to MPs as a bucket of cash (separate from current salary), let them spend it wherever they want, but all expenses publicly disclosed in real time.

If they want more staff, fine.
If they want better paid staff, fine.
If they want to carpetbomb their electorates with newsletters, fine.
If they want to spend it on antiques, fine. Good luck getting re-elected with that on your publicly disclosed electorate return.

It'll never happen though. Neither will any changes to this current situation.

 

[kalex6251]

cannot think of one reason why an interstate politician should own (or be in the process of purchasing) a property in canberra*

* with the obvious exception of ACT residents

 

[The Punter]

cannot think of one reason why an interstate politician should own (or be in the process of purchasing) a property in canberra*

* with the obvious exception of ACT residents

Can you think of a reason why owning two properties would be better than one?

I can take the per diem for accommodation while in Canberra and rent a hotel room, or use it to pay off a property where I can stay in the same place every time I am in Canberra.

I suspect most people would do what elected officials do when presented with the same options in this case.

 

[JackOutback]

Albanese must be pissing himself laughing. Why bother coming up with a way to wedge the Liberal Party when those clowns will just go and wedge themselves. Not even worthy of being in opposition at this point, let alone government. But that's what you get for trying to politicise a tragedy, they get what they deserve.

 

[kalex6251]

Can you think of a reason why owning two properties would be better than one?

I can take the per diem for accommodation while in Canberra and rent a hotel room, or use it to pay off a property where I can stay in the same place every time I am in Canberra.

I suspect most people would do what elected officials do when presented with the same options in this case.

pollies are not sent to canberra to build their ACT property portfolio

again, i cannot think of one reason why an interstate politician should own (or be in the process of purchasing) a property in canberra

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

pollies are not sent to canberra to build their ACT property portfolio

again, i cannot think of one reason why an interstate politician should own (or be in the process of purchasing) a property in canberra

When you spend 16-18 weeks somewhere, why would you not have your own place?

 

[kalex6251]

When you spend 16-18 weeks somewhere, why would you not have your own place?

you go into the job knowing full well whats being asked of you - dont like it, dont run for parliament - try your hand at something more agreeable to your lifestyle demands

by-the-by ........ are there benefits to owning (or being in the process of owning) more than one property? taxation? favourable lending access? superannuation? etc?

 

[Rob R]

If they just built ~200 houses and paid them off, they wouldn't be paying off a new mortgage every 10 years for every new parliamentarian.

Which is what defence does or does long term leases on apartments - could even use the same booking agency to save on admin. Pollies get accommodation and taxpayer pays the actual price which would be about half at most of the current rort

Pollies might suddenly start staying in their actual electorate more too...

 

[Festerz]

So Sussan Ley and the Coalition have now wedged themselves on hate speech legislation and facing heavy criticism from their Australian Jewish business supporter base .

The head of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) has called on the opposition leader, Sussan Ley, to rethink her opposition to the government’s hate speech laws and seek amendments from Labor. 'We need legislative reform now even if it is less than ideal.' he said today.

Ley has signalled the Coalition is likely to oppose the bill when parliament resumes on Monday, prompting claims of hypocrisy from the government.

ECAJ co-chief executive Peter Wertheim said on Thursday that the bill failing to pass would be a “retrograde step”.

Some of the opposition’s criticisms of the bill are valid and repeat concerns which we ourselves have expressed about the bill’s shortcomings. However, there are also some important positives in the bill, including the introduction of a new listing regime to proscribe extremist hate organisations.

The ECAJ would urge the Coalition not to allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. By all means seek to amend the bill to remove its shortcomings, but a wholesale rejection of the bill would not at all be warranted. In our view, the defeat of the bill would be a retrograde step.

The entire history of legislative reform concerning this issue has been one of incremental steps towards achieving the effective proscription of speech that deliberately promotes hatred of people based on their race, nationality or ethnic origin. The current bill would represent a significant further step towards that destination even if it does not completely get us there.

 

[The Punter]

you go into the job knowing full well whats being asked of you

Which includes the current entitlements.

Again, the best alternative suggested by others appears to be parliament hotel/dormitory.

 

[nut]

I've been pointing out all along with this post-Bondi political attack.

They're all saying the ALP didn't do enough, but none of them have actually said what they want.

LNP attacks Labor for not doing enough for hate speech towards Zionism..
Labor to introduce Hate speech laws…
LNP attacks Labor for hate speech laws….

LMFAO…

Politicising Bondi backfires for Liberals who got what they asked for

Federal Liberals are discovering the price of having been so brazen in their politicisation of the Bondi terror attack and many appear to have buyers' remorse.

www.abc.net.au

 

[nut]

When you spend 16-18 weeks somewhere, why would you not have your own place?

If you live in your own place why would you deserve an allowance?

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

you go into the job knowing full well whats being asked of you - dont like it, dont run for parliament - try your hand at something more agreeable to your lifestyle demands

by-the-by ........ are there benefits to owning (or being in the process of owning) more than one property? taxation? favourable lending access? superannuation? etc?

But you go into the job knowing these allowances exist.

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

If you live in your own place why would you deserve an allowance?

Would you object if the same person stayed in a hotel and received a per diem? What if they were paid $250 per night for hotel and $100 per diem. Pretty close to the current $322 allowance. Would that be a problem to you?

 

[JackOutback]

From the Sussan Ley presser... why isn't the government letting us govern?

They have taken a month to deliver this bad bill. Now, had they listened to us which they should have in the weeks after Bondi, we could already have had a package introduced into the parliament with the necessary parliamentary scrutiny already under way with a month to have had that inquiry, that scrutiny, and that submission.

We should have had the opportunity to introduce our measures which we will seek to do when the parliament does return and which we announced weeks ago and we know are the best response to the Bondi terror attack.

Ley said the Coalition was not consulted in the lead-up to the legislation’s introduction. Albanese said this morning he has met with her weekly.

 

[GrayRanga]

So Sussan Ley and the Coalition have now wedged themselves on hate speech legislation and facing heavy criticism from their Australian Jewish business supporter base .

The head of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) has called on the opposition leader, Sussan Ley, to rethink her opposition to the government’s hate speech laws and seek amendments from Labor. 'We need legislative reform now even if it is less than ideal.' he said today.

Ley has signalled the Coalition is likely to oppose the bill when parliament resumes on Monday, prompting claims of hypocrisy from the government.

ECAJ co-chief executive Peter Wertheim said on Thursday that the bill failing to pass would be a “retrograde step”.

Some of the opposition’s criticisms of the bill are valid and repeat concerns which we ourselves have expressed about the bill’s shortcomings. However, there are also some important positives in the bill, including the introduction of a new listing regime to proscribe extremist hate organisations.

The ECAJ would urge the Coalition not to allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. By all means seek to amend the bill to remove its shortcomings, but a wholesale rejection of the bill would not at all be warranted. In our view, the defeat of the bill would be a retrograde step.

The entire history of legislative reform concerning this issue has been one of incremental steps towards achieving the effective proscription of speech that deliberately promotes hatred of people based on their race, nationality or ethnic origin. The current bill would represent a significant further step towards that destination even if it does not completely get us there.

All the bright young Conservative pundits in the mainstream media, social media and even on this thread or the Albo thread proclaiming that Albo's handling of the post Bondi narrative would result in being summarily dismissed from Leadership or laying the groundwork to result in a Coalition/One Nation win at the next election care to re-evaluate their pronouncements?

The Coalition hasn't come ub with an alternative despite a month of huffing and puffing; the Greens are almost in the same place, Pauline is barred...

I would suggest the ALP would have preferred to have more time to get the Bill more finely honed, but Parliament is a place where Bills are discussed (hint parle is French for talk) and the other main players haven't even prepared their narrative

The ALP have done what the Community expected of them and they can claim that, whilst dropping snarky hints that the Coalition, the Greens and the Teals weren't up to call when Australian expected action

 

[kalex6251]

Which includes the current entitlements.

Again, the best alternative suggested by others appears to be parliament hotel/dormitory.

happy with a purpose built residential facility - owned and managed by parliamentary services [with rent paid by the politician) .... they might begin to appreciate the challenges faced by public housing tenants

no interstate pollie should own (or be in the process of purchasing) a canberra property