Anthony Albanese - How long? -3-

[Expensive_Horse5538]

Albanese considers Trump’s invitation to join Gaza ‘board of peace’ despite concerns body may undermine UN

PM confirms Australia was asked on weekend to join new body focused on Gaza reconstruction and Middle East peace efforts

www.theguardian.com

He's apparently now considering it.

For the record I don't get the point of this board of peace which clearly seems like an elaborate scheme by Trump to take over the region. Last time I checked, the UN exists for things like transitions of power, etc.

 

[Expensive_Horse5538]

It's also an attempt to replace the UN with Trump as permanent Secretary-General. While I think the UN could use reform, it is not beyond saving and certainly not with the proposed replacement.

I agree - the last thing we need is one country having the ability to exercise full control over international law, especially one whose leader has likely breached it's domestic US laws and constitution.

 

[Vindicater]

Albanese considers Trump’s invitation to join Gaza ‘board of peace’ despite concerns body may undermine UN

PM confirms Australia was asked on weekend to join new body focused on Gaza reconstruction and Middle East peace efforts

www.theguardian.com

He's apparently now considering it.

For the record I don't get the point of this board of peace which clearly seems like an elaborate scheme by Trump to take over the region. Last time I checked, the UN exists for things like transitions of power, etc.

Kicking the can down the road.

Considering is far from accepting. He even said in that news article that they had not had time to look at the proposal.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

What offer? He is already asking Australia for a $1 Billion.

That's my point. I fear we're already being told pay up, coz we've got a nice little country here, wouldn't want anyfink to happen to it now, would ya...

 

[Cmarsh]

I will join the riots if Albanese does this.

The USA can go **** themselves.

What offer? He is already asking Australia for a $1 Billion.

Would we get any more submarines for that extra billion?

 

[Daka]

Look at all the hate in the comments he is getting by the psycho right-wingers and pretty ironic when we have a PM that is actually doing something about it.

 

[1990crow]

Look at all the hate in the comments he is getting by the psycho right-wingers and pretty ironic when we have a PM that is actually doing something about it.

Libs vote has tanked so much they are saying they'll vote for it, just to distinguish themselves from One Nation.

What a loser party lol.

 

[Gough]

Look at all the hate in the comments he is getting by the psycho right-wingers and pretty ironic when we have a PM that is actually doing something about it.

Have the chuds called on Trump to come and "save' Australia?

 

[King Patty]

thought we only pay if we want to stay beyond the initial 3 years, or am I reading it wrongly
that said I doubt that peace is the goal

yes Thats what I read too,
But I imagine it would be easy to join but hard process to leave.

Think easier not to be part of it all together in the first place.

 

[King Patty]

Libs vote has tanked so much they are saying they'll vote for it, just to distinguish themselves from One Nation.

What a loser party lol.

I think it's likely to be more Libs will vote for it, as they are showing true colours as no different to labor.

96 Yes 45 No.


Labor had the votes in lower house anyway.

 

[Forward Press]

I think it's likely to be more Libs will vote for it, as they are showing true colours as no different to labor.

96 Yes 45 No.


Labor had the votes in lower house anyway.

True test as always is the Senate. Think the Libs will back it anyway, rendering the crossbench moot.

I think the Greens are making a mistake by their initial opposition to the Bill even if the principles of their opposition are sound and logical. What matters is the perception to the voters of being obstructionist to a law where your opposition to it is difficult to sell to the public.

 

[Expensive_Horse5538]

True test as always is the Senate. Think the Libs will back it anyway, rendering the crossbench moot.

They have struck a deal with the Libs

Hate laws to pass after Labor and Liberal deal

The Liberal Party struck an agreement with Labor to tighten the scope of a bill to ban hate groups, but the position of the Nationals is unclear.

www.abc.net.au

Laws targeting hate groups will pass the parliament after Labor struck a deal with the Liberal Party to tighten the scope, but the position of the Nationals is unclear.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Sussan Ley on Monday agreed a set of changes to Labor's proposal to ban groups deemed to spread hate, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir and Neo-Nazis.

The changes were drafted to meet the opposition's concerns that the broad drafting of the bill could restrict freedom of speech.

The updated bill, introduced to the lower house by Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, now mentions "the promotion of violence" in the definition of a hate group.

 

[faible]

I think it's likely to be more Libs will vote for it, as they are showing true colours as no different to labor.

96 Yes 45 No.


Labor had the votes in lower house anyway.

The ALP and LNP have never traditionally been that different. Our political system doesn't generally reward being miles away from the centre of the electorate, and our electorate is far more moderate than the US.

The LNP have tried to push hard to the right and that went poorly for them, leaving room for the Teals to basically occupy the spot the LNP traditionally has.

The US system is totally different and increasingly rewards more extreme positions.

 

[King Patty]

What matters is the perception to the voters of being obstructionist to a law where your opposition to it is difficult to sell to the public.

I don't think the majority of the public are behind Albanese passing these changes.
If it went to a referendum it would surely fail.

 

[Forward Press]

I don't think the majority of the public are behind Albanese passing these changes.
If it went to a referendum it would surely fail.

I think otherwise - only those into politics care about the detail tbh - the average voter would be broadly supportive of a Bill to outlaw incitement of racial hatred (especially since Bondi) even if we know this Bill does a shit job of it and there are legitimate concerns over its impact on freedom of speech.

This is not even related to anything constitutional, why would it ever even be considered for a referendum?

 

[King Patty]

I think otherwise - only those into politics care about the detail tbh - the average voter would be broadly supportive of a Bill to outlaw incitement of racial hatred (especially since Bondi) even if we know this Bill does a shit job of it and there are legitimate concerns over its impact on freedom of speech.

This is not even related to anything constitutional, why would it ever even be considered for a referendum?

It wouldn't but, the public consultation was not there for this bill and its almost like it was sitting there waiting for an incident to then push through..

There are already existing laws that could be used already for incitement of violence.

The Bondi incident - was a breakdown in Intel and failure of process.

When someone in a household is put on a terror watchlist, then family members guns should be removed.

Wouldn't it make sense to wait for the royal commission before creating new laws.

The public would be more concerned about restriction of freedom of speech by this bill.

As far as Bondi the public wants to know - what could have been done to prevent it, and what can be done to prevent another one.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Would we get any more submarines for that extra billion?

I guess when the submarines are non-existent you can put whatever number on them you like.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I don't think the majority of the public are behind Albanese passing these changes.
If it went to a referendum it would surely fail.

The majority of the public probably think this is what Scott Pendlebury & Wayne Carey signed the petition for.

 

[Forward Press]

It wouldn't but, the public consultation was not there for this bill and its almost like it was sitting there waiting for an incident to then push through..

There are already existing laws that could be used already for incitement of violence.

The Bondi incident - was a breakdown in Intel.

Wouldn't it make sense to wait for the royal commission before creating new laws.

The public would be more concerned about restriction of freedom of speech by this bill.

As far as Bondi the public wants to know - what could have been done to prevent it, and what can be done to prevent another one.

In my view, I think you're overestimating the level of political engagement for the average voter. Most voters would struggle to tell you who is the leader of the Greens or give you the right answer when you ask them what freedom is protected in the Constitution, for example. But they did just see a massacre perpetrated by Islamic extremists on Jewish people just last month...

BigFooty or Facebook isn't representative of the wider population imo and I think the typical voter cares more for a visible attempt by a Government to stop another Bondi than freedom of speech concerns.

 

[Expensive_Horse5538]

Wouldn't it make sense to wait for the royal commission before creating new laws.

But that would require them to apply logic to decision making

 

[NSWCROW]

I don't think the majority of the public are behind Albanese passing these changes.
If it went to a referendum it would surely fail.

Labor voters:

 

[Not Important]

100%

 

[NTRabbit]

For the record I don't get the point of this board of peace which clearly seems like an elaborate scheme by Trump to take over the region. Last time I checked, the UN exists for things like transitions of power, etc.

It's a way to funnel money to Trump in the same format as a private members club, where you need to pay an exceptionally large deposit-cum-membership fee to prove that you have the financial position to be there, while making the organiser seem even more important.

There's nothing particularly imaginative about it, it's just another common scam, only with bigger numbers.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Yes, we all know Kos' history as a former Victorian ALP strategist. But as he has switched his business interests to a critical Australian political pollster with Redbridge his posts have been the most in tune analyst of where Australian voters' sentiments lie.

Have they? Wasn't he the one who posted a tweet about Indian Australians voting for Labor en masse that Jacinta N Price seized upon to attack their presence in Australia, before he retracted it?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I think the Greens are making a mistake by their initial opposition to the Bill even if the principles of their opposition are sound and logical. What matters is the perception to the voters of being obstructionist to a law where your opposition to it is difficult to sell to the public.

BigFooty or Facebook isn't representative of the wider population imo and I think the typical voter cares more for a visible attempt by a Government to stop another Bondi than freedom of speech concerns.

I agree that this is what voters care for in the short term. However, it may not be what they care for in the longer term, as people get prosecuted in future under these laws. If the public ever come to the position that the laws have gone too far, their ire will be directed towards the major parties for voting for it.

Although, I think that would end up benefiting One Nation more than the Greens, because I predict there will be more prosecutions under the new laws against Islamophobic speech than antisemitic speech. Still, the Greens probably don't have much to lose here, as I imagine anyone who thinks they're not being supportive enough of the Jewish Australian community over this was already not going to vote for them or preference them higher than Labor.