Scott Morrison - How Long? Part 5 - The stroll out.

[Chief]

Continued in Part 6.

Play Nice - Scott Morrison - How Long? Part 6 - Prosperity Theology, The Coal Man + His Bootlickers

Part 5 is here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/scott-morrison-how-long-part-5-the-stroll-out.1275975/

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I have Kwality on Ignore but from the responses on here on the last few pages it would appear he is doggedly determined to push the notion that there is nothing wrong with a politician receiving an anonymous donation in the region of a million dollars.

That's all you need to know folks. Kwality is trying to convince us there's nothing wrong with that. I have no idea why anyone would do that.

If Kwality had his way, everyone would have seven kids and Catholic priests would be deployed into every home as nannies

Imagine George Pell singing A Spoonful of Sugar.

Pretty sure he is trolling.

 

[QuietB]

from what he has said before its more sad. theres an acceptance of corruption and resignation that it will never change.

I disagree.

It is 100% partisan. There is zero chance he would hold the same views if it was the opposition parties doing it. But because it is his side it is ok.

It is not an acceptance, it is consciously turning a blind eye because it is his side.

 

[Cookie]

Morrison's Cult of Secrecy continues.

PM’s office failed to meet deadlines for majority of freedom of information requests in past year

Complaints about government’s handling of FoI requests shot up 39% in one year as delays increased and requests were rejected

www.theguardian.com

 

[Gough]

I also raised christianity because that is the one and only religion Alan Tudge referenced in his curriculum diatribe in QT yesterday.

Presumably because Australia is the great south holy land of white Anglo christians and the curriculum should highlight and celebrate this. But ignore all the bad sh*t they did.

Anything else would be a “black armband view of Australia’s history” which Tudge also offered in his diatribe.

This is Todger idea of how history should be taught. Reads more like grooming to me.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

This is Todger idea of how history should be taught. Reads more like grooming to me.

View attachment 1265452

In the light of Peter Cochrane's "Best We Forget - The War for White Australia" which showed that it is clearly on the public record that one major motivation of our involvement in WWI was protection of the White Australia Policy, how could Anzac Day be anything but a "contested idea" from now on?

Best We Forget: The War for White Australia, 1914–18, book by Peter Cochrane

In this controversial new book, Peter Cochrane, one of Australia's most highly regarded historians explores how and why we forget and recast our past.

www.textpublishing.com.au

 

[Gough]

The One Day of The Year was written in the late 50s, Anzac Day as our most sacred day being a contested idea is nothing new.

 

[Roylion]

In the light of Peter Cochrane's "Best We Forget - The War for White Australia" which showed that it is clearly on the public record that one major motivation of our involvement in WWI was protection of the White Australia Policy, how could Anzac Day be anything but a "contested idea" from now on?

Best We Forget: The War for White Australia, 1914–18, book by Peter Cochrane

In this controversial new book, Peter Cochrane, one of Australia's most highly regarded historians explores how and why we forget and recast our past.

www.textpublishing.com.au

Australia had plenty of reasons to become involved in World War I.

While Australia certainly didn't fear invasion by Germany, despite what various propaganda posters seemed to imply they did share Britain's fears about Germany's 'Weltpolitik' policy. It's fairly clear that Germany was in pursuit of a greater slice of the world pie.

Britain feared Germany's attempts, which is why in the years before World War I, they responded to Germany's armament increase with their own increase in armaments. Sir Eyre Crowe summed up the British attitude (and therefore the Australian government's attitude) towards Germany when he argued in a memorandum that Britain accepted the expansion of German influence and power in the world, as long as it was peaceful, it did not violate British interests either directly or indirectly, not tried to upset the then existing power of balance throughout the Europe and the world. Historian Imanuel Geiss argues that the containment policy of the Triple Entente and Germany's refusal to be contained made war inevitable. Germany's role in the Second Morroccan crisis in 1911, where she was appeased by extra territory in Cameroon did nothing to alter Britain's (and Australia's) fears about German expansion.

British fears were further heightened after Germany increased their army from roughly 590,000 to 662,000 in the years before the war broke out. Germany also made a number of approaches to France and Russia to break up Britain's agreements with France and Russia, in order to isolate Britain, diplomatically and economically, leaving Germany with a freer hand to expand her position.

Of course isolating Britain economically was going to have an impact on Australia's economy.

Australia was a part of the British Empire and regarded its’ interests as being as one with Britain. There’s no question that Britain was Australia’s most important trading partner and any German attempt to isolate Britain economically, via a larger navy that might rival Britain's was going to have a very large impact on Australia. As Edward Grey stated in the House of Commons on March 29, 1909…” But if the German navy were superior to ours, they maintaining the army which they do, for us it would not be a question of defeat. Our independence, our very existence would be at stake. . . for us the navy is what the army is to them . . .”

Yes...and it is correct that Australia’s security in the Far East was also tied up with Britain’s naval dominance. The Australian government was keen not to see British naval power diminished. Australia was also keen to limit Germany’s naval influence and to ensure that Britain remained the world’s dominant naval power and indeed one of the world’s leading powers in order to maintain Australia's own security...especially as what was widely seen at the time as the "yellow peril" from the north.

For all those reasons Australia in 1914 clearly saw Britain’s war as their war. Many, living one hundred years later, may personally have a different perspective, but that doesn't make Australia's involvement in World War I meaningless or 'wrong'.

So in WW1, Australia was supporting Britain's attempts to:
1) maintain the existing European and world balance of power by supporting France and Russia thereby preventing British isolation if France and Russia were defeated in a continental war. Britain (and Australia) couldn't allow France and Russia to be defeated.
2) resist Germany's attempts to expand her influence which was widely considered would threaten some of Britain's colonies and therefore the power and prestige of the British empire of which Australia was still firmly a part of.
3) stop possible Turkish threats to strategic British possessions such as the Suez Canal, also important to Australia's economy, considering much of our exports travelled to Europe.

The other important reason that Australia considered the war to be important is that Britain was NOT considered by the vast majority of Australians to be a foreign power in 1914. For example 20% of all those who enlisted in the First AIF were British born. Most people in Australia regarded themselves as British subjects, which at the time was the only civic status that existed. And clearly the Australian government did consider it to be in the country's national interest for Britain to maintain the European balance of power, restrict German expansion and therefore protect the dominance of the British Empire and Australia's own security from foreigh threats.

And the above is taught in the senior levels of secondary school. I teach it myself. That won't change.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Australia had plenty of reasons to become involved in World War I.

While Australia certainly didn't fear invasion by Germany, despite what various propaganda posters seemed to imply they did share Britain's fears about Germany's 'Weltpolitik' policy. It's fairly clear that Germany was in pursuit of a greater slice of the world pie.

Britain feared Germany's attempts, which is why in the years before World War I, they responded to Germany's armament increase with their own increase in armaments. Sir Eyre Crowe summed up the British attitude (and therefore the Australian government's attitude) towards Germany when he argued in a memorandum that Britain accepted the expansion of German influence and power in the world, as long as it was peaceful, it did not violate British interests either directly or indirectly, not tried to upset the then existing power of balance throughout the Europe and the world. Historian Imanuel Geiss argues that the containment policy of the Triple Entente and Germany's refusal to be contained made war inevitable. Germany's role in the Second Morroccan crisis in 1911, where she was appeased by extra territory in Cameroon did nothing to alter Britain's (and Australia's) fears about German expansion.

British fears were further heightened after Germany increased their army from roughly 590,000 to 662,000 in the years before the war broke out. Germany also made a number of approaches to France and Russia to break up Britain's agreements with France and Russia, in order to isolate Britain, diplomatically and economically, leaving Germany with a freer hand to expand her position.

Of course isolating Britain economically was going to have an impact on Australia's economy.

Australia was a part of the British Empire and regarded its’ interests as being as one with Britain. There’s no question that Britain was Australia’s most important trading partner and any German attempt to isolate Britain economically, via a larger navy that might rival Britain's was going to have a very large impact on Australia. As Edward Grey stated in the House of Commons on March 29, 1909…” But if the German navy were superior to ours, they maintaining the army which they do, for us it would not be a question of defeat. Our independence, our very existence would be at stake. . . for us the navy is what the army is to them . . .”

Yes...and it is correct that Australia’s security in the Far East was also tied up with Britain’s naval dominance. The Australian government was keen not to see British naval power diminished. Australia was also keen to limit Germany’s naval influence and to ensure that Britain remained the world’s dominant naval power and indeed one of the world’s leading powers in order to maintain Australia's own security...especially as what was widely seen at the time as the "yellow peril" from the north.

For all those reasons Australia in 1914 clearly saw Britain’s war as their war. Many, living one hundred years later, may personally have a different perspective, but that doesn't make Australia's involvement in World War I meaningless or 'wrong'.

So in WW1, Australia was supporting Britain's attempts to:
1) maintain the existing European and world balance of power by supporting France and Russia thereby preventing British isolation if France and Russia were defeated in a continental war. Britain (and Australia) couldn't allow France and Russia to be defeated.
2) resist Germany's attempts to expand her influence which was widely considered would threaten some of Britain's colonies and therefore the power and prestige of the British empire of which Australia was still firmly a part of.
3) stop possible Turkish threats to strategic British possessions such as the Suez Canal, also important to Australia's economy, considering much of our exports travelled to Europe.

The other important reason that Australia considered the war to be important is that Britain was NOT considered by the vast majority of Australians to be a foreign power in 1914. For example 20% of all those who enlisted in the First AIF were British born. Most people in Australia regarded themselves as British subjects, which at the time was the only civic status that existed. And clearly the Australian government did consider it to be in the country's national interest for Britain to maintain the European balance of power, restrict German expansion and therefore protect the dominance of the British Empire and Australia's own security from foreigh threats.

And the above is taught in the senior levels of secondary school. I teach it myself. That won't change.

Don’t disagree with any of that.

But Cochrane’s main point is that Australia’s fear of invasion by Japan in the decades leading up to WWI was so great that when the “mother country” signed a treaty with Japan, Australia was so alarmed, that we felt the only way to stave off what we feared to be abandonment by Britain was to fight with the Empire every step of the way to remind Britain of our loyalty and racial “purity”.

It’s a tightrope of an argument but he supports it richly with documentation.

He’s not saying it was the only reason for fighting, but he is saying it is a significant reason that has been very much forgotten. Well worth a read.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

The One Day of The Year was written in the late 50s, Anzac Day as our most sacred day being a contested idea is nothing new.

Menzies (no hero of mine) would be turning in his grave if he knew the sort of intolerance being ascribed to him by his modern-day political descendants.

 

[Gough]

Menzies (no hero of mine) would be turning in his grave if he knew the sort of intolerance being ascribed to him by his modern-day political descendants.

Same with Reagan Republicans, he wouldn't even recognise the GOP in it's current hostage to Trump iteration.

 

[NSWCROW]

1590 Australians killed by morrison

 

[Nikita Blue]

Not very good at reading the room, are they?

 

[Nikita Blue]

This is Todger idea of how history should be taught. Reads more like grooming to me.

View attachment 1265452

Free speech warriors though.

 

[Burro]

This is Todger idea of how history should be taught. Reads more like grooming to me.

View attachment 1265452

He probably wants national service conscription brought back along with compulsory religious instruction.

 

[jatz14]

Seen suggestions floating around that the reason they are so desperate to stop details of Porters slush fund being dug up is just that.

It is a slush fund, and not a fund set up to pay legal costs for the case.

It may pre date the trial, and was just a way to funnel cash to Porter off the books.

Porter used it for the trial revealing it's existence, and now they are terrified that it's extent will be uncovered.

Raises the question, are there other funds, for other government Minister's?

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Festerz]

It is a slush fund, and not a fund set up to pay legal costs for the case.

Yes. Quite possibly.

But the truth, as I understand it, is that we simply do not know that one way of the other. That is the problem.

All that we do know is that this fund exists and it is called the 'Legal Services Trust' and we know that because of Porter's alteration to the Member's Register of Interests lodged on 13th September (while Porter was a senior Cabinet Minister of the Federal Government).

And that amendment simply says that part contribution for his personal legal fees in filing a defamation case against the ABC was made from this Trust.

Porter has refused to disclose any further details of this Trust; who established it; what is its purpose; who administers it, who is authorised to conduct its transactions; who are its trustees; and (most importantly) who funds it.

Yes, it could well be a slush fund. Of which a contribution to cover the former Attorney General's substantial personal legal fees is just one of its transactions.

As the saying goes, if it looks like a duck...

Raises the question, are there other funds, for other government Minister's?

Yes it does.

 

[NSWCROW]

Because Porter is a victim.

Because the Liberals are victims.

Because Morrison is a victim.

Because Pell is a victim.

Most pathetic bunch of snowflakes you would ever be likely to meet.

They are lucky that cannot go back to the 1950’s like they want to because if they could they would not last one day before they were dealt with.

Yeah but Victim-Boners are the 2nd best kind

 

[NSWCROW]

This is Todger idea of how history should be taught. Reads more like grooming to me.

View attachment 1265452

God he's a simp.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

The head of Transparency International Australia rips into this disgusting government:

The government’s move to block investigation of Porter donations is a nail in the coffin of integrity in politics | Serena Lillywhite

Christian Porter’s staggering decision to accept legal funding from a blind trust should have gone straight to the privileges committee. But it didn’t

www.theguardian.com

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Seen suggestions floating around that the reason they are so desperate to stop details of Porters slush fund being dug up is just that.

It is a slush fund, and not a fund set up to pay legal costs for the case.

It may pre date the trial, and was just a way to funnel cash to Porter off the books.

Porter used it for the trial revealing it's existence, and now they are terrified that it's extent will be uncovered.

Raises the question, are there other funds, for other government Minister's?

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

Interesting.... How poetic would it be if his "strenuous denials" in the sexual assault case led to him inadvertently revealing the existence of such a set-up.

Doesn't strike me as the sharpest tool in the box, ol' Christy.

 

[JackOutback]

It's disappointing that Jacquie Lambie has gone harder over Porter's blind trust than Albanese. She described it as a brown paper bag job. Albo should be saying quite loudly that the money could be from the Chinese government, organised crime, Russian hackers etc. If Porter doesn't know who put the money in, how could he possibly reject the possibility?

 

[winty]

Seen suggestions floating around that the reason they are so desperate to stop details of Porters slush fund being dug up is just that.

It is a slush fund, and not a fund set up to pay legal costs for the case.

It may pre date the trial, and was just a way to funnel cash to Porter off the books.

Porter used it for the trial revealing it's existence, and now they are terrified that it's extent will be uncovered.

Raises the question, are there other funds, for other government Minister's?

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

I'm beginning to wonder if the reason they don't want the source of Porter's donation revealed is because they all passed the hat around and helped him pay for it themselves.

 

[Chief]

I'm beginning to wonder if the reason they don't want the source of Porter's donation revealed is because they all passed the hat around and helped him pay for it themselves.

Maybe we should all call Porter's office and claim to be the secret donor.

 

[Magruder]

It's disappointing that Jacquie Lambie has gone harder over Porter's blind trust than Albanese. She described it as a brown paper bag job. Albo should be saying quite loudly that the money could be from the Chinese government, organised crime, Russian hackers etc. If Porter doesn't know who put the money in, how could he possibly reject the possibility?

could be looking to keep it in the news cycle longer.

go hard once Lambie has been reported

 

[QuietB]

It's disappointing that Jacquie Lambie has gone harder over Porter's blind trust than Albanese. She described it as a brown paper bag job. Albo should be saying quite loudly that the money could be from the Chinese government, organised crime, Russian hackers etc. If Porter doesn't know who put the money in, how could he possibly reject the possibility?

It is pretty clear that the Labor strategy is to save everything for one massive assault at election time.

Morrison gets oxygen from the day to day fight. You can see it in question time he opens every rant with "those opposite" blah blah. Morrison does not have anything of substance to say, so Labor are better off not giving him the petty fights he wants.

It would seem to me that Labor are positioning themselves as the adults in the room and will save all of Morrison's many screw ups for the election.

Morrison is going to get savaged. No one is listening to his bullshit anymore, everyone knows it is exactly that - bullshit.

The only thing Labor has to overcome is Murdoch and "but Labor".

I live in Higgins and almost every single person I know is dyed in the wool Liberal, and every single one of them thinks Morrison is - and I quote - "a complete ****wit".