Politics The Hangar Politics Thread

[Lore]

I doubt that will be a problem.

People who always vote have no bearing on the result. It is swing voters and non-voters who can be persuaded to vote that keep life interesting. If those non-voters are as influential as you say then it will probably depend on polling day politics (assuming he's nominated).

You must be easily frightened.

Not particularly.

 

[Dave]

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/136681978121/making-mexico-pay-for-the-wall

Interesting theory. Don't they already send busloads back?

 

[Howard Moon]

That photo of Joe Hockey with Obama makes me sick, boys club fat piggies.

 

[Howard Moon]

Labor senator Sam Dastyari has warned there is something "fundamentally wrong and rotten" with Australia's entire political system, claiming there are 10 huge companies with so much power and influence they have killed proper democratic process at the federal level in this country.

In a firebrand speech in Canberra this week, delivered with the enthusiasm of someone with their eye on the party leadership, Mr Dastyari told a Politics in the Pub audience that he thought he understood power before coming to Canberra as a senator.

But his time in Parliament House has opened his eyes to the realities of the political-business nexus in Australia in a way he could not have anticipated.

"You will not find somebody who came more from the ALP machine than me," Mr Dastyari told the audience, in a recording obtained by Fairfax Media.

"I'm a product of the machine like you would not believe. I joined the Labor Party when I was 16. I took over my first branches by the time I was 17 ... [so] I thought I understood the brutality of politics simply by my time in the NSW Labor Party and my time in the NSW Labor machine."

"[But] none of that braced me for an understanding of just how concentrated, brutal and aggressive a handful of businesses operate [in Australia], and the real corporate power where it actually rests in this country," he said.

He then claimed there are 10 companies that wield the most incredible amount of power in Australia, to the point where it has stifled proper democratic and economic progress.

"Four banks, and we all know who they are – the Commonwealth Bank, NAB, Westpac, and ANZ – three big mining companies, in Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, and Fortescue Metals, you've got your two big grocery chains, and you've got your big telco, which is Telstra," Mr Dastyari said.

They have "unprecedented concentration of corporate influence" in Australia, he said.

"The entire political debate has become so dominated by the interests that they're pushing, and the agenda that they're pushing. And [we've] ended up with this complete crowding out of a proper political discourse in this country because there is one sectional interest that is so much louder than every other voice out there combined."

Expect he will get shunted out of town pretty quick or labeled a firebrand or hot head and discredited. Bout time someone told it like it is.

 

[Doss]

The company he failed to mention is News Corp.

 

[The Speaker]

I've warmed to Dastyari. As he mentions, he was the definition of a machine man. I don't think he's lost that, but he's right about business influence.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

I met him once. He couldn't have come across as more of a Bond villain if he tried.

 

[The Speaker]

I met him once. He couldn't have come across as more of a Bond villain if he tried.

There was a quite amusing part during The Killing Season where he personally re-enacted him being on the phone during one part of the leadership crisis.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Also, for anyone who was talking about Trump the other day, required reading: http://www.pipingshrike.com/2016/02/the-confusions-of-anti-politics-us-edition.html

 

[The Speaker]

Also, for anyone who was talking about Trump the other day, required reading: http://www.pipingshrike.com/2016/02/the-confusions-of-anti-politics-us-edition.html

A good analysis, but there's not much incoherent about the overall ideological position of Trump. It's not rooted in economic liberalism like so much 'conservatism' these days. UKIP is closer to incoherency.

 

[eth-dog]

I just wish we had a Republican candidate like Arnie Vinick.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

He has a coherent strategy, though I'd disagree a little with your earlier interpretation and argue he's riding a wave rather than being the wave, if that makes sense. In terms of a coherent ideological position though, all he's articulated thus far is scattergun populism, which by its very nature is incoherent beyond immediate political demands.

 

[The Speaker]

Populism is not a useful descriptor of anything these days. Too often is used simply to denigrate without examination, rendering the term useless regardless of what the person using it means by it.

Trump has been 'scattergun' with his policy emphases (and has actually been very accurate with each of these shots, designed for maximum impact on the media and his opponents), but not with his positions. He has presented morally conservative positions and is in favour of less government interference in society, and couples this with economic policies that don't lean especially one way or the other but are designed to assist the first two: conserve society and let communities flourish by getting jobs back into the country. Whether he believes all of this is irrelevant, and what he chooses to emphasise does not change the coherent nature of all of it put together.

 

[Lore]

First Daniel Andrews:

Then Mike Baird:

NSW Premier Mike Baird has supported his Victorian counterpart's call to take in asylum seeker children rather than return them to Nauru, saying Daniel Andrews is "a good man".

Mr Baird said NSW was also "prepared to help" but put the onus on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to make a request.

"I recognise the humanitarian impulse behind [Mr Andrews'] letter to the Prime Minister," Mr Baird said in a statement on Saturday night.

"The same impulse has driven us to work co-operatively with the Commonwealth to resettle an additional intake of refugees in NSW following the recent turmoil in Syria, which is where our focus remains.

"If the PM has any additional requests for NSW we are prepared to help."

NSW Opposition Leader Luke Foley congratulated Mr Andrews and said Mr Baird should make a similar offer.

Earlier, the Victorian Premier wrote to the Prime Minister offering to "accept full responsibility" for the asylum seekers who face being sent back to the remote island of Nauru following this week's High Court decision.

In a letter to Malcolm Turnbull – posted on Mr Andrews' Facebook page and Twitter account on Saturday – the Labor Premier told the Prime Minister that Victoria would gladly take on the families and children rather than have them return to "a life of physical and emotional trauma" in immigration detention.

Mr Andrews' letter comes after the High Court upheld the legality of detaining asylum seekers indefinitely on foreign shores, clearing the way for the return of 267 asylum seekers to Nauru, including 37 babies born in Australia.

"While I believe that in such clearly exceptional circumstances as these, you have a clear obligation to support these children and their families, a political argument is no benefit to them," Mr Andrews told Mr Turnbull.

"Instead, I write to inform you that Victoria will accept full responsibility for all of these children and their families, including the provision of housing, health, education and welfare services. I want these children and their families to call Victoria home."

Mr Andrews' offer drew a mixed response on Saturday. Some accused the state leader of grandstanding on federal immigration matters.

But many others welcomed his stance.

However, the letter puts the Premier at odds with Labor's own National Platform – backed by Opposition Leader Bill Shorten - which supports offshore processing. This could prove dicey for Mr Shorten, particularly given the sensitivities over asylum seeker policy within the federal caucus and the broader rank-and-file.

Mr Turnbull's office said the Prime Minister had not yet directly received the letter from the Premier (Victoria insists it was sent before it was posted on social media) but would consider any options put forward once it was received.

Meanwhile, Mr Andrews infuriated some of his federal colleagues who have privately accused him of being "opportunistic in search of a headline". One Labor source said Mr Andrews voted in favour of offshore processing at July's ALP national conference and did not flag his weekend offer with the federal opposition.

Victoria's offer to take responsibility for the asylum seekers came after than 60 writers – including Nobel laureate J.M. Coetzee and Booker Prize winner Peter Carey – also wrote to the Prime Minister and Immigration Minister Peter Dutton condemning the government's offshore detention policies as shameful and brutal.

In other developments this week, church leaders have openly defied the government by offering sanctuary to asylum seekers, while doctors risked jail to speak out about the conditions in detention, condemning them as "toxic" for children.

Mr Andrews told Mr Turnbull that returning the asylum seekers would be wrong, unfair and un-Australian. Based on costings previously done in preparation for the arrival of Syrian refugees, it is estimated that, on average, each refugee would require about $10,000 a year in state-based support.

"A sense of compassion is not only in the best interests of these children and their families. It is also in the best interests of our status and a fair and decent nation," the Premier said.

"There are infants among this group who were born in this country. Sending them to Nauru will needlessly expose them to a life of physical and emotional trauma.

"It's wrong. Medical professionals tell us this. Humanitarian agencies tell us this. Our values tell us this, too. Sending these children and their families to Nauru is not the Australian way."

The Premier's stance won him support on Twitter, as well as praise from Getup, Labor for Refugees, and the Human Rights Law Centre.

Victorian deputy Liberal leader David Hodgett was less impressed, saying: "We've got a VLine crisis, a deficit budget, increasing crime rates, billions wasted on tearing up the East West Link contract and Daniel Andrews is focused on cynical grandstanding on federal issues."

A spokeswoman for federal opposition immigration spokesman Richard Marles said: "This is a very complicated policy area and federal Labor has been calling on the government to find a credible third country for resettlement arrangements."

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/premier-m...will-take-asylum-seekers-20160206-gmnhxt.html

Now Jay Weatherill:


Internal politics, external politics, or both? Either way, fun to spectate.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Populism is not a useful descriptor of anything these days.

It's a well-established descriptive term for a particular political strategy. Sounds useful to me.

Too often is used simply to denigrate without examination, rendering the term useless regardless of what the person using it means by it.

I'm not particularly concerned with how other people misuse the term.

Trump has been 'scattergun' with his policy emphases (and has actually been very accurate with each of these shots, designed for maximum impact on the media and his opponents), but not with his positions. He has presented morally conservative positions and is in favour of less government interference in society, and couples this with economic policies that don't lean especially one way or the other but are designed to assist the first two: conserve society and let communities flourish by getting jobs back into the country. Whether he believes all of this is irrelevant, and what he chooses to emphasise does not change the coherent nature of all of it put together.

Perhaps you're more informed than I, but I've seen a whole lot of promises to this effect with very little by way of plans to back it up. It's the usual wishlist of a long-neglected/taken-for-granted section of the electorate, but the challenge is delivering on that through functional policy.

 

[The Speaker]

It's a well-established descriptive term for a particular political strategy. Sounds useful to me.

I'm not particularly concerned with how other people misuse the term.

I am. The way political terms are used is vital to their meaning.

Perhaps you're more informed than I, but I've seen a whole lot of promises to this effect with very little by way of plans to back it up. It's the usual wishlist of a long-neglected/taken-for-granted section of the electorate, but the challenge is delivering on that through functional policy.

Not having plans (or not telling us his plans, if you believe what he says) to back the ideology he's promoting does not mean there isn't a coherent ideology. Unless you mean that you don't think he's made statements at all that point to an ideology, in which case: he has, mostly in interviews.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

It does when key aspects of the ideology are fundamentally at odds. You can promise lower taxation at the same time as higher welfare and a more aggressive foreign policy, or a healthier economy without the migrant labour so integral to it, but unless you're able to reconcile what are often inherently-contradictory ends it's just more magical thinking. Couple that with his social positions, which a cursory glance at his history demonstrate have been heavily-revised for electoral reasons - a qualitatively different kind of incoherence or inconsistency, but important all the same.

Of course, that's hardly rare among candidates and parties, but the point isn't that Trump is worse - he's no different. What sets him apart from the current pack is his success in tapping into particular demographic groups who've been left behind by contemporary politics and economics. Again though, that's something anti-political candidates have been doing with varying degrees of success for at least the past two decades, and far longer in different contexts. It's no coincidence that Trump and Sanders are both giving it a good shake at the same time, nor is it a function of their individual qualities. What makes it seem more effective now is the exhaustion of the old order, rather than any increased capacity in his (or his ilk's) part to attract support and/or actually deliver.

The way political terms are used is vital to their meaning.

I'm not going to abandon perfectly functional terminology because others are incapable of understanding or employing it. I'd rather offer the benefit of the doubt and assume the reader appreciates the rich history of populism beyond its lazy usage as a term of denigration.

 

[The Speaker]

It does when key aspects of the ideology are fundamentally at odds. You can promise lower taxation at the same time as higher welfare, or a more aggressive foreign policy at the same time as a healthier economy, but unless you're able to achieve what are inherently contradictory ends it's just more magical thinking.

They are not 'inherently contradictory'. One may make the other more difficult, but presenting the multi-faceted workings of government as a series of one-or-the-other choices is silly. I could do the same in the other direction: You want more welfare for the poor and sick? Okay, we'll cut some government departments! You want more jobs in the American economy? Okay, we'll raise tariffs.

Ideology, in its purest form, is normally affected by touching reality once it reaches office. Once again, Trump has present an ideology (strung out over his interviews, speeches and debates) that is consistent with a conservative platform, and has emphasised parts of this ideology that will grab attention and votes.

Couple that with his social positions, which a cursory glance at his history demonstrate have been heavily-revised for electoral reasons.

How cynical. As mentioned, whether he believes what he's saying (it seems to me that he does) is irrelevant.

Of course, that's hardly rare among candidates and parties, but the point isn't that Trump is worse - he's no different. What sets him apart from the current pack is his success in tapping into particular demographic groups who've been left behind by contemporary politics and economics. Again though, that's something anti-political candidates have been doing with varying degrees of success for the past two decades. What makes it seem more effective now is the declining efficacy of the old order, rather than any increased capacity in his (or his ilk's) part to actually deliver.

And I have not once talked about his ability to deliver. Of course he's tapped into particular demographic groups, they've been ignored. It just so happens that they generally hold views that are consistent with what he's presenting, which is all too often dismissed as populism rather than examined to see if there is a set of coherent beliefs held within.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

They are not 'inherently contradictory'.

It is when your approach is to promise all things to all people (well, enough to get yourself elected).

One may make the other more difficult, but presenting the multi-faceted workings of government as a series of one-or-the-other choices is silly.

It's a simplification for the sake of argument, but there are irreducible facts involved - the US economy, for example, and even factoring in a significant recovery, simply cannot sustain the foreign adventures of the past couple of decades, and which Trump''s (and, hey, Cruz's and Rubio's) foreign policy promises would demand a return to.

Ideology, in its purest form, is normally affected by touching reality once it reaches office.

And his will be touched hard. Not that I expect he'd particularly care.

Once again, Trump has present an ideology (strung out over his interviews, speeches and debates) that is consistent with a conservative platform, and has emphasised parts of this ideology that will grab attention and votes.

Of course, this assumes coherency in the reference conservative platform.

How cynical.

Pleased to meet you, my name's fodzilla.

As mentioned, whether he believes what he's saying (it seems to me that he does) is irrelevant.

I disagree. I suspect it'll become an electoral issue.

It just so happens that they generally hold views that are consistent with what he's presenting,

Another coincidence!

which is all too often dismissed as populism rather than examined to see if there is a set of coherent beliefs held within.

Populism is the targeting of said beliefs rather than the beliefs themselves - of course, you know that. But as for those beliefs, rolling back to the certainty of the old world while retaining the benefits of the new is magical thinking.

 

[The Speaker]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this comes down to how we view the world and the beliefs that people hold.

 

[Beerfish]

Didn't know Adam Gilchrist was a Lib. Is apparently being courted to run for a Western Sydney seat.

 

[The Speaker]

Didn't know Adam Gilchrist was a Lib. Is apparently being courted to run for a Western Sydney seat.

Doubt he would want to move from Perth.

 

[expires]

Have voted both ways. Mainly for the sex party.

 

[BrunoV]

I am absolutely fascinated by Trump's campaign and the response to it. I've been watching the recent debates and press conferences because I've learned to be immediately skeptical of the motivations of the "establishment" when opposing sides can find peace enough to demonise the same individuals. You only have to look at the extraordinary actions of the Republican party trying to stop Trump, who is the only electable Republican candidate, as strange as that might seem, to front a ******* like Ted Cruz (who espouses more extreme bigoted views than Trump and seriously ridiculous economic policy) to know that there is more to this than meets the eye.

Why would the Republicans undermine their best opportunity to take back the White House? The answer is that they can't control Trump and that they genuinely fear his willingness to negotiate broadly to secure deals which could potentially undermine the interests of what is essentially the ruling elite.

It seems to me that there is a disproportionate, and at times manipulative, focus on some of the more extreme things that Trump has said.

From the Australian perspective the dismissal of Trump seems to be based largely on an inaccurate assumption that the plights of Australia and America are the same. Australia, despite the stagnation of political debate and our economy, is light years ahead of America in terms of the infrastructure we have built and our capacity to look after our lower class, absorb migrants and dramatically evolve our economy if we chose to do so, for example.

It strikes me that there are certain realities about migration into America in 2016 which are ignored. They have a burgeoning poverty stricken lower class, which Trump is appealing to, which does not have access to even the most basic social and economic infrastructure to help make life livable and then provide these people with the opportunity to advance their respective positions (i.e. getting decent jobs that could see them one day re-join the middle class or become members for the first time). What is the point of adding to it?

I don't see why in these circumstances the notion of a moratorium on migration and securing borders is as reprehensible as is being made out by the intellectual snobs. For all of the "racist" comments about different aspects of illegal Mexican immigration he has also been giving the Mexican government some high praise for killing American politicians on trade deals (it is the same with China).

The economic criticism that can be made of the immigration policy is that the low cost labour of illegal immigrants helps to sustain industry and the service sector in America. This is not a criticism that I am aware has been given any serious air time and, funnily enough, reflects a tendency to avoid engaging Trump in relation to his economic views.

Then move onto the "oh you don't want a guy like Trump having the nuclear codes" drivel. Trump has called for George Bush to be tried for war crimes in respect of the invasion of Iraq. This is not the rhetoric of a maniac who cannot be trusted to make sensible decisions in relation to the use of force.

Trump and Bernie Sanders (with whom he actually shares similar views on economic policy even if they are expressed differently - all of which is ignored by the social progressives) are the only ones who are honest about free trade. We have been conditioned to dismiss protectionism despite the fact that much of the Western World is seriously struggling to absorb the loss of manufacturing jobs into other parts of our economies, and it has resulted in the breakdown of long term secure employment for the large numbers of people who were previously employed in manufacturing. The frightening thing is that I am yet to hear our politicians or the Americans talk about development of sectors which have the capacity to provide the gainful long term employment that manufacturing previously provided.

He supports the welfare safety net and the work of planned parenthood even if he is hamstrung by the right to lifers who he needs to keep on side. These are not the views of a conservative nut.

I don't know that I could vote for the guy but if the social progressives and leftist snobs are as smart as they like to think they are then they should really take the time to understand the campaign at something nearing its entirety rather than the soundbites which they are just as manipulated into obsessing over as the voters to whom the comments are intended to appeal. It's their outrage that results in the media's saturation coverage and the continued spreading of the negative parts of his message.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

"the Whitehouse"