Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Cleretic
Feb 3, 2010


Ignore my posts!
I'm aggressively wrong about everything!
ELECTION NOW!-ish

We go to the polls on July 2nd, so now seems as good a time as any to look at why nobody running has any chance of victory.

The Liberal Party



Currently led by Malcolm Turnbull if you believe him when he says it, the right-wing Liberal party hasn't actually changed one iota since switching leaders. They called a double dissolution off the back of a budget so thoroughly unimpressive that most of us still aren't sure what the point was.
Why they won't win: Quite frankly the entire country's tired of their poo poo, and they're too slipshod to put forward any policies to change that.

The National Party



Now led by Barnaby Joyce, the rurally-focused Nationals Party stand for exactly what the Liberal party tells them they stand for. I've heard tell that they may be the voice of Australia, though.
Why they won't win: They're now led by Barnaby Joyce.

The Labor Party



According to my notes, the Labor party are led by somebody named Bill Shorten. The union-backed center-left party has been doing fairly well at putting forward strong policies, from what I'm reading here.
Why they won't win: I'm pretty sure it's not legally possible to elect a party with no leader.

The Greens



Led by Richard Di Natale, the Greens are the good old protest-voters party of choice, as well as being a really solid economically/socially left-wing and (of course) environmentally-focused party.
Why they won't win: Because nobody votes Greens because the Greens won't win.

Katter's Australia Party



Led by Bob Katter, who's apparently still around and representing Far North Queensland after getting neglected by the rest of the country.
Why they won't win: The hat lost its novelty.

NXT: Nick Xenophon Team



Led by Nick Xenophon, who has shown disappointingly little wrestling capability but pretty solid centrist views while speaking for South Australia.
Why they won't win: It doesn't matter if the entirety of South Australia votes for you, Western Sydney still won't know your name.

Palmer United Party (and remnants)



Wannabe John Hammond billionaire Clive Palmer's party disintegrated around him in the years since the last election, and the man himself isn't bothering to seek re-election. Ex-members Jaquie Lambie and Glenn Lazarus are splitting off on their own, being batshit insane and pretty nondescriptly competent respectively.
Why they won't win: The Proud Moms Of Fuckups demographic isn't as big as you'd think it is, since most of them vote for their sons.

Ricky Muir/Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party



It's serendipity that someone like Muir got elected, and even moreso that he turned out to be an awesome guy. He's been a really solid member of parliament these past few years for a literal poo poo-slinger.
Why he won't win: To be quite honest, we're not sure how he got in the first time.

David Leyonhelm/Liberal Democrats



Libertarian David Leyonhelm and his unspellable surname (I think there's a J in there somewhere) are basically just that weird friend of that one family member that you hear about every get-together, but you've never seen actually do anything.
Why he won't win: To be quite honest, we didn't want him the first time.

And the crowd favorite for this election...

Informal Vote

Cleretic fucked around with this message at 14:04 on May 31, 2016

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
first (preference)

Seagull
Oct 9, 2012

give me a chip

thatbastardken posted:

first (preference)

none of the above

Wistful of Dollars
Aug 25, 2009

BCR
Jan 23, 2011

Good luck!

Budzilla
Oct 14, 2007

We can all learn from our past mistakes.

I'm voting for Pauline Hanson.

Jintor
May 19, 2014

acl comparing gays to nazis or something in a hilarious misunderstanding of what the nazis were all about.

just another tuesday in ausland

Anidav
Feb 25, 2010

ahhh fuck its the rats again
UNDER ATTACK BY GAY COMMIE NAZIS

Redcordial
Nov 7, 2009

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

lol the country is fed up with your safe spaces and trigger warnings you useless special snowflakes, send the sjws to mexico
Pretty good OP, nice pictures too.

I'm the fire in Katter's self-portrait, except my fire died out years ago because AusPol/Australia...

Tokamak
Dec 22, 2004

Token "Bill Shorten will never become PM"

Webcormac McCarthy
Nov 26, 2007

Deserves a re-post from late in the last thread, because I still can't get my head around this

https://twitter.com/GregHuntMP/status/737191181449207808

Jonah Galtberg
Feb 11, 2009

ewe2
Jul 1, 2009

Yesss let the hate flow through you.

iajanus
Aug 17, 2004

NUMBER 1 QUEENSLAND SUPPORTER
MAROONS 2023 STATE OF ORIGIN CHAMPIONS FOR LIFE



Surprising to see reporters doing their jobs for once.

quote:

There are times when a government stumble is a gift for Oppositions.

And then there are times when sleeping dogs should be left to lie.

The Queensland Opposition learnt the hard way on Tuesday that not every stumble leads to a free kick, after shadow Attorney-General Ian Walker called on the government to explain why a nine month police investigation and three-month independent evidentiary review led to no charges for backbencher Rick Williams.

Earlier in the day, he had called on the government to release the independent review ordered by police investigators which led to the decision not to pursue charges. Sensing blood in the water, the Opposition then attempted to go further. And ended up getting caught themselves.

An obviously shaken Mr Walker did his best to carry through with the LNP's new "bring the fight up to the government" style ushered in by a leadership change, but fell down at the simplest of journalist questions.

Why?

What follows is how that unfolded.

Transcript

Mr Walker

Well ladies and gentlemen today we've seen the extraordinary circumstance of a nine month police investigation following a referral to an independent lawyer, following a three month investigation by that lawyer and that investigation into a key person in Queensland's political process, Mr Williams, who effectively holds the balance of power as a member in a tight parliament in this government.

And after nine months of police investigation, three months of independent legal investigation we're simply told nothing to see here, we don't intend to take any further action.

I don't think that's good enough from a government which has committed to transparency.

Annastacia Palaszczuk, before the last election, signed in her own hand the commitment to the Fitzgerald Principles.

And the fourth of those was that in relation to any controversial decision of the government an adequate explanation would be given to the people of Queensland.

Well that hasn't happened and if this government is truly transparent about what it does, truly committed for that open government about which it speaks it would explain to the people of Queensland why this investigation took so long, why it was necessary after nine months to independently refer it to a lawyer, and why after twelve months, simple, nothing is going to happen.

Reporter

Wait, are you saying that –

Mr Walker:

So the other things that I should say that needs to be explained is why in all of this process, this lengthy twelve month investigation we hear today from Mr Williams that he was never questioned by the police.

I find that alarming.

I can't believe that in a twelve month investigation with serious allegations against a member of parliament, that Member of Parliament wasn't even asked to respond to those allegations.

There's something strange about this.

The people of Queensland deserve to know much more than they've been told and that the Premier, the Attorney General, the Commissioner of Police, somebody, should be explaining to the people of Queensland why it is that this has come to an end after such a lengthy protracted investigation.

Reporter:

Are you saying that the – yeah – that the government has instigated the police to do a cover up?

Mr Walker:

What I'm saying is that this government is committed to transparency

Reporter:

Yeah, but you're saying that the Police have covered it up?

Mr Walker:

And It deserves, it deserves to tell the Queensland people better than simply nothing more is going to happen

Reporter:

But that's the police side of things it's not up to the government to release details of a police investigation.

That never happens.

Mr Walker:

It's up to the government to release a better explanation to the people of Queensland as why, as to why this has come to a grinding holt.

It is simply not good enough.

Reporter:

So should the government just intervene –

Reporters:

Inaudible

Mr Walker:

Now that we know, as Mr Williams has told, Mr Williams has told us, Mr Williams has told us, Mr Williams has told us that he hasn't been interviewed by the police.

How can that be a proper investigation of this serious set of allegations?

The government simply owes the people of Queensland a better explanation.

They can't leave it, they can't leave it where it is.

Reporter:

You want the government to intervene in a police investigation?

Do you understand the notion of the separation of powers?

Mr Walker

The government owe the people of the Queensland a better explanation

Reporter:

Why?

Mr Walker:

Because, they commit to transparency, they have committed to saying that every controversial decision made by this government will be explained

Reporter

It's not a decision made by the government, it's a police decision

Mr Walker:

It's a decision made by this government to take no further action in this matter.

Reporter:

No it's not, it was the police

Mr Walker:

Based on the advice that they've been given

Reporter:

No, it was

Reporter

What further action could they take if the police say there is no prospect or a prosecution?

What more action can the government take?

Mr Walker:

It's up to the government to explain why they'll take no action and what they know about this incident

Reporter:

Well what kind of action do you want them to take?

Mr Walker:

There has been a nine month police investigation, there's been a referral to an independent lawyer and it's not good enough simply to leave that on the basis that saying we're not going to take any further action.

Reporter:

But you could say the same thing with what happened with Doctor Levy.

Mr Walker:

Look, there have been plenty of cases before in which the Labor Party have been very happy to table the legal advice that they've received.

Reporter:

But they haven't received advice, it's not the party.

Mr Walker:

In the failure to retry Sir Joh Bjelke- Petersen they tabled that advice.

When they decided to prosecute Senior Sergeant Hurley and they received independent advice from Sir Lawrence Street they tabled that.

They have found themselves quite willing and quite able to give people a better explanation of their decision, than they have in this case.

Reporter:

Mr Walker, you have said, that you find it very strange that this man was never interviewed by police and you say that something has gone on here, are you saying that this is a police cover up or that police didn't do their jobs right?

Mr Walker:

I am saying that the government owes the people of Queensland an explanation as to exactly what has happened.

There has been a nine month police investigation; it hasn't just been dismissed overnight.

There's been a nine month police investigation, there was then for some reason a referral to an independent lawyer, and that's not being explained to us as to why that was necessary, and then that lawyer's given an opinion and we don't know what that is.

And we know that at the bottom of all that, that Mr Williams hasn't even been interviewed.

I find that extraordinary, when there was a lurid series of allegations against him in the press over a period of time that no one, not the Attorney-General, not the Premier, not the Commissioner of police said don't think someone should ask Mr Williams about this.

Reporter:

Are you questioning police judgement?

Mr Walker:

I'm questioning why the government isn't giving people-

Report:

Do you understand that this was a police decision?

Mr Walker:

I'm questioning why the government isn't giving us a better explanation of what has going on here.

Reporter:

But it's not the government's investigation, that's where we're all confused, the government did not instigate this investigation, it was a police investigation that went to DPP who then referred it to the independent barrister and that is all independent of government, so you're either alleging that the government should have interfered and, you know, got more answers or that the government did interfere and stop it.

Mr Walker:

I'm suggesting that the government owes Queenslanders a better explanation of what has happened

Reporter:

Why? It's a police investigation

Mr Walker:

Well, they need to explain the nature of that

Report:

But it's a police investigation

Mr Walker:

They cannot simply leave up in the air the fact that after nine months of police investigation and three months of an independent legal investigation there's nothing to see here.

Reporter:

It's not their investigation though, so why is the government responsible for a police investigation?

Mr Walker:

Because the police are part of the executive arm of government, the executive arm of government deserves to explain to the people of Queensland what's gone on here?

Reporter:

But no, that's not how the separation of power works. The government, if they interfered with a police investigation

Mr Walker:

I'm not suggesting that they interfere with a police investigation

Reporter:

But that's why we're all confused now, because you're saying that the government owes us an explanation but it wasn't a government commissioned inquiry, it was a police investigation.

Mr Walker:

I understand that it was a police investigation. The government owes us an explanation as to what has gone on and why after nine months-

Reporter:

But why?

Mr Walker:

Because they've committed to transparency in these matters, they committed to transparency as to these sorts of decisions

Reporter:

But this isn't a controversial decision though that they were involved in.

Mr Walker:

But this is a controversial decision. They deserve and they are at their required to explain to the people of Queensland why it is that this investigation took so long –

Reporter

But they can't. It is not their investigation. You could say the same about the Levy investigation, you could say the same about the Flegg investigation, you could say the same about the Yandina Five investigation, you could say the same thing about drug investigations that go on for two years – do we table all of those - that this is what happened?

Walker

This is a significant political issue and the government has a duty to explain to people, the process put in place and why it has led to no outcome after 12 months, with no questions being asked of Mr Williams –

Reporter

But that is all police. Why aren't you talking to Ian Stewart about this.

Walker

This is what the Government needs to say, they need to explain the process, as to what happened, why after nine months it went nowhere, other than an independent lawyer...so there is a nine month investigation, a three month legal process and the only outcome to that we know is nothing further will happen

Reporter

Why do you think the police shouldn't answer these questions?

Walker

This is a political matter and I am calling on the Premier and the Attorney-General -

Reporter

But aren't you innocent until proven guilty? It is a police matter.

Reporter

Why aren't you concerned that Ian Stewart isn't standing up and explaining why

Walker

That is up to the Government to determine how they explain it to people

Reporter

But why?

Walker

My questions to the Premier and the Attorney-General are to explain what processes happened and why we have come to this conclusion.

Reporter

Was this press conference your idea?

Reporter

Are you worried that this press conference and line of talk could perhaps harm your credibility as a future Attorney-General?

Walker

I put quite simply there has been a 12 month investigation here, which has led to no outcome. The people of Queensland deserve a better explanation than that. A nine-month police investigation then referred for three months to another lawyer, no explanations to why and no questions to Mr Williams.

Reporter

Do you think the Government interfered with the investigation?

Walker

I don't know if the government interfered with the investigation

Reporter

But do you think, is that what you are alleging?

Walker

I am not alleging that, I am saying the government deserves to explain the process and why we've got to this point.

Reporter

So are politicians then, every politician is held to a higher standard then, than what the public is – in terms of how police investigate things.

Walker

This is a higher profile case than most

Reporter

So there is no confidentiality in high profile cases?

Walker

I'm not...saying anything about confidentiality, I am saying the government owes the people of Queensland an explanation.

Reporter

A police investigation is confidential.

Walker

The Government owes the people of Queensland an explanation about this outcome.

Reporter

But it is not their investigation. That is where we are really confused. We don't mean any disrespect, it is just very confusing why the government owes us an explanation over a police investigation.

Walker

Because Mr Williams is part of their team in parliament, he's a key to them retaining their majority, this is a significant political issue and they need to explain how this political has occurred.

Reporter

When LNP members were investigated during the Newman years, the Premier stood up and said it is a police investigation, we will obey by the dictates of the police investigation and nothing was said until the end of the police investigation – if there were no charges, the matter was closed, as happens for everyone, if there were, there was further action. So why does the government then, have to explain why police and the DPP have decided not to charge somebody.

Walker

Because this is a high profile case and it is one which the government which has signed up to the transparency –

Reporter

So they need to then go to the DPP and say give us your case files, so we can release it?

Walker

They can get whatever information they need to get, but they need to explain to the people of Queensland, what the process has been and why after 12 months it has ended up in this position.

Reporter

So that is the same when the CCC investigates, you know, things like Campbell Newman's property interests and his family interests, all of that should have been tabled publicly as well – the intricacies of the investigation?

Walker

My comments are in relation to this investigation

Reporter

But that was another high profile investigation

Walker

Well in relation to this high profile investigation, there has been nine months police investigation, there has been three months of an independent lawyer, there has been no questioning of Mr Williams – I think that demands an explanation.

Reporter

From the government.

Walker

Correct.

Reporter

Will you also be writing to Ian Stewart asking him why they didn't take that extra step of interviewing Rick Williams over his part in this, will you also be asking him to explain that?

Walker

We haven't made a decision with what we may do with Commissioner Stewart, at the moment, we are asking the government to explain what has gone on here.

Reporter

Can you understand the confusion – you are asking the government to explain the results of a police investigation – do you understand that a police investigation is separate to the government?

Walker

Correct. I am asking the government to explain the process, and the process was a nine-month police investigation, a three month referral to an independent lawyer, during which time was Mr Williams himself asked anything. So he said this morning.

Reporter

So what don't you understand about that process?

Walker

I want to understand how that process is a proper one to lead to a conclusion that no further action should be taken – particularly if Mr Williams not being questioned.

Reporter

But that is a police process. You can understand how people may get the implication that you may be casting doubt on the police investigation and the government's involvement in the police investigation

Walker

I am simply asking the government to explain, how it is after nine months of a police investigation, three months referral to an independent lawyer and no questioning of Mr Williams, we've come up with nothing to see here

Reporter

Because maybe there is no evidence? That is what the police investigation would have found.

Walker

Well, people in this instance have signed statutory declarations, there needs to be an explanation of how we got to this point.

Reporter

So he's guilty?

Walker

There needs to be an explanation of how we got to this point

Reporter

So because it is a high profile case, and you think he is guilty, because of the statutory declarations, and the police investigation and the investigation of the evidence has found we can't take this to trial, we should explain that. But only because it is a high profile case.

Walker

It is a high profile case, there has been a lengthy investigation, there has been no questioning of the person at the centre of it, that deserves an explanation from the people at the centre of it.

Reporter

From the police or the government?

Walker

From the government

Reporter

Because the government should have dictated to the police how to do their investigation?

Walker

I'm not saying that at all

Reporter

But you are, because you are saying –

Walker

I am saying that the government needs to explain the situation to the people of Queensland

Reporter

So you would be happy for police to turn over – what? Witness statements, all the evidence they have gathered in a confidential investigation to the government. That would be extraordinary

Walker

The government can find whatever it way it wants to tell the people of Queensland. I am simply saying that the people of Queensland –

Reporter

So you want a large amount of witness statements, but then you want the government to decide which are released and which aren't?

Walker

I want the government to explain how we have to a situation that after nine months of a police investigation, a referral for some reason, to an independent lawyer and no questioning of Mr Williams, we simply come up with no result.

Reporter

Can you explain the separation of powers?

Walker

I can explain the separation of powers – the separation of powers, there is the legislator, there is the executive and the judiciary and they all operate separately from each other.

Reporter

So you have said the police are part of the executive, so therefore –

Walker

That's right

Reporter

So the executive should be able to tell them what to do?

Walker

I am not suggesting that the executive tell the police what to do

Multiple reporters

But you are. You are.

Walker

I am suggesting that the government explain to the people of Queensland how this process has ended up, as it has to today

Reporter

Which is the government telling the police what to do. That is literally is what you are telling them to do.

Walker

I am not saying the government tell the police what to do

Reporter

But how else do you get what you want?

Walker

The government needs to explain how the process has got us to this point where we are

Reporter

But the government left the process to the police

Walker

There has been a nine-month investigation –

Reporter

Yup, and investigations take as long as they take

Walker

There has been a separate referral to an independent lawyer

Reporter

Which is also not the government's doing

Walker

The government needs to explain this process and how we are got to this to the people of Queensland

Reporter

Did you make the same call to action when Billy Gordon's case was finalised?

Walker

I don't think in the case of Billy Gordon there was the second referral to an independent lawyer

Reporter

There was

Walker

There was simply a police investigation in that case

Reporter

And they referred it on. For an independent view

Walker

I don't know the situation with Mr Gordon's case

Reporter

But shouldn't the government then in theory, explained that case as well

Walker

The government needs to, if it is signed up to the transparency that it claims to be signed up to. It needs to be able to explain this process to the people of Queensland.

Reporter

But the Constitution and the law explains these processes

Walker

The Government needs to explain to the people of Queensland how we got to this outcome with this process

Reporter

Which is the government then telling the police what to do. Do you see the circular argument that we are now in?
Walker

No, I don't see it as the government telling the police what to do

Reporter

How is it not – if the police make a decision and then the police refer it on and then it gets independently reviewed, the government is separate from that, yes?

Walker

Correct

Reporter

So, how now, does the government have to explain what has been done, if they are separate from that process, why does the government now have to explain that investigation

Walker

Because the people of Queensland have seen this – they have seen a nine month police investigation, a three month legal investigation, 12 months, during which Mr Williams hasn't been questioned. That needs an explanation.

Reporter

How does the government explain that without breaching the separation of powers?

Walker

That is for the government to determine

Reporter

You are the one calling for it

Walker

They can explain to the people of Queensland how we got to this point

Reporter

Do you accept if the government does what you are suggesting today, that it is breaching the separation of powers

Walker

No I don't.

Reporter

Why not?

Walker

Because the government can make such investigations and make an explanation that doesn't breach the separation of powers

Reporter

So you want someone from the government level, the Premier or the AG, to go to the investigating officers and ask them what happened?

Walker

It is up to them as to how they

Reporter

No – you are the one prosecuting the case, so I want you to explain what you mean. Do you want the government, be it the AG or the Premier, to go to the investigating police and ask them why they didn't proceed with the prosecution?

Walker

I am wanting the government to take such advice as it needs to get a better explanation to the people of Queensland. I think we might be going around in circles here.

Reporter

Just one more – Rick Williams said he believed it might be the Opposition this whole time, pushing this, leaking stuff to the media, to pick off Members. What do you think about that?

Walker

I am not aware of any such campaign happening and I am sure it didn't.

OK, thanks everybody.

gay picnic defence
Oct 5, 2009


I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS

iajanus posted:

Surprising to see reporters doing their jobs for once.

can you summarize that?

iajanus
Aug 17, 2004

NUMBER 1 QUEENSLAND SUPPORTER
MAROONS 2023 STATE OF ORIGIN CHAMPIONS FOR LIFE



gay picnic defence posted:

can you summarize that?

The first couple of sentences do that job, the rest is the transcript.

Wheezle
Aug 13, 2007

420 stop boats erryday

iajanus posted:

Surprising to see reporters doing their jobs for once.

That reporter has a loving iron will.

Recoome
Nov 9, 2013

Matter of fact, I'm salty now.
The summary of that transcript is that a state MP for QLD really wishes that they had political stormtroopers who fall under the Executive branch of government so the will of the LNP can be enforced. This includes implying that other MP's have committed illegal acts after being cleared through releasing confidential police reports.

DancingShade
Jul 26, 2007

by Fluffdaddy

(and can't post for 26 days!)

Recoome posted:

The summary of that transcript is that a state MP for QLD really wishes that they had political stormtroopers who fall under the Executive branch of government so the will of the LNP can be enforced. This includes implying that other MP's have committed illegal acts after being cleared through releasing confidential police reports.

Of course. Bow to your betters peasants!

*sips $5000 wine*

tithin
Nov 14, 2003


[Grandmaster Tactician]



gay picnic defence posted:

can you summarize that?

It's worth a read but in summary, LNP qld calls on qld government to release a bunch of files to the public relating to a 12 month police investigation and "explain" why there was no prosecution.

And gets absolutely hosed by a bunch of reporters on why that's a bad idea.

birdstrike
Oct 30, 2008

i;m gay

DancingShade posted:

Of course. Bow to your betters peasants!

*takes photo of dilz in glass of $5000 wine*

ewe2
Jul 1, 2009

tithin posted:

And gets absolutely hosed by a bunch of reporters on why that's a bad idea.

And gets really uncomfortable when asked why it was fine for investigations into LNP members be left to the police and not this one. Reverts to the soundbite he was given but can't get off the merry go round. Hilarity ensues. This is the alternate Attorney General who doesn't believe in separation of powers.

You Am I
May 20, 2001

Me @ your poasting

Another poo poo month in a bullshit country whose mindless fuckwits will vote the Liberals back in next month because they are completed hosed in the head.

put both hands in
Nov 28, 2007

:swoon:FYFE:swoon:
June is a pretty good month as I will not be in Australia for the entirety of it

Mad Katter
Aug 23, 2010

STOP THE BATS
I like this OP.

thatbastardken
Apr 23, 2010

A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
Yeah thanks for that

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN
Jun 26, 2009



iajanus posted:

Surprising to see reporters doing their jobs for once.

Taht was great hope they dont lose their job now

ewe2
Jul 1, 2009

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:

Taht was great hope they dont lose their job now

Are you kidding, they should be swapped with the dickheads in Canberra: can you imagine the improvement in election reporting?

CrazyTolradi
Oct 2, 2011

It feels so good to be so bad.....at posting.

tithin posted:

It's worth a read but in summary, LNP qld calls on qld government to release a bunch of files to the public relating to a 12 month police investigation and "explain" why there was no prosecution.

And gets absolutely hosed by a bunch of reporters on why that's a bad idea.
Ian Walker is a disaster of a choice for Opposition AG, he's less qualified than Jarred Bleijie for the ministry and, as that presser shows, he has literally no loving idea about how separation of powers is meant to work.

Or worse, he does and honestly doesn't care one poo poo about it. Stupidity or malice, take your pick.

Cartoon
Jun 20, 2008

poop
And so it goes for another month. OP satisfactory.

V for Vegas
Sep 1, 2004

THUNDERDOME LOSER
This was good

quote:

Walker

I am not suggesting that the executive tell the police what to do

Multiple reporters

But you are. You are.

Walker

I am suggesting that the government explain to the people of Queensland how this process has ended up, as it has to today

Reporter

Which is the government telling the police what to do. That is literally is what you are telling them to do.

hooman
Oct 11, 2007

This guy seems legit.
Fun Shoe
Can somebody please find the audio to that so we can put it over Joe Hockey Dryer?

ewe2
Jul 1, 2009

I'll just leave this here, shall I?

reptilian overlord unmasked posted:

Would the last liberal in the Liberal Party please turn off the lights?

Waves of memberships, donations and pledges of support from people who have traditionally supported the Liberals are flowing into parties that support liberal values. We’ve certainly benefited at the Liberal Democrats, and we understanding the same has occurred at Family First. We first noticed a shift from the Liberals when the Coalition dropped its commitment to free speech and the repeal of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. And we have noticed it every time the government blocks a foreign investor, describes a new spending program as an ‘initiative’ or ‘investment’, or tweaks a tax to raise more revenue.

But the biggest wave of disappointed Liberal supporters has come as a result of the budget a few weeks ago. The budget increased discretionary spending, despite the previous acknowledgement that we have a spending problem. It increased taxes on multinationals and smokers, despite the Government previously ridiculing Labor when it proposed something similar. And it increased taxes on savers, despite the Government’s pledge that ‘there will be no new taxes on superannuation under this Government’.

The budget also abandoned the limp commitment to deliver a budget surplus equal to 1 per cent of GDP by 2023-24, despite the repeated rhetoric that government must live within its means.

Real liberals are leaving the Liberals in droves. A similar phenomenon has been seen before on the other side of politics. For years, the Greens have been gaining members, donations and votes from people who traditionally supported Labor, but who yearned for more interventionist policy in areas like tobacco control and renewable energy. Now the Coalition is losing support from traditional supporters who yearn for more liberal, responsible and market-oriented policies.

Such a transfer of support from the Coalition’s base to more market-oriented minor parties will come as no surprise to political theorists, for four reasons.

First, median voter theory suggests it is logical for the Coalition to sell out its base. Government is not won by the party most loyal to its founding principles; it is won by the party that wins the support of the ‘median voter’. This ‘median voter’ doesn’t identify with either the Coalition or Labor. Median voter support swings between parties from election to election. If the backroom apparatchiks in the Coalition or Labor think the ‘median voter’ wants bigger spending, more tax on the rich and bans on free speech and foreign investment, then that is what both the Coalition and Labor will offer.

Second, compulsory voting encourages the Coalition to appeal to people who are so politically apathetic that they would not bother to vote if it were voluntary. This slants the Coalition’s offerings away from policies that would appeal to their thoughtful traditional supporters, and towards superficial policies that appeal to the apathetic and ill-informed.

The third reason for the exodus of support from the Coalition to market-oriented minor parties is preferential voting. The wise heads among traditional Liberal supporters know they can safely send the party a message by voting 1 for a party such as the Liberal Democrats and 2 for the Coalition. Such a vote will either elect a market-oriented minor party candidate who can hold the government to account and help it cut spending and balance the budget — or it will elect a Coalition candidate. Such voting will in no way contribute to the formation of a Labor Government, or a Senate crossbench populated by the Greens.

Finally, the transfer of the Coalition’s base to market-oriented parties is reinforced by the Coalition’s decision to hold a double dissolution election. Disgruntled Coalition supporters who know their maths realise this is a great opportunity to flush obstructionist ferals from the Senate crossbench and introduce additional senators who can pass spending cuts and serve as the conscience of a Coalition government.

The Greens became the third force in Australian politics by pressuring Labor to adopt pious but economically irresponsible policies. The stage is now set for a fourth force to emerge to pull the Coalition back to its base.

With each passing week the Liberals are bleeding members, donors and first-preference votes. That the Prime Minister has arranged for this election campaign to be one of the longest in Australian history is surely a matter of considerable concern at Coalition campaign headquarters, and considerable celebration elsewhere.

David Leyonhjelm is a Senator for the Liberal Democrats

hooman
Oct 11, 2007

This guy seems legit.
Fun Shoe
"This slants the Coalition’s offerings away from policies that would appeal to their thoughtful traditional supporters, and towards superficial policies that appeal to the apathetic and ill-informed."

:allears:

ewe2
Jul 1, 2009

It was:

what, me shill for votes? Never! posted:

The wise heads among traditional Liberal supporters know they can safely send the party a message by voting 1 for a party such as the Liberal Democrats and 2 for the Coalition. Such a vote will either elect a market-oriented minor party candidate who can hold the government to account and help it cut spending and balance the budget — or it will elect a Coalition candidate. Such voting will in no way contribute to the formation of a Labor Government, or a Senate crossbench populated by the Greens.

that made me :allears:

open24hours
Jan 7, 2001

hooman posted:

"This slants the Coalition’s offerings away from policies that would appeal to their thoughtful traditional supporters, and towards superficial policies that appeal to the apathetic and ill-informed."

:allears:
He's not wrong. Well, maybe about the traditional supporters being thoughtful.

Anidav
Feb 25, 2010

ahhh fuck its the rats again

It's getting dangerously close. That roadblock in QLD cannot be good for Labor though, I'm not sure why the resistance is happening there given how lacklustre the state opposition is.

hooman
Oct 11, 2007

This guy seems legit.
Fun Shoe
Holy poo poo WA... finally starting to realise the libs aren't good for us.

MonoAus
Nov 5, 2012

hooman posted:

Holy poo poo WA... finally starting to realise the libs aren't good for us.

Give it another week, we'll soon forget.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

You Am I
May 20, 2001

Me @ your poasting

I'm surprised with the Tasmanian results for the LNP, I thought they were more popular than Labor down there

  • Locked thread