Skip to main content

Do we have a politics thread to discuss things political?


DFnwcJVU0AANjtA.jpg:large


A wonderful woman, lucky enough to meet her a few times, beautiful inside and out

Why is it always the ones you want to stay in politics that get out of it? A saying I have heard and believe it more and more as I get older is that any person who wants to be a politician should immediately be disallowed as they are the ones you don't want there!
 
No person you ever meet ever can live up to an idealistic impression you have created for yourself of a girl you had a couple of conversations online with several years ago now. And before you say you know Inigo has faults, they are the faults you have decided she has and have reconciled in your mind that you can accept. How could anyone else ever measure up to this figment of your imagination?

Inigo can and has lived up to those impressions. Her only fault is being too perfect for me.
 
Why is it always the ones you want to stay in politics that get out of it? A saying I have heard and believe it more and more as I get older is that any person who wants to be a politician should immediately be disallowed as they are the ones you don't want there!

Maybe you should go into politics?
 
So what would be the main policies of your "Bridal Party"?

- No land war with Asia.

- Every child will have gradual trace doses of iocane powder to build up their immunity to iocane.

- All revenge is fought through fancy sword play.
 
Jacinda ardern is the new leader of the nz labour party. She is well liked and inspirational.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kxk
Could Australia really get same-sex marriage by the end of next week?

PUSHING its way onto the national agenda with more regularity than an actual wedding anniversary, same-sex marriage once again has Canberra buzzing.

Australia is the only English speaking democracy that has failed to legislate for the measure.

But there are now serious suggestions that by the end of next week Australia could become the latest country to say “I do” to people of the same gender getting married.

After years of back and forth on the issue, could it really be coming to a head this quickly? And can it even happen without a plebiscite?

Certainly, the push is on. But those against the measure aren’t going down without one heck of a fight.

2b087907c60680a84a4bde5de0ad37c6

The Government’s policy is for a non-binding public vote on marriage equality.Source:Supplied

WHAT’S THE GOVERNMENT’S POSITION ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?

Officially the Government’s only position is to have a non-binding public vote on the issue — the much talked about plebiscite — which MPs could then choose to heed or ignore when it came to the proper vote in parliament.

The problem is, the parliamentary vote to allow the public vote to inform the parliamentary vote didn’t pass the senate.

SO STALEMATE?


Absolutely. The Turnbull Government has a policy for a plebiscite that can’t happen in its current form. It’s dead plan walking.

But just because the public vote is in cold storage, doesn’t mean the issue is going away.

And the longer the issue isn’t resolved, the longer it bangs about creating lots of noise crowding out other issues.

62fe51550ed2ef888cc8174573d97ba4

Tim Wilson (right) entered federal Parliament in the blue-ribbon Liberal seat of Goldstein in 2014 with his partner Ryan Bolger (left). Picture: Josie Hayden.Source:News Corp Australia

WHAT’S CHANGED ALL OF A SUDDEN?

Firstly, Parliament is reconvening next week, which could bring on a vote for marriage equality.

Secondly, a number of Liberal backbenchers are pushing for the issue to be sorted.

Liberal MP Tim Wilson is backing a free vote. On Monday, he told Sky News: “It’s in our best interests to move on from this issue so we can focus on the sorts of things I think people voted for me and for my party to deal with — tax reform, fixing the budget, national security.”

Thirdly, Malcolm Turnbull seems to have, ever so subtly, changed his tune on the issue.

WHAT DID THE PM ACTUALLY SAY?

Malcolm in the middle is in a huge pickle. He bloody loves the gays — he’s a regular at Sydney’s Mardi Gras — but when he toppled Tony Abbott he agreed to the plebiscite.

Any move away from this brings the conservative side of the Coalition ranks into fits of rage.

But on Monday, Mr Turnbull said backbenchers “have always had the right to cross the floor”.

Indeed, it’s Liberal party tradition for its MPs to be allowed to vote as they please on conscience votes. Reiterating that point is a huge boost to the pro marriage equality side.

617824e0c39295ed16fe212bedf9888c

Malcolm Turnbull finds himself in a tricky position he is desperate to find a way out of. Picture: Lawrence PinderSource:News Corp Australia

I BET THAT HASN’T GONE DOWN WELL WITH SOME MPs?

No sireee. Unnamed sources have said Turnbull’s leadership is “terminal” if he can’t keep the agitators in line.

There’s talk of yet another leadership coup, installing Peter Dutton as PM. There are also grave mutterings of pro-marriage equality MPs, such as Mr Wilson and Brisbane member Trevor Evans, being deselected before the next election.

Mathias Cormann, a senior conservative figure, has insisted Mr Turnbull enjoys the support of cabinet and the party room.

But then, we’ve heard that all before.

ISN’T A VOTE WITHOUT A PLEBISCITE GOING AGAINST PARTY POLICY?

It is for Coalition MPs. But some say, like a groom jilted at the alter many moons ago, it’s time to move on.

Mr Evans told Emma Alberici on ABC’s Lateline on Monday that he voted for and “spoke very strongly” in favour of a plebiscite, but that battle was lost.

“We have the stalemate that doesn’t serve the interests of the nation or the government.”

The Parliament “needed to find another way” or the focus would continually shift back to marriage equality, which would only benefit Labor, he said.

f0f545d5fe2504a941cbc1b3db307b64

There are rumblings a change of direction on marriage equality could see Peter Dutton depose Malcolm Turnbull and become PM. Picture: AAP Image/Joe CASTRO.Source:AAP

WHAT ABOUT A POSTAL PLEBISCITE?

This is many conservative MPs’ preferred plan B and it’s easier to implement as you don’t need legislation to approve it.

Conservative Liberal senator Eric Abetz told AAP the plebiscite is the “superior option”.

Mr Evans said the time has passed for a plebiscite and the “most sensible way forward” is a vote.

Also, many feel a postal plebiscite will have even less credibility than the original plebiscite.

SO HOW COULD MARRIAGE EQUALITY BECOME LEGAL?

A few ways. The Government could give a plebiscite another shot in the senate. But key independents who voted no, like Nick Xenophon and Derryn Hinch, seem in no mood to change their mind.

The first clue to a new path way will come on Monday when the Liberal party will have a party room meeting where marriage equality is expected to be raised.

The MPs could decide the plebiscite is a dog of a policy, and nix it, paving the way for a clean conscience vote.

But if the plebiscite policy stays around then four Liberal MPs would need to defy their party and support a procedural motion to allow a same-sex marriage bill to be introduced.

If that motion passed, then a marriage bill could be introduced.

4d9a1e37945de168f82922c98d93b26f

Federal MP for the seat of Brisbane, Trevor Evans, has said the plebiscite is dead and a new route is needed to get the issue off the table. Picture: Lyndon MechielsenSource:News Corp Australia

IS IT LIKELY?

Either option is very possible but a lot of hurdles remain.

Expect a number of MPs to say ditching a plebiscite will anger the public and enrage party members.

The pressure on Liberal MPs not to cross the floor will also be immense.

Even if they believe party members in their own electorates will keep faith with them, the thought they could help bring down the Prime Minister will weigh heavy.

But if these MPs think they are on the right side of history and public opinion — and that the threat of a leadership challenge is overblown — then it is absolutely possible Australia could get gay marriage next week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kxk
Will you bugger off to play golf? And other questions more pertinent than pregnancy

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...other-questions-more-pertinent-than-pregnancy



It only took seven hours for the new leader of the New Zealand Labour party to be publicly subjected to hoary stereotypes of sexist nonsense.

I despair that that’s unlikely to even be a record. But there’s Jacinda Ardern, 37 years old. Preselected unanimously and seizing the political opportunity of her life. The great hope of a party whose hopes have long been dormant. A young woman already with a reputation for international leadership ... reduced, on a radio broadcast to the question: “Is it OK for a PM to take maternity leave while in office?”

It was in the context of: “If you are the employer of a company you need to know that type of thing from the woman you are employing … ”

Oh, Jesus Christ. Or any god, of any faith – preferably, a great, avenging thousand-breasted, snake-haired goddess stirring from the planet’s molten core – please, come save us. It is 2017 and a woman’s reproductive capacity is, just one more time, being pushed to the forefront of her consideration. No, actually, if you are the employer of a company you do not need to know “that type of thing” beyond that pregnancy discrimination is illegal under at least four New Zealand laws.

This preoccupation with the potential of a female leader’s womb is a long-held cultural fixation that in more primitive times, at least, could be ascribed to superstition, or – and even then somewhat shakily – to the demands of hereditary monarchy. In 2017, this reduction to biology is just plain creepy. Like being asked if you fear that your breasts will spontaneously lactate over a cabinet meeting, or sessions of parliament be interrupted by the inevitable horde of bears attracted by the scent of prime ministerial menstruation. Madam, your commitment to legislative reform is very sound, but are you not afeard your labia will indent upon the furniture?

Queen Elizabeth I did a dandy job of repelling conquest, invasion and the Spanish Armada unburdened by pregnancy or child-rearing. Queen Victoria ruled the widest empire the Earth has ever known, for decades, and gave birth nine times. The only obstruction to women’s capacity to lead is the willingness of those around them to accept their command. Seats of power really can be adjusted to accommodate differences in physicality; Franklin D Roosevelt was in a wheelchair, Winston Churchill was obese and John Curtin a chain-smoking alcoholic and yet their own democracies entrusted them to their leadership of nations during war.

What infuriates is that the messages about women in leadership aren’t even consistent. The first female prime minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, was maligned for her choice to remain “deliberately barren”, as if it made her less likely to understand the demands of family life. Similar criticism has been levelled at the fearsome Angela Merkel and – the as yet, undefeated – Theresa May. As opposed to Hillary Clinton, of course, whose own political career was sidelined as she devoted dutiful years to the raising of a child, only for it to be implied she had grown too old to be president by those supporting a male opponent older than her and, arguably, not in such great shape himself.

Recent history suggests there are more pertinent questions for a media commentator to ask of a potential leader. Questions like, “Are you likely to bugger off to play some golfwhile your aggressive rhetoric provoking the North Koreans to believe a US invasion is imminent leads the world to the brink of nuclear war?”, perhaps. Or “Will you lead Britain into a needless referendum on leaving Europe merely to satisfy internal tension in your party, and when your side loses, exposing the world’s eighth largest economy to structural calumny, will you stroll off humming?” Maybe, “Are you so incapable of commanding your party to accept a free vote – not even a binding one – on marriage equality you are literally considering making the legal right to marry something decided by whoever turns up on a mail-in basis?”

To her great recommendation, Ardern soundly demolished her interlocutor with confidence and precision, dispatching both his question and his global reputation back to the darkness of the age from which it sprang. I’d vote for her, and I hope New Zealand does, too – if only for the world to be taught, just one more time, that one can choose to be pregnant or not, with no impact, negative or positive, on an ability to launch policy, prepare legislation, negotiate agreements and allocate resources to a citizenry.

There are certainly already legions of penis-bearing, bloviating nitwits who’ve been elevated far beyond their leadership capacity, with far less interrogation.


 
  • Like
Reactions: kxk
Back
Top