Once again, missing the point I was making.Notaroboticfish wrote:You’re the one that seems to be trying to lump **** on Shorten whilst turning a blind eye to the LNP doing the same thing twice as badlyNorthern Raider wrote:You seem to be taking an "us and them" position on the debate. If you don't understand the point I'm making then really no sense for me to argue with you about it.
Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
The Politics Thread 2017
Moderator: GH Moderators
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32522
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
-
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 13407
- Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
- Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
- Location: Canberra :(
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
That's not true NRNorthern Raider wrote:Shorten is the one who has pushed this dual citizenship issue and the end result has left 5 of his own party under threat. The general public has become increasingly frustrated with this whole drama, which has effectively hijacked parliament for the 2nd half of this year.Notaroboticfish wrote:You're saying it's a bad look for the ALP to be referring their own MP? Despite that being what the LNP had been asking for for the last week, which when done they voted down? I'd say the second one is a much worse look than anything the ALP has done about thisNorthern Raider wrote:Not really sure what your point is so can't argueNotaroboticfish wrote:What? It's a much worse look for the LNP to be voting this down than it is for Shorten to be trying to get rid of a ****Northern Raider wrote:Looks like Shorten happy to throw his own MP's under the bus on this one. Manipulation for his own political gain regardless of consequence is becoming the typical modus operandi for him. Good chance this will increase the distaste among the voting public for Shorten as the alternative PM. His presence as party leader is the only thing that will make the next election a close contest.
Turnbull's carry on over this issue is just as bad as Shorten's. He showed zero leadership and engaged in political point scoring from day 1.
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32522
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Guys, I'm not talking about Turnbull. I'm talking about Shorten. Please stop trying to interpret my criticism of Shorten's actions as some form of endorsement for Turnbull.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Speaking of Turnbull
The SSM bill passed, with no amendments, before Christmas
Just as Turnbull said it would. Despite all the theatrics of those opposing this method, it’s delivered exactly what we all wanted, in less time than simply waiting for the spineless Penny Wong and her cohorts to get in government and hope they had the stones for it after embarrassing failure last time out
Should I wait patiently here for the concessions of posters here that they got it totally wrong on this one, or is there somewhere else you’d like to make those concessions?
The SSM bill passed, with no amendments, before Christmas
Just as Turnbull said it would. Despite all the theatrics of those opposing this method, it’s delivered exactly what we all wanted, in less time than simply waiting for the spineless Penny Wong and her cohorts to get in government and hope they had the stones for it after embarrassing failure last time out
Should I wait patiently here for the concessions of posters here that they got it totally wrong on this one, or is there somewhere else you’d like to make those concessions?
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32522
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Yes. Let us know how you go.Pigman wrote:Speaking of Turnbull
The SSM bill passed, with no amendments, before Christmas
Just as Turnbull said it would. Despite all the theatrics of those opposing this method, it’s delivered exactly what we all wanted, in less time than simply waiting for the spineless Penny Wong and her cohorts to get in government and hope they had the stones for it after embarrassing failure last time out
Should I wait patiently here for the concessions of posters here that they got it totally wrong on this one, or is there somewhere else you’d like to make those concessions?
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
There is absolutely no doubt that the postal poll was unnecessary and wasteful. The Parliament should have got on and done its job and this would have been completed months ago, without a horrible and hurtful debate. The only plus is that 60 odd per cent out of 80 odd per cent of Australians showed themselves to be caring people who wanted to stop the discrimination in our law. The sad thing is that 30 something per cent wanted to continue the horrible discrimination against LGBT people.
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32522
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
"absolutely no doubt"??? Sorry but I disagree. As stated in a post earlier the plebiscite result demonstrated clear margin of public support for the change, which served to disempower anybody in parliament who opposed it. The end results has seen the legislation pass through almost unobstructed. During the Rudd, Gillard, Abbott reign the subject was never even proposed.greeneyed wrote:There is absolutely no doubt that the postal poll was unnecessary and wasteful. The Parliament should have got on and done its job and this would have been completed months ago, without a horrible and hurtful debate. The only plus is that 60 odd per cent out of 80 odd per cent of Australians showed themselves to be caring people who wanted to stop the discrimination in our law. The sad thing is that 30 something per cent wanted to continue the horrible discrimination against LGBT people.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
A free vote would be nowhere near as quick as this was in the scheme of things..
It would have been debated and stalled and amended and stalled and eventually canned
Nearly all the mps stood to their word one way or another and let the result of the survey dictate the vote in the house
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
It would have been debated and stalled and amended and stalled and eventually canned
Nearly all the mps stood to their word one way or another and let the result of the survey dictate the vote in the house
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Everyone is political point scoring about one side or the other. I don't give a darn about all the political one up-man-ship that lots of people are engaging in here. If the politicians were decent Australians, it did not require any postal opinion poll, they would have gladly voted to end discrimination in the law. It was a horrible campaign, full of hate. The result was obvious from opinion polls. If we had to go through a wasteful postal opinion poll, and that campaign full of hate and division... just so the politicians could just go ahead and vote on their conscience... then it says a whole lot about the politicians. And they should not be Parliamentarians.
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32522
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Agree except the last bit about being canned. I feel it still would have passed. Just not as quickly and with far more complicated (and less desirable) amendments to the legislation.-TW- wrote:A free vote would be nowhere near as quick as this was in the scheme of things..
It would have been debated and stalled and amended and stalled and eventually canned
Nearly all the mps stood to their word one way or another and let the result of the survey dictate the vote in the house
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Last edited by Northern Raider on December 7, 2017, 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
The amendments to the law are still coming. Don't expect that this is the end of it.Northern Raider wrote:Agree with except the last bit about being canned. I feel it still would have passed. Just not as quickly and with far more complicated (and less desirable) amendments to the legislation.-TW- wrote:A free vote would be nowhere near as quick as this was in the scheme of things..
It would have been debated and stalled and amended and stalled and eventually canned
Nearly all the mps stood to their word one way or another and let the result of the survey dictate the vote in the house
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
- Notaroboticfish
- Jason Croker
- Posts: 4125
- Joined: July 13, 2015, 5:50 pm
- Favourite Player: Royce Hunt
- Location: Middle Earth
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Newscorp polls had the vote at about 63% Yes for a while and we got 62% on the survey. Time, money (I don’t **** care what percentage of the budget it is) and attention wasted on an issue that should have been resolved years ago.
This is not a win for Turnbull (who might I add, abstained on all but one of the amendments) nor the Labour Party. This is a failure by both sides.
Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
This is not a win for Turnbull (who might I add, abstained on all but one of the amendments) nor the Labour Party. This is a failure by both sides.
Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Me eithergreeneyed wrote:Everyone is political point scoring about one side or the other. I don't give a darn about all the political one up-man-ship that lots of people are engaging in here.
So... you were totally wrong, yeah?
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32522
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
What do you mean?greeneyed wrote:The amendments to the law are still coming. Don't expect that this is the end of it.Northern Raider wrote:Agree with except the last bit about being canned. I feel it still would have passed. Just not as quickly and with far more complicated (and less desirable) amendments to the legislation.-TW- wrote:A free vote would be nowhere near as quick as this was in the scheme of things..
It would have been debated and stalled and amended and stalled and eventually canned
Nearly all the mps stood to their word one way or another and let the result of the survey dictate the vote in the house
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
No. And you're leading the pack on political one up man ship.Pigman wrote:Me eithergreeneyed wrote:Everyone is political point scoring about one side or the other. I don't give a darn about all the political one up-man-ship that lots of people are engaging in here.
So... you were totally wrong, yeah?
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Yep. The postal voted destroyed any hopes of stalling this, any hopes of opposing itNorthern Raider wrote:"absolutely no doubt"??? Sorry but I disagree. As stated in a post earlier the plebiscite result demonstrated clear margin of public support for the change, which served to disempower anybody in parliament who opposed it. The end results has seen the legislation pass through almost unobstructed. During the Rudd, Gillard, Abbott reign the subject was never even proposed.greeneyed wrote:There is absolutely no doubt that the postal poll was unnecessary and wasteful. The Parliament should have got on and done its job and this would have been completed months ago, without a horrible and hurtful debate. The only plus is that 60 odd per cent out of 80 odd per cent of Australians showed themselves to be caring people who wanted to stop the discrimination in our law. The sad thing is that 30 something per cent wanted to continue the horrible discrimination against LGBT people.
And the results are now there for all to see
The bill was supported in parliament with a gigantic majority
The LNP delivered on a promise to have this dealt with quickly and swiftly, and it was. And then for the vast majority, the politicians respected the respected the nations decision
This is an unequivocal success for the Turnbull government and anyone suggesting otherwise IS engaging in point scoring and one upmanship
- Notaroboticfish
- Jason Croker
- Posts: 4125
- Joined: July 13, 2015, 5:50 pm
- Favourite Player: Royce Hunt
- Location: Middle Earth
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Quickly and Swiftly? The election was 16 months ago! Honestly, this could’ve been done by Christmas last year in what would have actually been a victory for the Turnbull Government. This just makes it clear for all to see that Turnbull is a spineless coward more interested in protecting his own job than the good of the countryPigman wrote:Yep. The postal voted destroyed any hopes of stalling this, any hopes of opposing itNorthern Raider wrote:"absolutely no doubt"??? Sorry but I disagree. As stated in a post earlier the plebiscite result demonstrated clear margin of public support for the change, which served to disempower anybody in parliament who opposed it. The end results has seen the legislation pass through almost unobstructed. During the Rudd, Gillard, Abbott reign the subject was never even proposed.greeneyed wrote:There is absolutely no doubt that the postal poll was unnecessary and wasteful. The Parliament should have got on and done its job and this would have been completed months ago, without a horrible and hurtful debate. The only plus is that 60 odd per cent out of 80 odd per cent of Australians showed themselves to be caring people who wanted to stop the discrimination in our law. The sad thing is that 30 something per cent wanted to continue the horrible discrimination against LGBT people.
And the results are now there for all to see
The bill was supported in parliament with a gigantic majority
The LNP delivered on a promise to have this dealt with quickly and swiftly, and it was. And then for the vast majority, the politicians respected the respected the nations decision
This is an unequivocal success for the Turnbull government and anyone suggesting otherwise IS engaging in point scoring and one upmanship
Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Without the vote, we would not have marriage equality right now. It’s that simpleNotaroboticfish wrote:Newscorp polls had the vote at about 63% Yes for a while and we got 62% on the survey. Time, money (I don’t **** care what percentage of the budget it is) and attention wasted on an issue that should have been resolved years ago.
This is not a win for Turnbull (who might I add, abstained on all but one of the amendments) nor the Labour Party. This is a failure by both sides.
Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
It wasn’t unnecessary. It was indeed a necessary evil that we needed to do in the political climate we had at the time to achieve equality
This is the real world where people need to find workable solutions given the constraints they given. Not some make believe world where you live in where everyone just rolls into parliament and votes their conscious.
- reptar
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 15755
- Joined: January 25, 2005, 9:24 pm
- Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson
- Location: Brisbane
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
When does the GG sign it?
Gina Riley: Oh, come on, John. That’s a bit old hat, the corrupt IOC delegate.
John Clarke: Old hat? Gina, in the scientific world when they see that something is happening again and again and again, repeatedly, they don’t call it old hat. They call it a pattern.
John Clarke: Old hat? Gina, in the scientific world when they see that something is happening again and again and again, repeatedly, they don’t call it old hat. They call it a pattern.
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Marriages by the end of January or February, apparently.reptar wrote:When does the GG sign it?
- Notaroboticfish
- Jason Croker
- Posts: 4125
- Joined: July 13, 2015, 5:50 pm
- Favourite Player: Royce Hunt
- Location: Middle Earth
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
The only people that would’ve voted no are the **** on the far right of the LNP that seem to be controlling the Government. There was obvious public support for this, as there has been for years. Almost all of Labour would have voted Yes, plus the Greens and probably about half the LNP. That would have been more than enough to get it through without this vote. All it did was turn a marginal victory into a massive victory
Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32522
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Wondering why the Labor/Greens coalition didn't pass the legislation during their 2 terms in office.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
- reptar
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 15755
- Joined: January 25, 2005, 9:24 pm
- Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson
- Location: Brisbane
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Right. I've already been asked where the ring is. Haha. Said it's his job to purpose. Bloody kiwis!!!
Gina Riley: Oh, come on, John. That’s a bit old hat, the corrupt IOC delegate.
John Clarke: Old hat? Gina, in the scientific world when they see that something is happening again and again and again, repeatedly, they don’t call it old hat. They call it a pattern.
John Clarke: Old hat? Gina, in the scientific world when they see that something is happening again and again and again, repeatedly, they don’t call it old hat. They call it a pattern.
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Actually all it did was get the political climate to a point where a vote was not only possible, but an affirmation of the YES vote a slam dunk under a conservative government. Without it, this would not be on the political agenda until such time that ALP won an election
We no longer have to wait for that. I can’t see how that’s a anything but a wonderful result
We no longer have to wait for that. I can’t see how that’s a anything but a wonderful result
- Notaroboticfish
- Jason Croker
- Posts: 4125
- Joined: July 13, 2015, 5:50 pm
- Favourite Player: Royce Hunt
- Location: Middle Earth
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Greens supported it, there wasn’t overwhelming support for it when Labour were in office. I’m not trying to pretend Labour are the good guys here; of course they were just playing political games. They should have done it when they were in office, obviously. A vote in late 2016/early 2017 would have been different. They are in opposition and the way the public feels is abundantly clear. They would have voted Yes, because voting No was political suicide.Northern Raider wrote:Wondering why the Labor/Greens coalition didn't pass the legislation during their 2 terms in office.
Also, isn’t it a little bit silly for you to be celebrating the way this was run when you didn’t even vote?
Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Haha. Go and get ya boy a burger ring and make it happen Reptarreptar wrote:Right. I've already been asked where the ring is. Haha. Said it's his job to purpose. Bloody kiwis!!!
You can stream the wedding live on the GH
-
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 13407
- Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
- Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
- Location: Canberra :(
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Yay Australia.
How do you figure. We have had strong support for marriage equality in both houses of parliament for years. Turnbull could have put a bill up the day after he rolled Abbott and it would have passed.
The ONLY reason it has taken this long is because Turnbull traded in his backbone for the top job.
-TW- wrote:A free vote would be nowhere near as quick as this was in the scheme of things..
It would have been debated and stalled and amended and stalled and eventually canned
Nearly all the mps stood to their word one way or another and let the result of the survey dictate the vote in the house
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
How do you figure. We have had strong support for marriage equality in both houses of parliament for years. Turnbull could have put a bill up the day after he rolled Abbott and it would have passed.
The ONLY reason it has taken this long is because Turnbull traded in his backbone for the top job.
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32522
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Huh?Notaroboticfish wrote:Greens supported it, there wasn’t overwhelming support for it when Labour were in office. I’m not trying to pretend Labour are the good guys here; of course they were just playing political games. They should have done it when they were in office, obviously. A vote in late 2016/early 2017 would have been different. They are in opposition and the way the public feels is abundantly clear. They would have voted Yes, because voting No was political suicide.Northern Raider wrote:Wondering why the Labor/Greens coalition didn't pass the legislation during their 2 terms in office.
Also, isn’t it a little bit silly for you to be celebrating the way this was run when you didn’t even vote?
Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
- Notaroboticfish
- Jason Croker
- Posts: 4125
- Joined: July 13, 2015, 5:50 pm
- Favourite Player: Royce Hunt
- Location: Middle Earth
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
On September 21stNorthern Raider wrote:I'm not voting. Initially I didn't give a **** about the outcome (still don't) but was going to vote Yes simply because I see it as part of the inevitable progression of society. Since the 'campaign' started however I've found the behaviour of many people on both sides of the debate to be deplorable, particularly on social media. This is more so by those on the Yes side. While their self-righteousness is quite nauseating, it's more the pack mentality in the branding and demonisation of anybody who dares support an alternative view. As such there is a good chance my form will end up in the bin.
One thing I haven't really understood is why people believe there's so much stake that the topic has become so emotive. Same sex couples have been getting 'married' for ages. Civil unions are already legally recognised and so are same sex de facto relationships. The rights and obligations of people are the same regardless of gender mix. Is this whole debate is about the right for same sex couples to legally use the word "marriage" instead of "civil union"? It feels like we've ended up with large scale, heavily divisive argument over semantics.
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32522
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
1. I actually did voteNotaroboticfish wrote:On September 21stNorthern Raider wrote:I'm not voting. Initially I didn't give a **** about the outcome (still don't) but was going to vote Yes simply because I see it as part of the inevitable progression of society. Since the 'campaign' started however I've found the behaviour of many people on both sides of the debate to be deplorable, particularly on social media. This is more so by those on the Yes side. While their self-righteousness is quite nauseating, it's more the pack mentality in the branding and demonisation of anybody who dares support an alternative view. As such there is a good chance my form will end up in the bin.
One thing I haven't really understood is why people believe there's so much stake that the topic has become so emotive. Same sex couples have been getting 'married' for ages. Civil unions are already legally recognised and so are same sex de facto relationships. The rights and obligations of people are the same regardless of gender mix. Is this whole debate is about the right for same sex couples to legally use the word "marriage" instead of "civil union"? It feels like we've ended up with large scale, heavily divisive argument over semantics.
2. Disagreeing with a comment made by GE then explaining the reasoning is not "celebrating the way this was run"
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
It's your job!reptar wrote:Right. I've already been asked where the ring is. Haha. Said it's his job to purpose. Bloody kiwis!!!
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
Mate, the ALP put penny **** Wong in front of a camera to tell the nation that her own community had no rights to equality rights!Notaroboticfish wrote:Greens supported it, there wasn’t overwhelming support for it when Labour were in office. I’m not trying to pretend Labour are the good guys here; of course they were just playing political games. They should have done it when they were in office, obviously. A vote in late 2016/early 2017 would have been different. They are in opposition and the way the public feels is abundantly clear. They would have voted Yes, because voting No was political suicide.Northern Raider wrote:Wondering why the Labor/Greens coalition didn't pass the legislation during their 2 terms in office.
Also, isn’t it a little bit silly for you to be celebrating the way this was run when you didn’t even vote?
Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
They did that! She did that!
The moral high ground on this issue was totally and completely lost for them right then and there. The only reason they opposed any of this was because THEY wanted to be the ones to pass this.
Turnbull was faced with a situation where his own party brokers didn’t want to pass this, the opposition didn’t want to pass this, and yet he found a way to get it passed. Before Christmas, without delay, with a method he took to an election and won with
I don’t know what more we want, other than for him to have sacrificed his job, been dispatched before any vote occurred and to have him replaced by a Tony Abbott type who put this well off the agenda... how on earth can that have been logically seen as a viable solution
The idea the Turnbull could just call a free vote on this is absurd and ignores all logic. The moment a bill was being drafted for a free vote they’d have **** canned him and installed a new leader and we’d be here waiting for 2019? For this to get in
- Notaroboticfish
- Jason Croker
- Posts: 4125
- Joined: July 13, 2015, 5:50 pm
- Favourite Player: Royce Hunt
- Location: Middle Earth
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
They had Penny Wong do that because it wasn’t politically popular at the time. It is in 2016/2017 and that is why they supported it. Of course they only opposed the plebiscite because they wanted to pass it, but voting no with no plebiscite is even worse for them. I don’t claim they have moral high ground; this is Labor’s fault too. However, I don’t care about that if being kinda **** gets the best for the nation in the shortest amount of time, which a free vote would have donePigman wrote:Mate, the ALP put penny **** Wong in front of a camera to tell the nation that her own community had no rights to equality rights!Notaroboticfish wrote:Greens supported it, there wasn’t overwhelming support for it when Labour were in office. I’m not trying to pretend Labour are the good guys here; of course they were just playing political games. They should have done it when they were in office, obviously. A vote in late 2016/early 2017 would have been different. They are in opposition and the way the public feels is abundantly clear. They would have voted Yes, because voting No was political suicide.Northern Raider wrote:Wondering why the Labor/Greens coalition didn't pass the legislation during their 2 terms in office.
Also, isn’t it a little bit silly for you to be celebrating the way this was run when you didn’t even vote?
Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
They did that! She did that!
The moral high ground on this issue was totally and completely lost for them right then and there. The only reason they opposed any of this was because THEY wanted to be the ones to pass this.
Turnbull was faced with a situation where his own party brokers didn’t want to pass this, the opposition didn’t want to pass this, and yet he found a way to get it passed. Before Christmas, without delay, with a method he took to an election and won with
I don’t know what more we want, other than for him to have sacrificed his job, been dispatched before any vote occurred and to have him replaced by a Tony Abbott type who put this well off the agenda... how on earth can that have been logically seen as a viable solution
The idea the Turnbull could just call a free vote on this is absurd and ignores all logic. The moment a bill was being drafted for a free vote they’d have **** canned him and installed a new leader and we’d be here waiting for 2019? For this to get in
Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32522
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
I guess people can claim anything about what would have been the outcome if a different approach was taken. They can never be proved wrong as it didn't happen. The only thing we can say with certainty is what did happen.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Re: The Politics Thread 2017
More politicking. This is the whole problem.