Marriages of convenience make rancid politics

nihonin says:

10:41am | 16/09/11

Why would Bob jump ship acotrel, the Labor party are bending over backwards (sometimes forwards) just nicely, thank you very much.

Felipe says:

12:58pm | 16/09/11

Are you also raising this question with your much loved PM and her boyfriend to formalise their relationship?  It’s about time!

All of a sudden it is Tony and Bob is it?  Where were you Nick Champion when Bob Brown asked for The Australian and The Daily Telegraph inquiry and the never in my government Carbon tax?  You and the rest of ALP are HYPOCRITES!  No wonder the ALP is in trouble as admitted by your leader in today’s papers.  You should stop personally attacking Tony Abbott and instead do something about your governing style.  Try to be truthful for a change and stop spinning.  Listen to the people for a change and put this carbon tax through an election before you damage Australia.

Nathan says:

06:52am | 16/09/11

So are you denying what was said was wrong?

They may be incompetent but better than Abbott in charge. You got to love when he can’t even get his costings right for an election campaign or his response to the “carbon tax” would result in a worse outcome than what is being put forward, or an opposition treasurer who is completely incompetent. And they are such a better option?

Both sides are rubbish the only person i would have any faith in is Turnbull but he has to much of a social agenda for the Libs to have him on top again

*chuckles*

Adam Diver says:

07:41am | 16/09/11

Unbelievable, simply unbelievable.

I wish I could laugh Tim, but this type of idiocy, infuriates me. I think I need some valium.

How can the author talk about hypocrisy without missing the most glaring example of recent history in his own words. I have to lie down now.

acotrel says:

08:27am | 16/09/11

@TimB
‘Tell me Nick, exactly which party is helping keep your incompetent mob in Government at the moment?’
TONY ABBOTT !

jf says:

08:44am | 16/09/11

acotrel says:08:27am | 16/09/11

‘Tell me Nick, exactly which party is helping keep your incompetent mob in Government at the moment?’“TONY ABBOTT !”

How so acotrel?

nihoninn says:

08:50am | 16/09/11

Touche’ and point to acotrel.

TimB says:

08:55am | 16/09/11

@ Acotrel:

1. Tony Abbott is not a party.
2. I wasn’t aware that Labor had made concessions to Tony for his support.
3. You remain, as always, an embarrassment to yourself.

PsychoHyena says:

12:28pm | 16/09/11

@TimB, but Abbott put Labor into power by not making deals with the independents and the Greens. Whatever his reasons Abbott has to take partial blame for any errors the Government makes, either he let them take power in order that they screw Australia over so badly no-one votes for them or he put them in power because he was unwilling to compromise. Either way Abbott is partly responsible, but then you lot don’t like to think about that do you?

TimB says:

01:26pm | 16/09/11

Yes Hyena, sure.

It’s Abbott’s fault that Tony Windsor has a pathological hatred of his ex-National’s colleagues.

It’s Abbott’s fault that Rob Oakeshott is a self-absorbed twit.

It’s Abbott’s fault that Bandt would *never* back a Coalition covernment over Labor.

And apparently somehow if this government fails miserably though it’s own ineptitude, that’s Abbott’s fault too.

I bet you’re not too big on personal responsibility are you?

BTW just so you know Abbott also:

- Stole your newspaper this morning.
- Was the guy who cut you off in traffic on your way to work.
- Is responsible for why petrol prices are so high.
- Masterminded the September 11 attacks.
- Was hanging around a grassy knoll in Dallas on Nov 12 1963.
- Kicked a puppy.

Adam Diver says:

01:26pm | 16/09/11

“but Abbott put Labor into power”

With logic like that it is obvious that you are Malcolm Farr commenting under an avatar.

That has to be the dumbest comment of the day, particularly any responsibility he must take for thier f**k ups. I assume you would give him credit if the ALP/greens ever achieved something useful.

Also I need to thank Kim Beasley, and Mark Latham for putting the LNP into power, because obviously the voting public has no say.

RyaN says:

02:04pm | 16/09/11

Its acotrel people, he believes Tony Abbott causes every worldwide disaster and is personally responsible for cancer, aging and death.

Nathan says:

07:10am | 16/09/11

To say the greens should be anti immigration is a really odd comment. The greens website says “The Greens are dedicated to promoting a fair, prosperous and sustainable future.” Did you pick up on the sustainable future hell i don’t even vote greens but felt that comment was wrong. You can grow and protect the environment

What is considered as Large?

Disraeli says:

07:56am | 16/09/11

Uh. The defeated CPRS was as cobbled together by Labor and Liberal, before Minchin exerted his “authority”.

If it* was* bad, then Turnbull and his supporters share the responsibility.

Shane From Melbourne says:

08:11am | 16/09/11

@Nathan- Since Environmental Impact is a result of population size times rate of consumption of resources times rate of environmental degredation, an increase of any one of the three variables will increase the environmental impact. Since Australia is a constant marginal environment in terms of rainfall, topsoil, vegetation etc. the only two variables you can affect are population size and rate of consumption of resources. High immigration and high consumption lifestyle have a high environmental impact. It is these two factors the Greens should be addressing

TimB says:

08:17am | 16/09/11

“If it* was* bad, then Turnbull and his supporters share the responsibility.”

Yes they do.

You might have noticed that Turnbull isn’t the Liberal leader anymore. You’ve just stumbled onto one of the main reasons why.

Barry says:

08:41am | 16/09/11

@Nathan
The problem with developing a sustainable future is that we don’t know the future.  Sustainability is meant to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to also meet their needs.  How can you develop sustainability when you can not predict the needs of the future?  It’s almost of a paradoxical nature.  The most logical decision here is to limit population growth to a manageable figure.  There is much focus upon developing sustainable energy, but Australia’s real problem is water.  Do we really possess the necessary infrastructure to support a growing population, if we experience reduced rainfall across Australia such as many climate models predict?  This would mean more pressure upon our already depleted water sources, and we struggle enough in our current situation.  There is a possibility we may not experience reduced rainfall, and our water supplies will support our population with ease.  For this scenario though, caution seems the most logical approach, and therefore limiting population growth would be an obvious policy for an environmental party to hold.  Of course, this is another of the Greens major flaws, they possess qualification in law, not environmental science.

Disraeli says:

10:29am | 16/09/11

Yeah yeah, yeah yeah.

Enough with the cutesy, inaccurate swipes thanks, TimB.

What part of “before Minchin exerted his “authority”. ” are you affecting not to get?

Gotta fly

Nathan says:

07:13am | 16/09/11

Abbott just has cosy relationships with nutters like alan Jones.

TimB says:

07:32am | 16/09/11

Yes Nathan. Because Alan Jones is in parliament and can vote on legislation just like Bob Brown and his Green gaggle of goons. Right?

*eyeroll*

acotrel says:

08:47am | 16/09/11

@TimB
Some of our pollies dance to Murdoch’s tune which is conveyed by Alan Jones. Keith was a self-styled king maker, and so is Rupert ! The question should be - ‘who rules the world? ” ! !

Adam Diver says:

07:43am | 16/09/11

Its sad, when politicians can’t even get the politics right. WHat does that leave them in terms of skills…

TimB says:

07:56am | 16/09/11

I’m sure the Germans have one.

Lapun says:

09:57am | 16/09/11

“Marriages of convenience make for good Broadway musicals but make for lousy policy and rancid politics which only serve to ignore the broader public interest.”
Oh Nick, the Angry Ant!  Are you a secretive comedian looking for a new profession after the next election?  What on Earth is a “marriage of Convenience” if it isn’t the current mess you people call an ‘elected governement’

Dave C says:

07:34pm | 16/09/11

Oh how ignorant of Australian political history are you. The Nationals (originally the country party) started in 1922. They have always been in Coalition since then with the major Conservative party, First the UAP then when the UAP collapsed in the 1940s from 1944 with the Liberals. Tell me I assume you know the political situation in 1922 do you, how was it a marriage of convenience? Since then the two parties have worked together for almost 70 years, 43 of them in Government.

As a result people know of “The Coalition” as the Libs and Nats, in QLD this was formalized into 1 party the LNP (and this should happen across the country too, and its only ALP supporters who would say otherwise) people know this when they vote.

What people didnt know is that the ALP under Gillard would do a deal with The Greens, it was not known before the election and just like the “No Carbon tax under a govt I lead” promise if people knew that Gillard would get into bed (politically speaking nothing else meant) with the Greens then many would not have voted for her in the first place, and by many I mean enough that would have meant the Libs and Nats (who everyone knows about and has known since 1944 let me repeat) would be in Govt now.

Despite all of that I have written above the author of this article some how tried to link the Libs and the Greens, pathetic really.

Disraeli says:

09:36am | 16/09/11

Uh. Count me out of your sweeping assumptions, ta very much.

Call it as I see it, Left or Right.

And for the record, yes, I’m Left, as if it mattered. It’s a poor piece.

Shane From Melbourne says:

03:36pm | 16/09/11

Ummm, no. Australians didn’t vote for an activist High Court that wants to override the intention of Australian government legislation thereby creating a different legislation. If the Australian government has to pass new legislation to override it so be it. At least we’ll have legislation that is passed by parliament and not created by the High Court. Of course the the LNP should join forces with the ALP to pass this legislation. It is in the national interest and their political interest to do so.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

04:06pm | 16/09/11

The High court did no such thing, the high court can only interpret the law and our obligations as they stand.  make no mistake, this is what all those parents in our parliament want to push out of the law.

The Conference,
considering that the unity of the family, the natural and fundamental
group unit of society, is an essential right of the refugee, and that such
unity is constantly threatened, and
with satisfaction that, according to the official commentary of the
ad hoc Committee on Statelessness and Related Problems (E/1618, p. 40),
the rights granted to a refugee are extended to members of his family,
noting
Governments to take the necessary measures for the protec-
tion of the refugee’s family especially with a view to:
(1)    Ensuring that the unity of the refugee’s family is maintained particu-
larly in cases where the head of the family has fulfilled the necessary
conditions for admission to a particular country,
(2)    The protection of refugees who are minors, in particular unaccompanied
children and girls, with special reference to guardianship and adoption.
They are trying to write out the most essential and basic law of refugees, the right to be with their family members, the fact that if the dad is a refugee so are his family and the right to unaccompanied kids to be protected.

And most of the heroes who want to do this have kids including Bowen.

That is the law the high court demands we uphold and rightly so.

And as a matter of absolute fact Shane, you don’t ever vote for the courts, you only get to vote for the politicians so wrong again.

The court has nothing to do with parliament, to say otherwise shows your ignorance.

Adima says:

04:42pm | 16/09/11

Marilyn, Nobody is going to agree to unlimited immigration in this day and age.  It might have worked back in 1951 when the worlds population was about 2.5 Billion and had plenty of oil for cheap energy.

But the world has changed, the worlds population is now over 7Billion and still rapidly growing.  The cheap oil that drives our economy is running out and it is set to make life a lot hard in future.

Australias humanitarian immigration limit is 13,750, if your a refugee and your family can’t fit with in that limit then you will just have to wait.

I don’t know why you support a system that encourages people to send kids alone on dangerous journeys to Australia just so they can have their parents and family come to Australia via our over generous immigration program.

And didn’t you hear the words from our government advisers.  Social unrest, London and Paris like problems…You have kids.  Is this what you want to leave to them?

Marilyn Shepherd says:

06:05pm | 16/09/11

Adima, do you ever think before you engage your brain?  Most of the kids being “sent’ face this in Afghanistan:

1 girls as young as 10 are sold to old men or stolen as sex slaves,
2 boys are sent out as human mine clearers, the taliban are now stealing them to be suicide bombers by force, the warlords and pervert pedophiles are stealing boys as young as 9 to train for prostitution.
3 15% of kids in some areas are sold into slave labour so that families can eat,
4.  25-37% of kids in Afghanistan die of starvation and disease.

You would do better to ask ‘WHAT PARENT WOULD MAKE THEIR CHILD SUFFER THAT WAY”.

I swear some people are dumber than posts.

In Malaysia they do the same to refugee kids as Human Rights watch, Amnesty, the US state department and Malaysian human rights groups have all reported.

It’s not about you and your selfish safe little life dear.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

07:45pm | 16/09/11

Marilyn

you can’t rant and rtave all you like (and may I say you do it very well) but the bottom line is - we do NOT WANT welfare shoppers masquerading as refugees bleeding us dry. There are lots of countries between here and Iraq and here and Afghanistan, many of which are culturally closer to the so-called refugees. They can stop there.

Now, both you and I have a vote. You can vote for whichever party is in favour of having an open-door policy and I will vote for whichever party brings back TPVs. That is democracy. There is no need to carry on like a pork chop and abuse people.

AdamC says:

04:21pm | 16/09/11

Mad Maz, do you talk anything like you write? You must be quite a sight.

And tell me you have cats. Lots of cats!

Billy B says:

07:50pm | 16/09/11

Marilyn Shepherd - Blimey your language needs a bit of control.  Did you really need to use that sort of low gutter type language?  I am sure you could get your point across without it you silly girl.

Sarah says:

12:36pm | 19/09/11

Marilyn - you are a nasty piece of work, honestly.

You are welcome to your opinion and hey - you are welcome to share it - no issues there.

But calling someone a ‘rancid coward’ or a ‘putrid cowardly little tosser’ or a ‘sick twisted little turd’. - Not on, sunshine.

Truly - its entirely unnecessary to go that far in your quest to tell the world of your opinion.

I, personally believe in TPV’s and the notion that some of these individuals arriving via plane or boat are ‘economic refugees’. That does not make me a terrible person. That does not make me a ‘sick and twisted little turd’ or whatever literary treasure you dream up to throw at me.

It makes me a human being with an opinion that is different to yours.

And you don’t see anyone else on here, abusing the holy hell out of all and sundry who have a different opinion. You don’t help the cause that you support, whatsoever with the utter vitriole that you spew forth.