• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AusPoliGaf |Early 2016 Election| - the government's term has been... Shortened

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bobnowhere

Member
danm999 said:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...loor-on-samesex-marriage-20170731-gxm9lc.html

Next week might be interesting.
Click to expand...

Malcolm is screwed either way if a vote gets up. Crosses the floor and the knives will be out inside his own party, votes against it and he will lose all remaing face with the public. Labor have already painted him as against the republic in the last few days labeling him an "Elizabethan" a term Turnbull embraced himself.

There is only so many times you can go against your own beliefs before you are terminal.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
The Liberals have never allowed Cabinet to cross the floor except on conscience votes. Not sure they've even allowed outer Ministers and Secretaries and such to cross the floor.

It would be extremely weird for the PM to cross the floor as a result.
 
H

hirokazu

Member
bobnowhere said:
Malcolm is screwed either way if a vote gets up. Crosses the floor and the knives will be out inside his own party, votes against it and he will lose all remaing face with the public. Labor have already painted him as against the republic in the last few days labeling him an "Elizabethan" a term Turnbull embraced himself.

There is only so many times you can go against your own beliefs before you are terminal.
Click to expand...
What if he is confident enough will cross the floor that it'd pass even if he as leader had to toe the party line?

Elaugaufein said:
The Liberals have never allowed Cabinet to cross the floor except on conscience votes. Not sure they've even allowed outer Monsters and Secretaries and such to cross the floor.
Click to expand...
Hehe.
 
D

danm999

Member
Maybe part of the deal for Dutton's toy army is no challenge until the next election if SSM goes to a vote.

It's not like the conservatives have many other options Abbott is terminal.
 
B

bobnowhere

Member
It's a two part process, first the bill has to be added to current business in the house and I imagine it is very unlikely that cabinet would split in that case, solidarity would demand that they vote against a 'rebel' bill from the backbench that has the almost complete support of the the crossbench.

If a vote is allowed that is when cabinet solidarity might break especially if it is embraced as a conscience vote. If Turnbull votes against his conscience to save his job he's a dead man walking. Goodnight. Goodbye.

If the bill comes to the house it should pass but there could be a wrinkle if it's close. There are members of the Coalition that have declared that they won't vote for the vote to be brought on but will vote yes if given a chance. Likewise there are members of the Labor party that would vote no in a conscience vote but will likely vote yes to bring on a vote to annoy the Coalition. Hayes, Vamvakinou on the house, Ketter, Gallacher and Collins in the Senate.
 
A

Aarglefarg

Member
Vamvakinou is my person. :(

I would like a different one.

Angela Merkel recently brought on the marriage equality bill in Germany and voted against it so there is a recent precedent of what Turnbull might do.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
bobnowhere said:
It's a two part process, first the bill has to be added to current business in the house and I imagine it is very unlikely that cabinet would split in that case, solidarity would demand that they vote against a 'rebel' bill from the backbench that has the almost complete support of the the crossbench.

If a vote is allowed that is when cabinet solidarity might break especially if it is embraced as a conscience vote. If Turnbull votes against his conscience to save his job he's a dead man walking. Goodnight. Goodbye.

If the bill comes to the house it should pass but there could be a wrinkle if it's close. There are members of the Coalition that have declared that they won't vote for the vote to be brought on but will vote yes if given a chance. Likewise there are members of the Labor party that would vote no in a conscience vote but will likely vote yes to bring on a vote to annoy the Coalition. Hayes, Vamvakinou on the house, Ketter, Gallacher and Collins in the Senate.
Click to expand...

I believe the lower house Crossbench except Katter are all yes to both. That means you need 2 + the number of defecting Labor MPs for floor crossing (+1 more if there's a tie because the Speaker will vote no whether as a Lib or upholding Westminster tradition).

Upper House: PHON is probably no to both. Lambie is definitely no on the actual vote and probably no to bring on. I assume Lucy Gichuhi is no to both. Hinch and Greens are all yes. I know NXT is yes , as is Leyjonhelm. That's a sizeable yes majority, but there's probably a few Labor Senators who might vote no, so it depends on how many, might need some floor crosses.
 
D

Dryk

Member
Is anyone else watching the head of the Lowy Institute tearing into the Trump Administration at the National Press Club?
 
B

bobnowhere

Member
E

Elaugaufein

Member
D

danm999

Member
Liberal MPs have been summoned to Canberra on Monday afternoon for the special meeting, with a group of moderates expected to push for the party to dump the plebiscite policy altogether and adopt a free vote.

Fairfax Media understands Mr Turnbull will take a "hands-off" position in the meeting, neither advocating a change of policy or the status quo, and will conduct a ballot if necessary.
Click to expand...

Lmao.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-debate-samesex-marriage-20170803-gxoh6h.html
 
Q

Quasar

Member
End of an era with Laurie going. Though if I'm real honest, after Nine killed Sunday and the Bulliten ended I didn't actually get to see a lot of it. Shame he never got to be on Insiders.
 
D

danm999

Member
bobnowhere said:
I wonder if Turnbull can go his entire PM'ship without standing for anything at all? 50 years from now when someone says his name people will be "who?"
Click to expand...

FDR stood for more.
sorry

bobnowhere said:
I wonder if Turnbull can go his entire PM'ship without standing for anything at all? 50 years from now when someone says his name people will be "who?"
Click to expand...

Rlan said:
The transcript of Turnbulls conversation with Trump was released.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...ia-mexico-transcripts/?utm_term=.e651a9d7ea9a
Click to expand...

Trump said:
What is the thing with boats? Why do you discriminate against boats? No, I know, they come from certain regions. I get it.
Click to expand...

AMAZING
 
B

bobnowhere

Member
Is this the first we've heard about there being no obligation to actually take the people off Nauru/Manus just to vet them? American have also filled their refugee quota for the year so I suspect the chances of these people ever actually going to the USA is precisely zero.
 
W

wonzo

Banned
bobnowhere said:
Is this the first we've heard about there being no obligation to actually take the people off Nauru/Manus just to vet them? American have also filled their refugee quota for the year so I suspect the chances of these people ever actually going to the USA is precisely zero.
Click to expand...

That's been known for ages but this is the first "official" confirmation.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
D.Lo said:
Turnbull honestly comes across pretty well?
Click to expand...

If you discount the general contempt for the human rights of the refugees and fawning obsequiousness towards the US that would be equally demonstrated by say PM Shorten I suppose he does. But that's an awfully low bar.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
D.Lo said:
I mean from a public perception perspective. He takes no shit.
Click to expand...

The last line is him saying he'll do whatever it takes in return for this. That seems to be a lot of shit eating to me. Though maybe it's so pro-forma in Aus-US relationships that it doesn't count anymore.

I mean as far as I can tell the US could declare war on Time itself and we'd start shovelling money to US military research for producing Tachyon Cannons.
 
D.Lo

D.Lo

Member
You're replying from a nuanced political perspective. I think most of the public will read it and see it as him being sensible, strong, and standing up to Trump, while still being appropriately respectful to our lord and protector USA.
 
L

luchadork

Member
honestly they both came across as good and bad. turnbull standing up for australia. but also saying we'd do anything even take their bad guys. trump saying he'd rightfully look like a dickhead if he honors the deal. but also him being a parody of himself.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
luchadork said:
honestly they both came across as good and bad. turnbull standing up for australia. but also saying we'd do anything even take their bad guys. trump saying he'd rightfully look like a dickhead if he honors the deal. but also him being a parody of himself.
Click to expand...

I guess that's the world we live in now Politics as Self-Caricture.
 
J

jellies_two

Member
Just heard the ceo of the cba "interview" on abc radio on the shit they are in with austrac and realized I was listening to one of those fake interviews where they were sent the questions, and pre-recorded all the answers then the tape was created as though it was a phone interview.

Have heard this before with politicians and it makes me angry because it's deception. The answers have been written by lawyers or PR flackies. No hesitations or anything, just a glass smooth gob of PR. I don't know why journalists agree to do things that way without revealing it isn't actually an interview.
 
J

Jintor

Member
From a Liberal MP: Party room told cabinet position is: 1) Try plebiscite again 2) If Senate blocks, postal vote 3) Free vote by year's end
Click to expand...

via smh's kozoil

wut

1) can't do it, it's gonna get smashed in the senate.
2) hc is almost certainly going to throw it out
3) WHY NOT JUST SKIP TO THIS
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
bobnowhere said:
The postal vote is a complete joke, I'd be surprised if it got more than a 35% return rate. Mayoral postal votes in WA barely get 15%.

17 down, 13 to go.
Click to expand...

The Republican postal plebiscite for reps to the convention managed ~50% in the 90s. And skewed heavily older on respondents (it was like high 30s vs high 60s for the 18-30 / 65+ response rate split) , which is likely even more true now, given that Millennials and Gen Z probably only get parcels in the mail. I spend non-zero amounts of time trying to get dinosaur companies to stop sending me shit by mail.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Entsch has apparently just confirmed that 3) is conditional on 1) or 2). The Coalition will not hold a free vote without a plebiscite of some kind first (and probably won't hold a free vote of the plebiscite comes back no anyway because of the Abbotista's have you by the balls this much they'd never allow it).
 
C

Candescence

Member
So we're back to the Coalition spinning their wheels on the whole issue, as a plebiscite in any form is not going to happen, but they don't want to be seen doing nothing or even opposing any changes as a party policy. Except the whole issue is being a massive headache for Turnbull, and it doesn't rule out an insurrection from the seven MPs who want a free vote.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
In bizarre news: Lambie who backed the plebiscite last time (and said she'd vote as Tasmania did despite being personally opposed) has said she won't back a plebiscite this time. And the tweet sort of reads like she'd now vote in favour of SSM (not definite but the wording and position of the hashtag seems to imply it).

Didn't see that one coming.

Relevant because 1) it's yet another kiss of death for the plebiscite rerun , which is already pretty much dog food and 2) the ALP Senatore who'd vote against SSM are numerous enough that a potential +1 in support is a good thing.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
So. Turns out it's not even a postal plebiscite, it's a glorified opinion poll with biased sampling run by the ABS instead, because when you're doing your best to avoid Parliamentary oversight you may as well go all the way.

And there will only be a free Parliamentary vote if the plebiscite or postal poll shaped object returns Yes. So in order to have a free vote on marriage equality in Parliament , Australia has to vote Yes to marriage equality.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
bobnowhere said:
A $122 million dollar opinion poll of dubious means and authorship that will only result in a private members bill that won't bind anyone's vote but probably prolongs Turnbull's PM'ship until at least the new year.

I initially dismissed Guy's dinner with the mob today as pretty inconsequential but it turns out he was full of it, the meeting was secretive and he knew the guy would be there. Uh-oh.
Click to expand...

Unless the Senate decides to stamp one of these yeah. It's almost impossible to see the High Court challenge not getting an injunction until the case is decided if it's taken up. And there's no way it'll take less than a month to decide. So the actual vote has probably been locked to first sitting next year at best.
 
H

hamchan

Member
Disgusts me that the government is essentially flushing $122 million down the toilet for an opinion poll because they're too cowardly to just go have a parliamentary vote.
 
Q

Quasar

Member
hamchan said:
Disgusts me that the government is essentially flushing $122 million down the toilet for an opinion poll because they're too cowardly to just go have a parliamentary vote.
Click to expand...

I have to admit given this threat I'm now more in favour of the plebiscite. That at least will be compulsory. I figure a voluntary postal poll will skew the vote a ton.

In either case you're going to see a god awful campaign.

I still think even beyond the issue it sends a terrible message for Australian representative democracy.
 
D

danm999

Member
Quasar said:
I have to admit given this threat I'm now more in favour of the plebiscite. That at least will be compulsory. I figure a voluntary postal poll will skew the vote a ton.

In either case you're going to see a god awful campaign.

I still think even beyond the issue it sends a terrible message for Australian representative democracy.
Click to expand...

It's already begun;

"And I say to you if you don't like same-sex marriage, vote no. If you're worried about religious freedom and freedom of speech, vote no, and if you don't like political correctness, vote no because voting no will help to stop political correctness in its tracks."
Click to expand...
 
T

toddhunter

Member
Quasar said:
I have to admit given this threat I'm now more in favour of the plebiscite. That at least will be compulsory. I figure a voluntary postal poll will skew the vote a ton.
Click to expand...

A postal vote is still the better option. Sure it is a huge waste of money, but lets face it the government is going to waste money anyway, might as well do it on a complete non-binding joke.

A proper binding plebiscite destroys the separation of church and state. Even if religious groups lose this one, and they probably will, they will want the process to be "legit" so they can use all their power and money on the next one.

danm999 said:
It's already begun;
Click to expand...

Nice to see a huge boost for the yes vote early.
 
Q

Quasar

Member
toddhunter said:
A postal vote is still the better option. Sure it is a huge waste of money, but lets face it the government is going to waste money anyway, might as well do it on a complete non-binding joke.

A proper binding plebiscite destroys the separation of church and state. Even if religious groups lose this one, and they probably will, they will want the process to be "legit" so they can use all their power and money on the next one.
Click to expand...

But the plebiscite isn't binding, that's one of the issues. The results could be 100% yes and then parliament members could vote against any marriage equality bill. Some members of the LNP rump have already said they will do just that. Doesn't matter what their electorate says.
 
T

toddhunter

Member
Quasar said:
But the plebiscite isn't binding, that's one of the issues. The results could be 100% yes and then parliament members could vote against any marriage equality bill. Some members of the LNP rump have already said they will do just that. Doesn't matter what their electorate says.
Click to expand...

I agree if it is 100% yes it may not be binding. But if it is 50.0000000000000000000001% no it'll be the most binding thing of all time for the entire LNP
 
D

danm999

Member
A postal vote, a plebiscite, they have no force of law. They don't actually mean anything but put pressure on Parliamentarians to follow public sentiment.

All roads have to go through a parliamentary vote anyway.
 
A

AdventureRacing

Member
I just don't understand the opposition to same sex marriage. Is it purely based on the moral stance of members in parliament or is it a fear of losing votes? Either way I can't understand it.

The simple fact is that same sex marriage is coming in all over the world. There is clear majority support here and it's obvious that in the next few years same sex marriage will happen in Australia. Even if you're morally opposed to it what do you gain by delaying it by a few years? I guess than you can keep your conscience clear by not really being involved? It's just sad.

If they're afraid of losing votes I don't understand that. The clear majority support gay marriage and whichever party acts on this issue will get a huge amount of goodwill basically for free. They can also then have that over the opposition party for the rest of time. It's such a fantastic opportunity for the liberals. They can be the ones who bring in gay marriage and can forever hold that over the labor party who claim to be more on top of these issues.

Instead we'll waste 100s of millions of dollars (which could also be spent on something else that would bring heaps of goodwill to the goverment) and we'll have to go through this awful negative hate filled campaign as people try one last ditch effort to prevent the inevitable.

It's sad, it's hurtful and it's wasteful. Everyone involved in the government has been made to look either incompetent or prejudice by this issue. It's yet another issue that reminds you just how little faith or respect you should have in our politicians.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Lulz. The Senate didn't even allow the 2nd Plebiscite to get to the prooer debate stage (2nd reading). And at least Hinch said he'd vote for the debate but against the plebiscite.

The postal plebiscite stick didn't seem to achieve much here.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
And the living soul is officially off to the High Court. PHON decided to move the motion themselves as soon as it was clear the Greens/Labor/NXT/Crossbench had the numbers anyways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Outriders: Worldslayer - Coming June 30, 2022
2
72
5K
8BiTw0LF replied
GameIndustry.biz - Gaming will be a frontline in China's censorship drive
34
3K
BlackM1st replied
A look back at the Ratchet & Clank series & Insomniac Games | Behind the scenes
Game Dev
7
3K
Kuranghi replied
Xbox: The State of Every First-Party Developer (2021 Update)
News Platform
26
5K
Genx3 replied
  • x2
  • Locked
Cyberpunk 2077 |OT| The Future Is Now
|OT| 97 98 99 100 101
5K
303K
EviLore replied
Top Bottom