Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Junkee)   Epic takedown of Australian PM ends with an invite to take his "heartless, racist exploitation of people's fears and ram it as far from Western Australia as your taxpayer-funded travel entitlements can take you." This, folks, is how it's done   (junkee.com) divider line 52
    More: Hero, Western Australia, entitlements, racist exploitation, Solitaire, SBS, Gina Rinehart, taxpayer-funded, Business oligarch  
•       •       •

3222 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Mar 2014 at 3:32 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-05 03:15:14 PM  
We used to have one of these.

media.bizj.us


Then, he couldn't stay off the internet when it counted.
 
2014-03-05 03:34:13 PM  
daaang.
 
2014-03-05 03:34:45 PM  

SecretAgentWoman: We used to have one of these.

[media.bizj.us image 304x371]


Then, he couldn't stay off the internet when it counted.


www.quickmeme.com

www.blogcdn.com
 
2014-03-05 03:35:45 PM  
Oh well done.
 
2014-03-05 03:36:43 PM  
"awkward... and kind of revolting."

Brilliantly understated.
 
2014-03-05 03:43:42 PM  
Daaaaaaaaaaamn.  I love me some articulateness-stuffamabob.
 
2014-03-05 03:44:44 PM  

SecretAgentWoman: We used to have one of these.

[media.bizj.us image 304x371]


Then, he couldn't stay off the internet when it counted.


Sigh.  I had such high hopes for him  shiat.
 
2014-03-05 03:46:41 PM  

SecretAgentWoman: We used to have one of these.

[media.bizj.us image 304x371]


Then, he couldn't stay off the internet when it counted.


I really liked weiner. I don't get why he resigned.
 
2014-03-05 03:47:54 PM  
 "a thin, greasy layer in the core sample of future political scientists"

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-05 03:48:22 PM  
"A thin, greasy layer in the core sample of future political scientists".

Ouch.
 
2014-03-05 03:48:39 PM  

SecretAgentWoman: We used to have one of these.

[media.bizj.us image 304x371]


Then, he couldn't stay off the internet when it counted.


That doesn't look much like Alan Grayson, but maybe shooped?

// we also would have accepted 2004 Howard Dean
// though Dean's less apt to rip someone apart rhetorically; more by example
 
2014-03-05 03:51:38 PM  
Nice find, subs. I just forwarded it to an Aussie friend who is very pissed at Abbot right now.
 
2014-03-05 03:53:33 PM  
A dingo et my senator.

He'll be representing Back O' Bourke very soon.
 
2014-03-05 04:05:34 PM  
He just sounds like another angsty green.
 
2014-03-05 04:05:36 PM  
Wow. Words fail me. I can't find a way to adequately express how impressive that was without sounding like I'm being sarcastic.
 
2014-03-05 04:13:15 PM  
I hope the Democratic Party here in the US was taking notes.

If not, someone needs to email them a link to that speech.
 
2014-03-05 04:16:25 PM  
 
2014-03-05 04:21:24 PM  

Infernalist: I hope the Democratic Party here in the US was taking notes.

If not, someone needs to email them a link to that speech.


I'm just glad we're not fighting another 10 year oil war in Iran.
 
2014-03-05 04:31:45 PM  
It's amazing how poorly spoken our US politicians are.
 
2014-03-05 04:32:06 PM  

Infernalist: I hope the Democratic Party here in the US was taking notes.

If not, someone needs to email them a link to that speech.


The headline is too long for me to read, never mind the article. Anyone want to sum it up for me?
 
2014-03-05 04:34:44 PM  
That's some extra crispy shrimps on that barbie!
 
2014-03-05 04:34:47 PM  

organizmx: Infernalist: I hope the Democratic Party here in the US was taking notes.

If not, someone needs to email them a link to that speech.

The headline is too long for me to read, never mind the article. Anyone want to sum it up for me?


Summary: ohsnap.jpg
 
2014-03-05 04:38:38 PM  

organizmx: Infernalist: I hope the Democratic Party here in the US was taking notes.

If not, someone needs to email them a link to that speech.

The headline is too long for me to read, never mind the article. Anyone want to sum it up for me?


Did someone get told? Yes/No: Yes. OH SNAP!
 
2014-03-05 04:46:05 PM  
So many captioned screen captures from 'Friday' are applicable here that it would likely fark Fark.
 
2014-03-05 04:48:00 PM  
Zowie! Throw another Sheila on the barby for that cat.
 
2014-03-05 04:53:42 PM  
Can we get one of these over here? And I'm sure Canada would like one too.
 
2014-03-05 04:58:21 PM  
I would like to give some background on Scott Ludlam and why he made this speech.

Back in September, Australia had an election, which saw Kevin Rudd lose to Tony Abbott quite convincingly. The election has pretty straight forward until it came to Western Australia.

In Australia, for an election, you can vote for anyone... and usually for Senate Seats, about 100+ people/parties will run for 6 seats. This gets kinda complicated. However... in Australia, they have an instant Runoff system. If your Candidate has the least number of votes, those votes get transferred to other candidates based on the preferences of the voter, or by the preference of the candidate/party. So... when you go into vote, you have two options. You can vote for you candidate/party "above the line" and if your candidate loses, he/she chooses where your vote goes next... or you can vote "Below the Line" and you can number each candidate in the order you want your vote to go.

i keep saying "Candidate/party" because you don't vote for a person in Australia... technically... you vote for the Party they belong to. In the Senate races, larger parties will have a list of candidates, and once the party reaches the threshold of votes... then their first candidate gets elected, if they reach that threshold twice... then two candidates get in. in Western Australia for example, the number was something like 130,000 votes for the party would = 1 seat in the Senate. Most parties only have 1 person in the party, so it is moot, but for the Greens, Labor, and the Coalition, they have multiple candidates for the seats. They do this because Voting is mandatory in Australia, and they base the vote numbers based on the population of the state.

Anyhow...

For the Western Australia Senate Seats in play (6 of them) the instant runoff went a bit haywire. and we got some surprising results. This is not unusual since we often have niche candidates win a term in office. In fact, we have 5 "Micro party" members who were elected this year. if the current results would have stood, those Micro Party members would have been the balance of power, or effective control of the Senate.

Unfortunately, what happened was that a little under 2,000 votes went missing, which in turn changed the final results significantly. The Candidates who lost out (Mr. Ludlam being one of them from the Green Party) sued, and the court said "It is a fark up... do it all over again"

So they are having a revote. This is basically his campaign speech.

Between the election and now, Mr. Abbott has signaled that he is going to do some major changes, like Dismantle the Climate Change council, scrap the Carbon Tax, Gut Clean Energy, Delist World Heritage sites, scrapping much of the National Broadband plan, the whole Refugee situation, as well as endorsing a huge Shark cull off the coast of Western Australia. Of course, Mr. Ludlam, being a Green, doesn't like any of this.

What is interesting is that with the "re-do" Western Australia has a chance to stop a lot of this stuff from happening. If Mr. Ludlam wins his seat back, the Greens (there would be ten of them at this point) will retain the Balance of Power in the Senate... basically... if Mr. Abbott want to pass anything, he will need the Greens on board.

Imagine George W. Bush asking Bernie Saunders for his vote...  yeah... not going to happen without huge concessions.

What complicates things even more is that if certain bills passes the House, but doesn't pass the Senate two times in a row... like budgets, and anything to do with money... Mr. Abbott or the Governor General (The Representative of the Queen in Australia... remember, we are a commonwealth still) and call for a Double Dissolution... meaning that Parliament can be dissolved and an election happens  right now.Mr. Abbott doesn't want that, so he will be stuck.

It is very interesting watching this unfold in Australia. Labor and the Greens are rallying around Scott and the other Labor Candidates (They just need to win two of the 6 seats to get the balance of power) in the hope of being the stopper against Mr. Abbott until 2016, where he needs to get re-elected.

Sorry if I rambled a bit. I find this fascinating.
 
2014-03-05 05:02:32 PM  

Old enough to know better: Can we get one of these over here? And I'm sure Canada would like one too.


You sort of already do.
 
2014-03-05 05:10:01 PM  

coolbeans56: Sorry if I rambled a bit. I find this fascinating.


Not all all; it is quite fascinating.  Especially the part where Abbott's government will have to cater to their ideological opposites if they want anything done.

Kinda like Washington post-2006 midterms.
 
2014-03-05 05:25:33 PM  
coolbeans56: lots of cool background info

This is good ramblings. I can only hope that we see a general shift left like Australia seems to be going through. My biggest fear is the damage that will be done before it happens.
 
2014-03-05 05:26:16 PM  

coolbeans56: I would like to give some background on Scott Ludlam and why he made this speech...


Thank you for that summary. Not being Australian, the background for Mr. Ludlam's speech was a bit murky for me, and this was a excellent explanation.
 
2014-03-05 06:10:00 PM  

coolbeans56: Sorry if I rambled a bit. I find this fascinating.


Don't apologize - this really helped put the speech in context.
 
2014-03-05 06:35:41 PM  
Thanks for the responses everyone! As an Ex-pat living here, it has been very enlightening seeing how another country goes through the political process. Overall, Australia tends to shift back and forth. This is because they usually give the party in power 2-3 terms to do what they want, and then they switch. Labor was in power for 6 years, and before that, the Coalition was in power for almost 10 years. The "party mentality" is not as prevalent here as it is in the US. It also helps that its mandatory to vote.

That being said, the last 6 months have felt like the first year of the GWB's Administration. The Left is very upset, the Right are trying to do everything they can to annoy the left, and there is a lot of bitterness.
 
2014-03-05 06:38:43 PM  
Thx for info.
 
2014-03-05 06:40:54 PM  
If Ludlam has anything going for him, he at least bothered to show up. It looks like the Australian Senate called in sick that day. Hell, when I visited Canberra, I think there were more people in the Senate chamber when the Senate wasn't even in session!

Congress may not get any shiat done, but at least they show up to not get shiat done...

coolbeans56: Sorry if I rambled a bit. I find this fascinating.


I did a semester in Perth in 2012, and before going to Australia I read up on the political situation (among other things). I found your post quite interesting.

/many Aussies were impressed with this American's knowledge of Australian politics
//your electoral system has certain advantages compared to ours
///and some disadvantages
 
2014-03-05 06:46:39 PM  
I enjoy Australian Politics, I think there ARE a lot of positives to it, but you are right, there are some drawbacks. No system is perfect, and I feel that America could learn a thing or two from the Australians/Westminister style of governing.
 
2014-03-05 07:05:26 PM  

coolbeans56: Sorry if I rambled a bit. I find this fascinating.


grouse yarn, mate

/finally get to use that and mean it
 
2014-03-05 07:36:30 PM  
Australian friend was telling me, just after the election, he sees the government falling in about 18 to 24 months.

From his explanation and what I've read it was fatigue over the infighting between Rudd and Julliard that had their party lose, rather than anything positive for the Coalition.
 
2014-03-05 08:17:23 PM  

Summercat: Australian friend was telling me, just after the election, he sees the government falling in about 18 to 24 months.

From his explanation and what I've read it was fatigue over the infighting between Rudd and Julliard that had their party lose, rather than anything positive for the Coalition.


This is not completely untrue. Labor has had a lot of issues with it's image. Again, unlike the US, you vote for the Party, not the person, and the Party decides who leads it. In 2007, Kevin Rudd was the leader of the Party. (The slogan was Kevin on '07), by 2010 though, he was not very popular with some factions of the party and with the election coming up, Labor was very nervous they would lose because of Mr. Rudd. So... the party leaders, and key supporters basically did an inter-party coup and took Kevin out, replacing him with Julia Gillard, his Deputy (aka VP). She then called for an election. 6 weeks later, she won... just barely against Mr. Abbott.

Then, over the next three years, there was a constant media stream of the betrayal, constant rumors that Kevin would try and retake the leadership of the party. Julia, while a good politician, was terrible at PR, and soon was having a lot of issues handling the Kevin problem, as well as messaging over the Carbon Tax, and a few other things. Her biggest mistake in my opinion was first allowing Rudd to stay in the Cabinet (he is an excellent foreign minister, being able to speak fluent Mandarin... which is important since China is a huge trading partner) and later, allowing him to stay in government. Had she forced him to retire, she would not have had those leadership issues.

Then, last June, Kevin decided to take back the Leadership of the party. He was egged on by people within the party who saw that the election would mean huge loses for the party, and upwards of have of the caucus would be voted out. They were panicked, and they removed Julia, and re-instated Rudd.

This lead to the papers and the media having a field day, this, coupled with the Coalition (a Conservative alliance between the Liberals (Rural conservatives... think Libertarians... confusing I know) and National) painting a picture that Labor was disorganised and shouldn't be in power... lead to Rudd losing the election in September.

Both Rudd and Gillard are now out of politics and Labor is rebuilding. The current leader is a bit of a bore, but the Deputy is someone a lot of people have high hopes for.
 
2014-03-05 10:52:02 PM  

coolbeans56: I enjoy Australian Politics, I think there ARE a lot of positives to it, but you are right, there are some drawbacks. No system is perfect, and I feel that America could learn a thing or two from the Australians/Westminister style of governing.


Yeah, right, like how to annex Poland? Nein danke!
 
2014-03-05 11:15:53 PM  

coolbeans56: The current leader is a bit of a bore, but the Deputy is someone a lot of people have high hopes for.


I'm a labor party member, and I thought the same thing - I voted for Bill Shorten for leader, as this leadership is a poisoned chalise in my view.  Albanese has a decent chance though.
 
2014-03-06 01:45:28 AM  

coolbeans56: I would like to give some background on Scott Ludlam and why he made this speech.

Back in September, Australia had an election, which saw Kevin Rudd lose to Tony Abbott quite convincingly. The election has pretty straight forward until it came to Western Australia.


Snippetty.

You "technically" vote for a person or persons - there's a name next to the check box on the ballot papers - in practice most people vote for their preferred party's candidate.

That whole "above/below the line" thing pisses me off - if you're not prepared to spend a bit of time researching the candidates, you don't deserve to vote. You can download their names and parties from the electoral office website, stick it in a spreadsheet, number you preferences, re-sort it, and print it out. It's not rocket science.

But oh, no. We have to have an "easy option" for the knuckle-draggers who would otherwise find it all too hard, and BANG, up goes the rate of donkey votes. Actually, we've got someone from the huntin', shootin', 'n' fishin' party in the senate now - with less than 0.5% of the primary vote. Or was it the Monaro-owners party?

I don't think Abbot or the GG have the balls to trigger a double-dissolution election (well, the GG is female, so figurative balls for her). The electorate don't like it when parliament fails to do its job, and all the politicians know that a large proportion of them will be tossed out in a "revenge" vote. Not that I would object if that were to happen, except for Turnbull. He's one of the few with talent, brains, insight AND an understanding of technical issues vis-a-vis the NBN.
 
2014-03-06 02:28:20 AM  

ol' gormsby: I don't think Abbot or the GG have the balls to trigger a double-dissolution election (well, the GG is female, so figurative balls for her).


Don't forget, we've got a new GG coming in shortly.
 
2014-03-06 02:48:06 AM  
I was really hoping that all the Chinese there would educate enough people about the whole profits-over-environment thing that Australia wouldn't need to wage these battles against the rich. It's really sad that no place is safe from this crap.
 
2014-03-06 03:44:10 AM  


img156.imageshack.us

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

 
2014-03-06 04:08:13 AM  

coolbeans56: I would like to give some background on Scott Ludlam and why he made this speech...
Sorry if I rambled a bit. I find this fascinating


Not at all.  I appreciate the background.  Australian politics beyond not farking the Abbos in the arse is mostly outside my normal areas of interest.  It frames the speech nicely and makes me respect his (several) shots across the bow even more.  Thanks.
 
2014-03-06 07:05:03 AM  

Summercat: Australian friend was telling me, just after the election, he sees the government falling in about 18 to 24 months.

From his explanation and what I've read it was fatigue over the infighting between Rudd and Julliard that had their party lose, rather than anything positive for the Coalition.


That's more or less true. The Liberal's didn't have any type of platform other than not being Labour (well particularly, people not wanting to hear any more about the Gillard/Rudd dramas) and to a large degree people are suffering buyers remorse right now. I think 24 months for this government sounds about right and I'd be surprised if it lasted longer than that.
 
2014-03-06 08:10:49 AM  

coolbeans56: I would like to give some background on Scott Ludlam and why he made this speech.

Back in September, Australia had an election, which saw Kevin Rudd lose to Tony Abbott quite convincingly. The election has pretty straight forward until it came to Western Australia.

In Australia, for an election, you can vote for anyone... and usually for Senate Seats, about 100+ people/parties will run for 6 seats. This gets kinda complicated. However... in Australia, they have an instant Runoff system. If your Candidate has the least number of votes, those votes get transferred to other candidates based on the preferences of the voter, or by the preference of the candidate/party. So... when you go into vote, you have two options. You can vote for you candidate/party "above the line" and if your candidate loses, he/she chooses where your vote goes next... or you can vote "Below the Line" and you can number each candidate in the order you want your vote to go.

i keep saying "Candidate/party" because you don't vote for a person in Australia... technically... you vote for the Party they belong to. In the Senate races, larger parties will have a list of candidates, and once the party reaches the threshold of votes... then their first candidate gets elected, if they reach that threshold twice... then two candidates get in. in Western Australia for example, the number was something like 130,000 votes for the party would = 1 seat in the Senate. Most parties only have 1 person in the party, so it is moot, but for the Greens, Labor, and the Coalition, they have multiple candidates for the seats. They do this because Voting is mandatory in Australia, and they base the vote numbers based on the population of the state.

Anyhow...

For the Western Australia Senate Seats in play (6 of them) the instant runoff went a bit haywire. and we got some surprising results. This is not unusual since we often have niche candidates win a term in office. In fact, we have 5 "Micro party" members who were elected this year. if the current results would have stood, those Micro Party members would have been the balance of power, or effective control of the Senate.

Unfortunately, what happened was that a little under 2,000 votes went missing, which in turn changed the final results significantly. The Candidates who lost out (Mr. Ludlam being one of them from the Green Party) sued, and the court said "It is a fark up... do it all over again"

So they are having a revote. This is basically his campaign speech.

Between the election and now, Mr. Abbott has signaled that he is going to do some major changes, like Dismantle the Climate Change council, scrap the Carbon Tax, Gut Clean Energy, Delist World Heritage sites, scrapping much of the National Broadband plan, the whole Refugee situation, as well as endorsing a huge Shark cull off the coast of Western Australia. Of course, Mr. Ludlam, being a Green, doesn't like any of this.

What is interesting is that with the "re-do" Western Australia has a chance to stop a lot of this stuff from happening. If Mr. Ludlam wins his seat back, the Greens (there would be ten of them at this point) will retain the Balance of Power in the Senate... basically... if Mr. Abbott want to pass anything, he will need the Greens on board.

Imagine George W. Bush asking Bernie Saunders for his vote...  yeah... not going to happen without huge concessions.

What complicates things even more is that if certain bills passes the House, but doesn't pass the Senate two times in a row... like budgets, and anything to do with money... Mr. Abbott or the Governor General (The Representative of the Queen in Australia... remember, we are a commonwealth still) and call for a Double Dissolution... meaning that Parliament can be dissolved and an election happens  right now.Mr. Abbott doesn't want that, so he will be stuck.

It is very interesting watching this unfold in Australia. Labor and the Greens are rallying around Scott and the other Labor Candidates (They just need to win two of the 6 seats to get the balance of power) in the hope of being the stopper against Mr. Abbott until 2016, where he needs to get re-elected.

Sorry if I rambled a bit. I find this fascinating.


Don't be, that was an excellent summation, thanks.

+1 internets!
 
2014-03-06 08:14:24 AM  

coolbeans56: I would like to give some background on Scott Ludlam and why he made this speech.


You did a good job explaining some of the weirdness of the Westminster system, but your prognostications are a bit optimistic, I'm afraid.

In fact, we have 5 "Micro party" members who were elected this year. If the current results would have stood, those Micro Party members would have been the balance of power, or effective control of the Senate.

They still will have the balance of power come July, no matter what happens in WA. While there were six micro party senators elected, there was only one from WA, Wayne Dropulich from the Australian Sports Party. He, along with Scott Ludlam, was announced the winner over the Palmer's Dio Wang and Labor's Louise Pratt.

Of the six Senate seats in WA, the right (LNP and Dropolich) has four and the left (ALP and GRN) two. All going well, the new election will see the right lose one spot (Dropkick), the ALP get two and the Greens one in Ludlam, to leave it three right and three left.

If Mr. Ludlam wins his seat back, the Greens (there would be ten of them at this point) will retain the Balance of Power in the Senate... basically... if Mr. Abbott want to pass anything, he will need the Greens on board.

Sorry, but that is wrong. You forget that Labor lost senators in other states in September. The make-up of the 76-person Senate at the moment is LNP 34, ALP 31, Greens 9 and two independents, meaning the Greens hold the balance of power. However, following the election and heading into July 1, the LNP has 30, Labor 24, Greens 9 and independents and micro parties 7, with six to be decided in WA. Even if it goes three/three and Ludlam keeps his spot, it still means that the combined ALP/GRN Senate numbers will only be 36. To block legislation, you need 39.

So it is in fact the crossbenchers who will hold the balance of power in the Senate, whether or not Ludlam wins. Nick Xenophon can be relied upon to do what his conscience says, but the other lot all trend right wing. Abbott can safely ignore Labor and the Greens and negotiate purely with the independents and Clive Palmer to get his legislation through.

It is very interesting watching this unfold in Australia. Labor and the Greens are rallying around Scott and the other Labor Candidates.

Again, and most unfortunately, this is wrong. Labor in its dire stupidity is thinking of preferencing the minor parties ahead of the Greens in WA. They are shooting themselves in the foot in their stupid desire to distance themselves from the Greens, which their focus groups tell them are not overly popular amongst conservative voters in their own ranks. For a long-term Labor voter like me, that makes me want to go on a rampage.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-unlikely -t o-back-greens-in-was-senate-reelection-20140305-347ol.html

Either way, we are stuffed for the next two and a half years until we can toss this lot of cretins currently wrecking the joint.
 
2014-03-06 08:50:43 AM  

Rwa2play: coolbeans56: Sorry if I rambled a bit. I find this fascinating.

Not all all; it is quite fascinating.  Especially the part where Abbott's government will have to cater to their ideological opposites if they want anything done.

Kinda like Washington post-2006 midterms.


Unfortunately, coolbeans56 got a lot wrong in his or her explanation. Abbott's government does NOT have to cater to its ideological opposites. It has to cater to a small band of nutjobs that includes two novice senators controlled by an obese, billionaire mining magnate who owns a theme park featuring animatronic dinosaurs and who is currently building a life-size replica of the farking Titanic.

The others are a fundamentalist Christian (yes, we have them too!), an extremist Libertarian (ditto), and some mad bloke most famous for throwing kangaroo shiat at his family and friends:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YDhG88dTQs

Abbott is a truly appalling person, an out and out misogynist who claims to have become a feminist recently because his three daughters are pretty, who calls a Catholic cardinal notorious for blocking compensation payments to victims of child sexual abuse his personal friend, who calls the science of climate change "crap" and explains the situation in Syria as a fight between "goodies and baddies".

This, dear Farkers, is the true state of Australian politics for the next 2.5 years. The optimism of coolbeans56 and Senator Ludlam's fine speech are not, I'm afraid, the reality.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report