Re: Aus Federal Politics thread (V)

by horace Mon 25 Jun 2012, 08:17

worry about Skully's habit of imputing cause from effect..best to look at UNHCR research around reffo patterns...personally I welcome boat people...the numbers are miniscule compared to those who arrive by plane and stay here...it is dog whistle politics and and gloria and murdoch "journalism" driving the hysteria

by JGK Mon 25 Jun 2012, 08:24

Don't you mean "Big Dog" whistle...

by skully Mon 25 Jun 2012, 08:35

No hysteria here, h. Look at the facts, man (refer MB's table). If you are happy with the Vulture's Open Border policy that kills people, be my guest.

by skully Mon 25 Jun 2012, 08:38

JGK wrote:So, as I said, of those who went to Nauru and didn't later voluntarily go home, just about all were settled in Australia or NZ.

Wow, I'm glad you aren't the Goose's chief adviser (and I'm not talking about the embarrassment of seeing you walking around Parliament House with a permanent fat Very Happy

). With Maths like that we'd be truly farked. Shocked

That was about as good as the awful spin the Vulture's advisers are getting her to vomit lately.

by Paul Keating Mon 25 Jun 2012, 09:22

MB, any chance of a reply?

by embee Mon 25 Jun 2012, 09:24

there is . ponts

by embee Mon 25 Jun 2012, 16:51

Ponts

The MRRT is supposed to ensure Australians share in the sale of "their" minerals ...it would be ok if that is what it did ...it doesn't

Its a tax grab on coal and iron ore and works as a deterrent to new entrants in Iron Ore

A share in the sale of "our minerals" should be in the form of a royalty ...but the fed govt can't do that because under the constitution the minerals belong to the states ...so the tax is on profits over $75 million ....seemingly the minerals sold up to that point aren't ours ...following on from that ...it only applies to coal and iron ore ...so all the other minerals aren't ours either

The whole implementation was rushed and botched ...the RSPT helped remove Rudd as PM and Swan was kept out of the final negotiations with Rio BHP and XStrata for the MRRT because he is a ****** wit. The Treasury modelling was shown as being as dodgy as something Hockey might try to pass off as an audited costing.

The Big 3 were quite happy to negotiate the tax into its current form as it deters new entrants into the iron ore business

by Paul Keating Mon 25 Jun 2012, 22:03

Cheers for the reply.

by lardbucket Mon 25 Jun 2012, 22:45

My God, the grandstanding on Nauru v Malaysia is becoming a nauseating drone.

Why don't the Government just get the Greens to compromise? ... they are their Coalition partners, after all.

by skully Mon 25 Jun 2012, 22:48

This was the pinko response yesty, L.

JGK wrote:
Wireless also saying it's a joke that the Vulture simply shrugs and blames Abbott for the flood of boat people when she can't even get her alliance partners, The Greens, to vote with her on the issue.

That's the misconception. The Greens aren't a bolted on, bend over and spread coalition partner like the Nationals are with the Libs. They have reserved the right to call things as they see. And the Greens have been totally consistent over this particular issue.

Always some convenient yet lame answer to why the Vulture can't get the Greens help, yet wouldn't be in power without them. Interesting that the Vulture has no once whispered "It's the Greens fault". Apparently the Opposition isn't allowed the right to call things as they see, as the Greens do, nor have been totally consistent over this particular issue. MrK's selective pink memory is a worry. Rolling Eyes

by Paul Keating Mon 25 Jun 2012, 23:05

I still cannot understand why Gillard gave the greens the carbon price. It is not as if they would have sided with Abbott to form government!

by JGK Mon 25 Jun 2012, 23:14

Skully, both the ALP and the Coalition have a policy of offshore processing. The Greens have always been against it.

So the Coalition are stonewalling over matter of degree, not of principal. And as the Coalition well knows, their 3 pillars of Nauru, TPVs and "turning the boats around" is really only 1pillar being Nauru. TPVs were specifically rejected by the population in 2007 when they kicked Howard out and the navy have said that they will not turn boats around.

And the government seems willing to concede on Nauru in return for having a crack at Malaysia.

by embee Mon 25 Jun 2012, 23:51

I thought the people specifically rejected Work Choices in 2007 ...

by skully Mon 25 Jun 2012, 23:55

Paul Keating wrote:I still cannot understand why Gillard gave the greens the carbon price. It is not as if they would have sided with Abbott to form government!

Perhaps Ponts' most sage post ever in this thread.

Well played, sir.

by JGK Tue 26 Jun 2012, 01:18

embee wrote:I thought the people specifically rejected Work Choices in 2007 ...

That too. Let's face it, the only points of difference between the parties in 2007 (including an ETS/ Carbon Tax) was Workchoices and asylum seekers.

It was hilarious seeing Brandis last night saying "it's a matter of principle for us not to agree with anything other than Nauru because that worked" overlooking the fact of course that the majority of Australians found those policies abhorrent.

FFS, they are going to be in power in 12 months anyway so why not give the Malaysian solution a crack while at the same time having the government get their precious Nauru back up and running in time for Scott Morrison to save us all from the brown peril when he becomes Immigration Minister.

I think the coalition is scared that Malaysia might actually work.

by lardbucket Tue 26 Jun 2012, 02:09

The ALP is certainly scared of going back to Nauru.

I think they should do both.

Win win.

by G.Wood Tue 26 Jun 2012, 02:14

JGK wrote:
It was hilarious seeing Brandis last night saying "it's a matter of principle for us not to agree with anything other than Nauru because that worked" overlooking the fact of course that the majority of Australians found those policies abhorrent.

Is that right? I would have thought that most australians couldn't give a stuff what happened to asylum seekers as long as they didn't move into their suburb

by skully Tue 26 Jun 2012, 02:16

JGK wrote:That too. Let's face it, the only points of difference between the parties in 2007 (including an ETS/ Carbon Tax) was Workchoices and asylum seekers.

It was hilarious seeing Brandis last night saying "it's a matter of principle for us not to agree with anything other than Nauru because that worked" overlooking the fact of course that the majority of Australians found those policies abhorrent.

Er, said who? And please don't say "the majority of Australians" when you mean "the majority of pinkos", and please don't say "because Rudd won in 2007*". I see the 43% of asylum seekers that ended up being settled in Aus via Nauru is a majority for you.

You have become a sad generalist like your hero, the Goose.

I think you'll find that the majority of people were impressed with how well the policy worked.

* Work Choices cost LJH, nothing else.

by skully Tue 26 Jun 2012, 02:22

What Woody said. Cool

MrK - the forum's irrational generalist, and tit man.

by JGK Tue 26 Jun 2012, 02:32

G.Wood wrote:
JGK wrote:
It was hilarious seeing Brandis last night saying "it's a matter of principle for us not to agree with anything other than Nauru because that worked" overlooking the fact of course that the majority of Australians found those policies abhorrent.

Is that right? I would have thought that most australians couldn't give a stuff what happened to asylum seekers as long as they didn't move into their suburb

Most of polls at the time suggested that the electorate wasn't happy with kids being locked up and people spending years waiting for their application to come through. The ALP's specific policy was to close Nauru which they did.

by Red Tue 26 Jun 2012, 02:36

Most of the experts say that Nauru will no longer work.

Just as a side issue, given that so many Sri Lankans are on the boats, why don't we boycott them in cricket like we did with SA and Zim. for a while?

It seems that everybody is looking at the symptoms and not the cause.

by skully Tue 26 Jun 2012, 03:06

JGK wrote:Most of polls at the time suggested...

Red wrote:Most of the experts say ...

More pinko generalisations. Quote quotes, name names.

Nauru worked. How do you know the pathetic 800 person limit will work with the Malaysian solution. In fact, you don't. It's 3 weeks worth of boat people. While they are slowly being processes in Malaysia, Christmas Island will continue to overflow.

Julie should slap that sour-faced Greens leader in the chops and get her to move ground. Pinkos are as weak as piss.

by Paul Keating Tue 26 Jun 2012, 03:08

For Skully

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/pretend-to-care-blame-each-other-do-nothing--grow-up-20120622-20tj1.html

BTW Metcalfe was appointed by your hero.

by skully Tue 26 Jun 2012, 03:11

That's his opinion, Ponts. Why would Malaysia work any better than Nauru, especially with the 800 person limit? At least Nauru has virtually no limit to the amount of people.

Ask a boat person if they would like to spend 6 months on Nauru while their claims for asylum were properly assessed, as opposed to being fast-tracked to the mainland, as they are now (because Christmas Island can't cope - 4,000 already this calender year) and I bet they'll rub their chins and have a real good think about it.

Metcalfe's opinion is flawed, IMHO. And Metcalfe hardly qualifies as Red's "Most experts agree". Rolling Eyes

by Paul Keating Tue 26 Jun 2012, 03:15

When LJH appointed Metcalfe as head of immigration who was to say that Metcalfe's idea of Nauru would work.

it was just his opinion then and he has a different opinion now.

I am not saying that Malaysia would work. But why not give it a go?

by Sponsored content