If someone’s views are hostile to a minority, even if they’re not hatred-driven, they should NOT express them publicly. There are plenty of private channels to reach out to politicians that won’t intimidate a vulnerable group. The mere act of expressing these anti-immigration views publicly is itself unacceptable.
Guzman Y Gomez constantly has job listings up. I suspect they have hectic conditions and nobody wants to stick around.
I did some digging, looks like Labor offered it in exchange for support but in response …
Greens housing spokesperson Max Chandler-Mathers said the changes still did not go far enough.
Although I don’t know if mandatory disbursements are a good idea anyway. I’ve just accepted your framing of them as a good idea.
So Gillard got couped too. Let’s just leave it at that because I can’t really be bothered.
Source? Not that I really care. It barely matters.
Sure, but it wasn’t an especially bold proposal.
Was enough to get her couped with a fake corruption scandal plastered all over the press. What are you expecting exactly, Whitlam levels of boldness?
Not a carbon tax.
Doesn’t matter. You can say all you want that it’s a lie to call it a “carbon tax” but does anyone in Australia know it by a different name?
It lasted only a few years because the Government lost at the next election. If Rudd had … instead of … that brought down both his and Gillard’s Governments.
Gillard was polling abysmally before Rudd took over. She was a terrible prime minster who nobody liked.
Many NGO’s were prepared to hit the ground running with the HAFF funding, by blocking the HAFF the Greens screwed up the prepared contracts. They delayed much needed housing for people genuinely in need by years just so they could get brownie points with renters.
On the minimum payout, Labor conceded on that point immediately. The Greens were not voting against it on those grounds.
And before you say Labor should’ve made concessions, the Greens unlike Labor don’t actually face any electoral pressures since they have less than zero chance of forming government and basically zero chance of losing senate seats. The Greens, for good reason, have become politically toxic to deal with because they think acting like whiny children makes them charismatic. If Labor met the Greens $10 billion spending demands, it would’ve been used as a campaign point in this year’s election and Labor would’ve lost to the LNP who would’ve then cut the HAFF.
Palaszczuk taxed the coal mining companies and balanced the state budget. And keep in mind this was in Queensland, the most conservative state in the country.
Rudd … there is so much I could say. One of Gillard’s first acts after replacing Rudd was to drop the taxes on mining, she then put in a carbon tax that even an idiot could come up with a scare campaign against, said carbon tax only lasted a few years and permanently poisoned the idea of a price on carbon. This is not even mentioning the CIA cables discussing whether they should replace Rudd with Gillard because Rudd didn’t want to automatically join America in a war for Taiwan.
No further reading. Naturally though people find threats more important to know about than a news article saying “everything is fine, better than you think even, you don’t need to worry”.
Though doom scrolling does help keep people’s minds numb by flipping them between cat videos and RFK Junior endlessly. This is why doom scrolling is so good at making time disappear and some people want that.
EDIT: Actually, there’s probably a contingent of Guardian readers that do want to be outraged. They want to blame someone else for their uselessness.
A government can only go against lobbyist interests (and especially American interests) if they have the opposition on-side. Labor, to this day, has a long history of being couped and they’ve learned cowardice as a result.
Whitlam, Rudd, Fyles, Palaszczuk.
I voted against the Greens because their behavior voting against the HAFF was straight-up psychotic. They were throwing the homeless under the bus for headlines and renters.
They don’t want to be outraged, they just feel anything that outrages them is important whereas anything that doesn’t is not. So any news that’s positive about Labor is unimportant to the audience and suppressed by the media, even if it’s true.
It’s pretty damaging to your reputation to sue a rape victim for defamation. Or at least it should be.
You suggest both sides are the same when you say winning is less important than acting symbolically on principle. Principles give you a coalition government. A flagrantly corrupt, shamefully incompetent government, one that will not just do nothing to stop America from owning us but actively seek that out, one that undermines the unions and willfully cheers on extinction, one that’s just recently come out with the policy of scrapping net zero.
You may suggest the Greens, but the Greens would 100% lose 9/10 elections if Labor disappeared tomorrow. And the Greens are the actual horrible people. They blocked the HAAF not to save people from homelessness, but from housing stress, because they wanted to pick up renters as a voting block. I remember Adam Bandt visibly seething in rage at having parliamentary rules explained to him, because he is a narcissist who wants everyone to know that he’s a good and infallible person because he acts on his principles.
Acting on principles is the easy thing to do, but it’s also dereliction of duty as prime minister, because it gets you the job title of “former prime minister”. Whitlam and Rudd acted on principle, they lasted one term and were proceeded by a decade of Liberals. We cannot afford another decade of Liberals.
The Israel story doesn’t allege any Labor wrongdoing other than the Elbit/Hanwha deal. There was a non-response from the Department of Defense but I wouldn’t expect them to respond. The Elbit/Hanwha deal is a bit of a misnomer, because it was a deal with Hanwha that Elbit was subcontracted in. The decision to employ Elbit was that of Hanwha, while they didn’t actively push against it they also didn’t initiate it. This is all me just skimming so take what I say with a grain of salt.
You gotta remember that America owns us, and Israel owns America. Actively (rather than passively) boycotting Israeli arms manufacturers would likely put our system at risk without materially affecting Israel’s ability to shoot fish in a barrel.
The fossil fuel approvals, I can’t find a credible source debunking those claims and can’t be bothered looking into the details. I need to know why Labor would approve new fossil fuel projects because I don’t buy the narrative that they’re evil and/or corrupt. Until I know the reason I can’t consider the story credible.
The salmon farming thing was obviously an election promise to get Tasmanian seats. It ultimately proved unnecessary because Dutton fumbled the campaign so catastrophically but if he goes back on his word that’d hurt future elections.
The prime ministers that didn’t play the game didn’t last more than 3 years. Then we got the LNP who actually actively strengthen the neoliberal system. This whole “both sides are the same” argument needs to die, firstly because the LNP is corrupt and much more incompetent, but also because it makes the corruption and incompetence seem less bad when people say (or imply) that.
What is he doing that’s getting people killed?
Putting lives before an elections means you lose both, if he even has sacrificed lives by being cautious.
Cutting arms shipments to Israel would be merely symbolic and would get Albanese immediately couped like Whitlam and Rudd (if he would even be able to do it in the first place), the HAAF was meant to solve homelessness rather than housing stress and it was delayed by a few years by the Greens, and climate change requires policy maintained over multiple elections cycles to address on a domestic level.
All the things people are saying he needs to be bold and aggressive on, Labor has done so in the past and it’s lost them election.
The fact is we’re all too immersed in the American social media ecosystem and so we expect bold action to solve American problems that would only be vote-winners in a non-compulsory voting system where elections are fought on turnout (usually as a centrist vs. nutjobs race). Albanese knows the Australian political system well, that being that nobody really cares about politics here and if Labor wants to win they need to stay out of the press because it’s run by private school kids who hate him (at best).
I’d say the mere act of expressing these views publicly, possibly intimidating minorities, says enough about someone’s character.
And the protests were organized by neo-nazis IIRC.