Aussies LXIV - Invasion Day Edition

[Horza]

My question is this:

If the backbenchers are so worried about their seats as a result of the Qld election, why have they sat by and mindlessly voted along party lines for issues contravening election promises? For a party that seems to pride itself on 'family values' and morals they sure are a bunch dishonest pricks.

Of course, Abbott is the head bullshitter, but none of this current lot care about integrity.

In general the lot of the backbencher is to vent in party meetings and otherwise live in terror of the whips. It definitely seems the case that head office went to great lengths to keep backbenchers in line, both in government and opposition, and they grinned and bore it when things were going well. It's clear that some in the Coalition thought this stuff was stupid and cruel but revolting at the first instance when your concerns are ignored is a good way to get yourself totally isolated and ostracised for disloyalty to the party.

Arguably they should have been a bit more ready to come forward when the alternative is what we've witnessed this last month or so, but it takes two to tango, and it's clear Abbott didn't want to hear any of it.

[The Real Will]

If I thought getting rid of Abbott as leader would stop any of that from happening, I would be totally behind it. As it is, though, changing the leader doesn't mean changing the government and doesn't mean changing the policies. It achieves little, except as a distraction and an excuse. Political instability, in this context, looks like the Gillard years in which so much time and attention and energy was wasted on political intrigues and point-scoring rather than on actually governing the country. Who wants more of that?

Are you telling me that all we have to do is have Abbott ousted by his own party and then we can go back to the Gillard years of, admittedly intermittent, functionality, and not abject evil? Because I'd take that. :P

Despite some good points made by people last go round, I still think people need to come to terms with the fact that we don't elect the Prime Minister. The very best and brightest spin you could put on this is to say that we elect the people who elect the Prime Minister. We pick a bunch of people we supposedly trust to make decisions in the best interests of the country. And while I know that they often make decisions in the best interests of their own hope of reelection, in this particular case I think the two causes happen to lead to the same result. Abbott is so incompetent that I think we're better served with anyone else in charge (all right, not literally anyone, but quite a lot of people). And I take your point that whoever replaces him will still be a Liberal and so the ideology isn't going to change, but while we may still have to deal with Liberal ideology we will at least be free of Abbott ideology, which is a whole beast unto itself.

Of course, part of me hopes Abbott hangs around until the next election, because while some other leader might be able to salvage the situation, I actually don't believe that Abbott is capable of it. It turns out that Abbott is not just an incompetent leader but is also really bad at just being a politician. Howard, while many of the beliefs were repugnant, was at least capable of convincing people that eating small children was a necessity, and on occasion a pleasure. Abbott would struggle to convince you that you ought to have a drink if you were thirsty.

[The Winged Shadow]

If I thought getting rid of Abbott as leader would stop any of that from happening, I would be totally behind it. As it is, though, changing the leader doesn't mean changing the government and doesn't mean changing the policies. It achieves little, except as a distraction and an excuse. Political instability, in this context, looks like the Gillard years in which so much time and attention and energy was wasted on political intrigues and point-scoring rather than on actually governing the country. Who wants more of that?

While it doesn't guarantee changing governing party, it certainly puts pressure for an early election. It happened with both Gillard and Rudd. Although they were already in their last year, while Abbott is just in his second, so the Libs are unlikely to do it. But that's as good as you can hope for given the circumstances.

As for policy, that is less likely to change given its usually the party platform, but it can certainly change the direction (hopefully!). We've seen it with Medicare changes, Paid Parental Leave, Education (sorta! still ongoing). While it's not entirely based on poll and public unhappiness, it certainly adds to the atmosphere of discontent which is fairly important in today's political climate where silence/lack of chatter can be taken as an acceptance of a policy/stance. You can only hope that changing of party leaders will lead to a change in the policies to a certain extent.

As for Gillard years, she governed pretty damn well given the disruption. So political instability does not necessarily mean lack of governance or moving forward with policies. Whether this government can do it is another question. Political theatre will never go away, it was always there. If it's not leadership speculation, its the budget crisis or the boat people or the red tape or something else. This is just the latest round of intrigue and point scoring.

Obviously I am pretty biased, being a lefty and all. LNP misery fills me with great joy and I wish nothing but fire and brimstone on all their policies. This must be how the Libs felt during Gillard years :P

[brook]

I rather hope Abbott somehow holds on. His inability to negotiate his way out of a paper bag ensures that the nastiest measures the LNP are putting up are unlikely to pass the a senate that still leans conservative.

A better politician might be able to get some of them through and I'd really rather another year of not much getting done than that.

[The Winged Shadow]

Haha fair call. An Abbott government might be the best thing to protect us from the Abbott government! :lol:

[ants]

I'm torn. Do I want to see Abbott torn down by his own party, or kicked out by the public? Tough choice....

[Petyr's Little Finger]

If Abbott gets kicked out, it is likely that Julie or Malcolm will lead the party. Both Julie and Malcolm are more popular than Abbott, and maybe the Libs will have a chance at the next election. Of course is Chris "the Poodle" Pyne gets the leadership (which I doubt) then the Libs will get absolutely flogged come 2016.

I hope Abbott stays, I would love him get flogged in the election, I wonder if he will blame that on Labor/ABC/SBS. Also it would be pretty bad if the last three sitting PMs were rolled by their own party.

[arya_underfoot]

I rather hope Abbott somehow holds on. His inability to negotiate his way out of a paper bag ensures that the nastiest measures the LNP are putting up are unlikely to pass the a senate that still leans conservative.

A better politician might be able to get some of them through and I'd really rather another year of not much getting done than that.

I agree. No crossbench senator currently wants to be known as "the guy who helped Abbott get XYZ legislation through the senate".

[Gears of the Beast]

So someone dug up this speech that Malcolm Turnbull gave in 2012 about data retention. I'll mercifully quote it for you because the speech is agonisingly verbose.

I am indescribably livid reading this, I can't believe what a spineless, unprincipled piece of shit he is. And people wonder why I'm apathetic about fucking voting.

This issue has been brought into sharp focus by the Attorney-General’s vague but at face value far-reaching plan to expand data interception, mandatory data retention, and government access to private digital information.

And the most striking proposed expansion of government power over private data is the least clearly explained. These are amendments which provide for what is described as: “tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years for parts of a data set, with specific timeframes taking into account agency priorities, and privacy and cost impacts.” [14]

Internet companies will apparently be required to store parts of everyone’s data, although there is no clarity as to which material will be kept or why.

In fact there is little clarity; period. A recent letter from Nicola Roxon to the Herald-Sun bemoaning its coverage of the data retention issue provided more information about this measure than a 61-page discussion paper released by her department.

While the purported intent is that only metadata – data about data – will be available to law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies, there is no explanation of how metadata will be distinguished from data (the two are often commingled, as in the ‘subject’ line of emails), why both would not be readily available once a message has been handed over and decrypted, and indeed how readily in an IP world it is possible to keep a record of the time, date, size, sender, receiver and possibly subject of an email without also retaining the contents.

Nor has there been an explanation of what costs and benefits have been estimated for this sweeping and intrusive new power, how these were arrived at, what (if any) cost was ascribed to its chilling effect on free speech, and whether any gains in national security or law enforcement asserted as justification for the changes will be monitored and verified should they be enacted.

ASIO’s submission to the parliamentary inquiry considering the discussion paper argues that the type of information it seeks is not very different from what it has hitherto been able to obtain from telcos who retain details of telephone calls (but not the content) for the purpose of billing. In an IP world where charging is done on the basis of total bandwidth utilization, ASIO argues these details are not required by the telcos or web companies and so they can be deleted.

The German Federal Constitutional Court has recently struck down a similar data retention law noting that “meta-data” may be used to draw conclusions about not simply the content of the messages, but the social and political affiliations, personal preferences, inclinations and weaknesses of the individual concerned.[15]

Leaving aside the central issue of the right to privacy, there are formidable practical objections. The carriers, including Telstra, have argued that the cost of complying with a new data retention regime would be very considerable with the consequence of higher charges for their customers.

And what is to happen with data stored offshore? Google hosts much, if not most, of the relevant data for Australians. But none of it is hosted in Australia. Much of our voice and video calls occur now over IP services, like Skype or Google Chat. Is their customer metadata stored in Australia? Almost certainly not.

Google currently permanently deletes emails or Youtube videos from their server once the customer deletes it. Search logs are rendered anonymous after nine months. It would be utterly impractical, and possibly unlawful, for Google to discriminate against customers from Australia and treat them differently from any others.

And finally – why do we imagine that the criminals of the greatest concern to our security agencies will not be able to use any of numerous available means to anonymise their communications or indeed choose new services that are not captured by legislated data retention rules?

Without wanting to pre-empt the conclusions of the Parliamentary Committee, I must record my very grave misgivings about the proposal. It seems to be heading in precisely the wrong direction. Surely as we reflect on the consequences of the digital shift from a default of forgetting to one of perpetual memory we should be seeking to restore as far as possible the individual’s right not simply to their privacy but to having the right to delete that which they have created in the same way as can be done in the analogue world.

Now this data retention proposal is only the latest effort by the Gillard Government to restrain freedom of speech.

[Arkhangel]

So someone dug up this speech that Malcolm Turnbull gave in 2012 about data retention. I'll mercifully quote it for you because the speech is agonisingly verbose.

I am indescribably livid reading this, I can't believe what a spineless, unprincipled piece of shit he is. And people wonder why I'm apathetic about fucking voting.

Because 'indescribably livid' in principle and 'apathetic' in practice are an odd combination. If you're livid, great, vote for someone else. By not voting (meaningfully, donkey votes don't count) all you achieve is to make his supporters' votes count more. From a politician's perspective the list of preferences looks like this:

1. Votes for me

2. Doesn't vote at all

3. Votes for someone else

If you're livid, give Turnbull number 3.

[Gears of the Beast]

Because 'indescribably livid' in principle and 'apathetic' in practice are an odd combination. If you're livid, great, vote for someone else. By not voting (meaningfully, donkey votes don't count) all you achieve is to make his supporters' votes count more. From a politician's perspective the list of preferences looks like this:

1. Votes for me

2. Doesn't vote at all

3. Votes for someone else

If you're livid, give Turnbull number 3.

So what happens when I vote ALP because I want this guy out, Albanese gives some nice speeches about privacy and his opposition to data retention and as soon as he gets in he does a 180 just like Turnbull? It doesn't even seem unlikely given that this whole idea was evidently the ALP's to begin with. I think it's naive to think that any politician is any better than Turnbull. When I see this, my reaction isn't "ooo I bet the other guy is so much better!".

Edit: anyway, I was hoping we could focus more on the spineless toad Turnbull and the assault on our civil liberties than my personal voting habits. I'll vote however I want, for whomever I want.

[Stubby]

So what happens when I vote ALP because I want this guy out, Albanese gives some nice speeches about privacy and his opposition to data retention and as soon as he gets in he does a 180 just like Turnbull? It doesn't even seem unlikely given that this whole idea was evidently the ALP's to begin with. I think it's naive to think that any politician is any better than Turnbull. When I see this, my reaction isn't "ooo I bet the other guy is so much better!".

Vote Greens in the Senate.

[Gears of the Beast]

Vote Greens in the Senate.

I will never vote for a party that claims that genetically modified organisms are an 'unacceptable threat'. I can't stand anti-scientific drivel. I would vote for pretty much anyone over the greens.

[Petyr's Little Finger]

So what happens when I vote ALP because I want this guy out, Albanese gives some nice speeches about privacy and his opposition to data retention and as soon as he gets in he does a 180 just like Turnbull? It doesn't even seem unlikely given that this whole idea was evidently the ALP's to begin with. I think it's naive to think that any politician is any better than Turnbull. When I see this, my reaction isn't "ooo I bet the other guy is so much better!".

Edit: anyway, I was hoping we could focus more on the spineless toad Turnbull and the assault on our civil liberties than my personal voting habits. I'll vote however I want, for whomever I want.

I hope Albanese does stick to his word and makes sure that data retention does not happen in Australia. I really cant rule out Albanese doing a backflip. Labor is lurching to far to the right now, it is becoming Liberal Lite.

I will never vote for a party that claims that genetically modified organisms are an 'unacceptable threat'. I can't stand anti-scientific drivel. I would vote for pretty much anyone over the greens.

This, the Greens have a few decent ideas, but then they have this sort of silly pseudo environmentalist rubbish. Australian politics is stuffed. We have the Liberals moving dangerously close to far right Tea Party style politics, Labor is inefficient, and the Greens who barely see past the inner city suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne. Australia needs a party that will put healthcare, education, hospitals etc at the forefront.

[Arkhangel]

So what happens when I vote ALP because I want this guy out, Albanese gives some nice speeches about privacy and his opposition to data retention and as soon as he gets in he does a 180 just like Turnbull? It doesn't even seem unlikely given that this whole idea was evidently the ALP's to begin with. I think it's naive to think that any politician is any better than Turnbull. When I see this, my reaction isn't "ooo I bet the other guy is so much better!".

Edit: anyway, I was hoping we could focus more on the spineless toad Turnbull and the assault on our civil liberties than my personal voting habits. I'll vote however I want, for whomever I want.

What happens when there isn't a single perfect candidate who agrees with you on every issue? Well, the show continues, that's what happens. Either you can be a part of it, and at least have a say in choosing which imperfect candidates are or are not running your country, or you can kvetch from the sidelines and no one need listen to you at all. Like you say, the choice is totally yours. You were the one who brought it up.

[Stubby]

I will never vote for a party that claims that genetically modified organisms are an 'unacceptable threat'. I can't stand anti-scientific drivel. I would vote for pretty much anyone over the greens.

Yes, but they will stand up for individual choice. They will assist minorities. They will vote their consciences. They will not put religious interests first. They will annoy the fuck out of the liberals and negotiate with Labor. Like you, I accept the science on GM, but I have to accept that some of the things they want are not compatible with my views. They will, however, be the voice that I want heard in the Senate on most issues. It's stiff shit, but without them then no-one stands - in any practical sense - in the way of fuckwits like Abbott.

Like Arkhangel said, not everyone can please everyone on every issue.

[The Drunkard]

So what happens when I vote ALP because I want this guy out, Albanese gives some nice speeches about privacy and his opposition to data retention and as soon as he gets in he does a 180 just like Turnbull? It doesn't even seem unlikely given that this whole idea was evidently the ALP's to begin with. I think it's naive to think that any politician is any better than Turnbull. When I see this, my reaction isn't "ooo I bet the other guy is so much better!".

You won't have lost anything. But, while you've already ruled Turnbull out as an unprincipled piece of shit, there's a chance Albanese might have stick to his guns.

Worst case scenario, more of the same. Best case, no data retention.

[arya_underfoot]

Yes, but they will stand up for individual choice. They will assist minorities. They will vote their consciences. They will not put religious interests first. They will annoy the fuck out of the liberals and negotiate with Labor. Like you, I accept the science on GM, but I have to accept that some of the things they want are not compatible with my views. They will, however, be the voice that I want heard in the Senate on most issues. It's stiff shit, but without them then no-one stands - in any practical sense - in the way of fuckwits like Abbott.

Like Arkhangel said, not everyone can please everyone on every issue.

They also have other stupid policies like estate taxes and absolute opposition to nuclear power. However, it is worthwhile having a bunch of Greens in the Senate for exactly the reasons you mention. It is a fine line though, because I wouldn't them to be able to set the policy agenda, only oppose the rubbish that the mainstream parties come up with.

When it comes to the so-called "national security" issues, Shorten (and other Labor MP's) have made it clear that they're "on a unity ticket" with the Liberals i.e. metadata retention as the government sees it fit will be legislated. It really doesn't matter what Turnbull, Albanese or anyone else says.

[brook]

I trust that both major parties are going to be awful on many issues (data retention is one, asylum seekers another)

I don't trust either major party completely on any issue, and there is no party major or minor whose values completely line up with mine.

What I do trust is that, at this moment in time, there are more people in Labor who give even half a shit about poor, and otherwise disadvantaged people than there is in the LNP (and that more of those that don't will feel obliged to at least pretend that they do) and that is going to have some impact on their decisions in government. It's not going to result in me liking everything they do, or making sure they know how I feel when they do something awful, but it would be beyond silly of me to act like I don't have any preference at all when I do.

[The Drunkard]

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/the-pulse-live/politics-live-tony-abbotts-leadership-in-crisis--february-6-2015-20150206-137ks2.html

Spill on Tuesday.