Jump to content

Aussies and NZers: Jabs, Jobs and (grounded) Jets


Paxter
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Squab said:

Where did you find this info as the federal election before that had more than 18000 people who were recorded as voting twice or more?

Apologies, I should have double checked. However, in his statement on the issue, the AEC Commissioner advised about that there were around 2000 cases of multiple voting in 2019, with about 24 investigated by police and no charges laid. He described the incidence of multiple voting as 'vanishingly small'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2000 cases of multiple voting all for the same party in one electorate could affect the result for that electorate, which could swing the election where the balance of power hinges on a single electorate. 2000 cases across several electorates for different parties is unlikely to have an effect anywhere. So while the incidence is vanishingly small, the effect on the outcome of almost every election is zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They found Cleo! Those stories so rarely have a happy ending. Onya WA Police.

ETA: Also I can’t help but smile wryly over Malcolm Turnbull’s statements lately. If he feels so strongly about environmental policy etc…where was his leadership on these matters during his time as PM? He was more worried about staying power than any policy purity.

Edited by Paxter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paxter said:

ETA: Also I can’t help but smile wryly over Malcolm Turnbull’s statements lately. If he feels so strongly about environmental policy etc…where was his leadership on these matters during his time as PM? He was more worried about staying power than any policy purity.

I suppose the issue is the LNP's culture which is very adverse to taking climate action.

It was fairly well known he held a more pro-action stance on climate change (atleast for a Lib) which was a major contributing factor to his downfall, so if he tried to be more aggressive, the party would've almost undoubtedly ousted him much sooner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been following the submarine saga with interest.

Why does the left wing Aussie press have such an inferiority complex when it comes to Australia’s standing in the world? They should be rallying around Morrison, telling Macron to get screwed with his inferior submarines. Instead, they are immediately alarmed by any perceived disgruntlement the French might have with Morrison acting in Australia’s military interest.

Aussies need to grow some self confidence instead of trying to avoid offence at all costs. Australia is a major power and should act accordingly.

 

Edited by Free Northman Reborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its got nothing to do with deference to France, and everything to do with the fact that openly being an untrustworthy trading partner heavily discourages others from trading with you in the future. And he took the absolute worst approach to it which was very clearly going to cause fall out AND wasted a whole lot of money for something that we all know is not actually about any military capability for Australia, its about throwing contracts to our "more important" allies in the US and the UK.

The US often gets away with being untrustworthy because its too powerful and too rich to really feel consequences, we're not and we don't want a leader that trashes our future in exchange for the present. Oh look, that touches on more than one subject in one go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the nuclear subs are absolutely more advantageous to Australian military capability. Even Labour agrees with that.

Secondly, Australia, the UK and the US had agreed (and documented) a very clear communication plan on the matter, which entailed France being informed on 16 September about the outcome, which is how Australia played it. 

Unfortunately, Biden then turned around and threw Australia under the bus, for one of three reasons:

1. Cognitive decline which made him genuinely forget the agreement.

2. His officials keeping him in the dark about it, or

3. Sacrificing Australia in order to repair US relations with France.

Either way, Biden is the one who comes off in an extremely bad light here, not Morrison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Labor publicly agree they're "more advantageous" doesn't mean that they're actually a meaningful boost to our defense capability, the entire public commentary on these things is built on layers of bullshit. And I know you know this fact because you've complained about it in the past - if Australia lands itself in a serious war a few nuclear subs are not turning the tide, the entire strategy is "hang on until America arrives".

Also if we wanted nuclear subs, the French contract had to modify its existing design to accommodate our previous requirement that they be diesel as the original design was nuclear so "actually we need nuclear subs" is a pretty weak reason to tear up the contract. If your argument is that the subs are shit, well we shouldn't have signed the contract in the first place, or finding ourselves in that situation we should have been more open and diplomatic in exiting the contract. Not lying literally the same day the announcement was going to be made, France clearly feels that this "clear communication plan" which entailed screwing them over was not actually so clear on their side of things.

And if we want to pull out of bad contracts after sinking a lot of money into them, there's this other item called the F-35 which has got an absolute fortune over 20 years to finally deliver a handful of planes - I'm sure that contract could have used some revision.

You're in here somehow seeing this as another opportunity to exploit to criticise your own President for transparently political reasons, but I'd be just as critical of a Labor government that pulled this same shit. And this sort of shit is not partisan here, Labor pulling it is not unimaginable. Nor is the reaction we'd have seen from the right if they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Aussies need to grow some self confidence instead of trying to avoid offence at all costs. Australia is a major power and should act accordingly.

Uh, what? In what way?

Only reason Australia is even remotely relevant is because of the alliance with Daddy US and the whole 5 eye intelligence gathering thing. Which is why I was really surprised that France won the contract in the first place.

I vaguely remember that the reason nuclear submarine wasn't preferred was due to Australia not having a nuclear industry to support such things (you need a whole host of local industries to skill up to deal with such things).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Winged Shadow said:

Uh, what? In what way?

Only reason Australia is even remotely relevant is because of the alliance with Daddy US and the whole 5 eye intelligence gathering thing. Which is why I was really surprised that France won the contract in the first place.

Don't forget the US bases here! To be fair thats not unrelated to the 5 eye thing, but they're still part of the picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

The fact that Labor publicly agree they're "more advantageous" doesn't mean that they're actually a meaningful boost to our defense capability, the entire public commentary on these things is built on layers of bullshit. And I know you know this fact because you've complained about it in the past - if Australia lands itself in a serious war a few nuclear subs are not turning the tide, the entire strategy is "hang on until America arrives".

Also if we wanted nuclear subs, the French contract had to modify its existing design to accommodate our previous requirement that they be diesel as the original design was nuclear so "actually we need nuclear subs" is a pretty weak reason to tear up the contract. If your argument is that the subs are shit, well we shouldn't have signed the contract in the first place, or finding ourselves in that situation we should have been more open and diplomatic in exiting the contract. Not lying literally the same day the announcement was going to be made, France clearly feels that this "clear communication plan" which entailed screwing them over was not actually so clear on their side of things.

And if we want to pull out of bad contracts after sinking a lot of money into them, there's this other item called the F-35 which has got an absolute fortune over 20 years to finally deliver a handful of planes - I'm sure that contract could have used some revision.

You're in here somehow seeing this as another opportunity to exploit to criticise your own President for transparently political reasons, but I'd be just as critical of a Labor government that pulled this same shit. And this sort of shit is not partisan here, Labor pulling it is not unimaginable. Nor is the reaction we'd have seen from the right if they did.

The French nuclear reactors required refurbishment during the sub’s lifetime, which Australia is not able to do due to the ban on nuclear technology in the country, whereas the US and UK reactors do not. So no, the French nuclear subs were not suitable.

And it is pretty obvious that a diesel sub with a mere 500km underwater range is not fit for purpose for a country with a 10,000km plus coastline. Nuclear subs by comparison can circumnavigate the globe without surfacing.

It was clearly the right military decision.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

The French nuclear reactors required refurbishment during the sub’s lifetime, which Australia is not able to do due to the ban on nuclear technology in the country, whereas the US and UK reactors do not. So no, the Fench nuclear subs were not suitable.

And it is pretty obvious that a diesel sub with a mere 500km underwater range is not fit for purpose for a country with a 10,000km plus coastline. Nuclear subs by comparison can circumnavigate the globe without surfacing.

It was clearly the right military decision.

None of which addresses any of my points, but go off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, karaddin said:

None of which addresses any of my points, but go off.

Actually, one of your points is that the reason for wanting nuclear subs is bullshit, which is clearly not the case.

Another of your points is that the French could have provided fit-for-purpose nuclear subs too, which again, they clearly could not given the refurbishment requirement.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Actually, one of your points is that the reason for wanting nuclear subs is bullshit, which is clearly not the case.

Another of your points is that the French could have provided fit-for-purpose nuclear subs too, which again, they clearly could not given the refurbishment requirement.

The idea that Australia can defend itself in a genuine war is what is bullshit. I don't actually dispute that nuclear submarines are more "fit for purpose" for our theoretical needs, they are. I just dispute that our theoretical needs are themselves bullshit. Our defense spending is primarily about making our allies happy, which is exactly the goal of this.

Another of my points is that saying "we needed nuclear subs" is a terrible justification for tearing up a contract with a company that just spend 2 years and a bunch of money modifying their existing nuclear sub designs to make them diesel because *we* asked for them. I also said that if the French nuclear subs aren't fit for purpose we should never have signed the contract in the first place, which wasn't very long ago, and that we should have been more diplomatic about our method of exit.

You'll note none of these points require this decision to be wrong militarily as the issue is entirely about how we have conducted ourselves diplomatically and in a business context. But keep acting like my issue is with the actual military equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Skyrazer said:

I suppose the issue is the LNP's culture which is very adverse to taking climate action.

It was fairly well known he held a more pro-action stance on climate change (atleast for a Lib) which was a major contributing factor to his downfall, so if he tried to be more aggressive, the party would've almost undoubtedly ousted him much sooner.

The party ousted him because of his unpopularity (e.g. losing those dual citizenship by-elections in QLD). Perhaps he could’ve gained some of those ALP voters and put himself into the defensible centre ground if he’d had a climate policy?

Of the Liberals, I think it was mainly (backbencher) Abbott who was the problem on climate - Malcolm should’ve taken him on. Obviously the Nationals would’ve been a problem, but they don’t vote in a spill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Seems to me Turnbull signed a bad deal in 2016, and Morrison acted in Australia’s interest to correct that in 2021.

Our beloved ScoMo has clearly read and mastered “The Art of the Deal”!

If only he’d done one with Pfizer too back in 2020…

Edited by Paxter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paxter said:

Our beloved ScoMo has clearly read and mastered “The Art of the Deal”!

If only he’d done one with Pfizer too back in 2020…

He probably should have read Diplomacy for Dummies.

At least the French were actually building subs for us. As I understand it, we don't yet have a contract to build the nuclear subs, don't know how much they are going to cost or when we will get them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, karaddin said:

The fact that Labor publicly agree they're "more advantageous" doesn't mean that they're actually a meaningful boost to our defense capability, the entire public commentary on these things is built on layers of bullshit. And I know you know this fact because you've complained about it in the past - if Australia lands itself in a serious war a few nuclear subs are not turning the tide, the entire strategy is "hang on until America arrives".

Also if we wanted nuclear subs, the French contract had to modify its existing design to accommodate our previous requirement that they be diesel as the original design was nuclear so "actually we need nuclear subs" is a pretty weak reason to tear up the contract. If your argument is that the subs are shit, well we shouldn't have signed the contract in the first place, or finding ourselves in that situation we should have been more open and diplomatic in exiting the contract. Not lying literally the same day the announcement was going to be made, France clearly feels that this "clear communication plan" which entailed screwing them over was not actually so clear on their side of things.

And if we want to pull out of bad contracts after sinking a lot of money into them, there's this other item called the F-35 which has got an absolute fortune over 20 years to finally deliver a handful of planes - I'm sure that contract could have used some revision.

You're in here somehow seeing this as another opportunity to exploit to criticise your own President for transparently political reasons, but I'd be just as critical of a Labor government that pulled this same shit. And this sort of shit is not partisan here, Labor pulling it is not unimaginable. Nor is the reaction we'd have seen from the right if they did.

I guess that's what it boils down to, because you can bet "hang on until France arrives" will only be a thing if an aggressor is attacking New Caledonia or French Polynesia, and even then France will have to think about it for a while, and America will arrive first. 

My prediction, Australia will never use these subs in a war to defend it's own homeland. But the USA will call on Australia to send those shiny new subs to help them out in a fight, that perhaps a majority of the Australian public does not support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the majority of the Australian public has a particularly strong opinion on the sub deal either way. If the strategic considerations have changed and this is a better way to go then so be it. People do get a bit pissed though at the dipolmatic mishandling, and then the PM further compounding it by indulging in the personal tit-for-tat like a child and trashing Australia's reputation on the world stage.

Though as with most foreign policy I doubt it'll have any kind of a big effect on the up coming election. It does add to the image of a pretty directionless and somewhat ineffective government flailing about mismanaging anything it gets close to though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...