Aussies and NZers: Four seasons in one protest

[Jeor]

8 hours ago, Paxter said:

The lesson from Ukraine is that the world is willing to help? Not sure I’d agree. 

Well, help in a limited sense. While the lack of military engagement is stark (and Ukraine is not party to any treaties or alliances that would have traditionally invoked those), I take the optimistic view that global engagement/eyeballs, indirect military assistance, and economic sanctions, have all been far higher than could have been expected. This could all too easily have been another Crimea where nobody cared.

Australia has incredible geographic advantages being an island nation and at the "ends of the earth" in terms of location. But the tyranny of distance also works against us in terms of allies coming to help, and in terms of controlling a coastline and places of entry. I severely doubt anyone would actually invade with the intent to occupy (they'd be completely daft to do so), but there are a lot of ways that an enemy could potentially disrupt or gain a foothold in the country to make life quite difficult, including sabotage etc.

Possibly the softer areas to worry about are things like Chinese ownership of airfields and ports and other critical assets, which seems to be on the rise, but in a crazy world where some hot conflict actually arose I assume Australia could seize all those assets pretty easily.

[The Anti-Targ]

7 hours ago, karaddin said:

The huge problem with this is that some of those resources would be areas with significant Indigenous populations and leaving them to deal with that situation would be incredibly fucked. So let's just hope no one cares to test the US's dedication to the alliance with their lap dog.

I mean, from the perspective of indigenous people, with no capacity to resist militarily as it is, would they feel any worse off swapping one coloniser extracting the resources of their land for the sole benefit of the coloniser for another doing essentially the same thing? Indeed treating the mis-treated indigenous population somewhat better than the first coloniser might pay off for the invader and the indigenous people. That's best case scenario. Worst case would be a genocide that works this time around.

12 hours ago, Jeor said:

 I think we've seen in Ukraine that the world is willing to help, but that does no good if you're overrun very quickly or if you have no original capability to defend yourself.

In terms of the help Australia or NZ would need I think Ukraine is a demonstration of the exact opposite of that. 

[Jeor]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

In terms of the help Australia or NZ would need I think Ukraine is a demonstration of the exact opposite of that. 

At the specific level, yes. But I think on a macro level, the point still stands - there needs to be some element of effective resistance for any external party to even consider helping you, whatever way that looks like.

[karaddin]

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I mean, from the perspective of indigenous people, with no capacity to resist militarily as it is, would they feel any worse off swapping one coloniser extracting the resources of their land for the sole benefit of the coloniser for another doing essentially the same thing?  

Maybe, maybe not - we would have to wait and see if the new occupier was more aggressive in extracting those resources than we currently are (which may not be that likely as we're already pretty aggressive), but that's talking actual outcomes rather than the symbolism. I think the initial response of Australia just shrugging and accepting it would be another insult to injury. 

Which still doesn't mean things should be done differently either, you could very easily have a situation where the local people feel the sting of the insult but still don't want Australia to fight for it and destroy everything they're trying to protect in the process.

[Impmk2]

Libs looking in big trouble here in SA.

[Impmk2]

Well that was a very short night. First covid premier to fall. Federal Libs will be very worried about this one. Marshall wasn't a terrible premier and he just got destroyed. 

[Wall Flower]

3 hours ago, Impmk2 said:

Well that was a very short night. First covid premier to fall. Federal Libs will be very worried about this one. Marshall wasn't a terrible premier and he just got destroyed. 

SA politicians seem a lot more polite and thoughtful than those at the federal level or in some of the other states. Maybe they were on their best behaviour but it was a refreshing change from the brutality of the federal contest. I agree that a loss by a moderate and reasonably competent LNP premier must be a worry for Morrison. Sadly, I think it will probably only herald a doubling down on dirty tactics.

[Jeor]

Yes, terrifying result for the Coalition nationwide. Marshall was by no means a bad Premier and seemed the relatively common-sense type of Liberal (as opposed to a right-wing culture warrior or economic tax cut ideologue, which are sadly a growing part of what was the Howard era "broad church").

I personally think ScoMo is cooked - his image is damaged irreparably, but 2019 is still giving federal Labor nightmares. It's a reminder they have to watch the regions and not count too much on positive sentiment from the big cities. Agreed that there will be dirty Coalition tactics in the federal campaign - likely centering on Senator Kitching and the supposed "mean girls" clique. 

I doubt the RBA would raise rates in the middle of a campaign but that would be something spicy, too. But with 10 years of Coalition government now I think Albo must be pretty happy with how things are at the moment.

[Paxter]

Marshall was always going to struggle to hold on to SA despite governing reasonably effectively during the pandemic years. Labor is a machine there having won 5 of the last 6 State elections. 

The Federal election will be won or lost in Queensland and NSW (which have the majority of swing electorates). And they are very, very different creatures to ALP-leaning South Australia. Plenty of scope for ScoMo to hold on in my view. What I don’t know is how much the bushfire, pandemic and flood responses have cumulatively hurt the Libs over the cycle.

[Jeor]

The NSW Liberal Party is not doing ScoMo any favours. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a federal swing against the Coalition in NSW. ScoMo has a better chance of finding joy in Queensland and the more conservative electorates over there.

[The Anti-Targ]

I guess NZ Labour was lucky to have an election in the midst of the pandemic and give itself an outright majority (first time ever under MMP here). In these latter stages of the pandemic the govt is pretty much pissing everyone off and thereby risking defeat at the next election. They are moving too fast in removing restrictions for some people, and for others they are not moving fast enough, and of course for some a deadly pandemic was never an acceptable excuse for imposing any public health measures. And of course there is now a cost of living problem with inflation going up generally, and of course fuel prices going ridiculously high, even though the price of oil has been higher while the price of petrol at the pump was significantly lower at that time than it is now. Most of the cause of inflation and fuel prices are out of the govt's hands, but govts are always blamed when people are feeling a cost of living squeeze. Of course the response of govt to inflation putting some people below the poverty line should be judged.

[Paxter]

Spot on @The Anti-Targ. Timing is everything in politics and the Liberals’ pandemic glow has long since faded. The issue is that there never seems to be a right time to elect Labor, particularly with cost of living increases and rate hikes on the near-term horizon.

The RBA missed a trick by not tightening earlier this year, as the Bank of England and Bank of Canada both did.

[Jeor]

50 minutes ago, Paxter said:

The RBA missed a trick by not tightening earlier this year, as the Bank of England and Bank of Canada both did.

I don't think the RBA could have raised rates earlier - the highest inflation reading we've had so far is 3.5% CPI (with trimmed mean reading of 2.6%), which given the 2-3% target band is not outrageous and the first time that it's poked its head over that mark in a long time. I think England and Canada had much higher inflation readings.

In the current situation, getting into government is a bit of a poisoned chalice. Whoever wins is going to have to deal with high deficits, soaring costs of living, taking away promised tax cuts (probably the only sensible position), and yet a lot of investments needing to be made in infrastructure, energy and climate security. All while the geopolitical situation is very murky and a financial crisis is a non-zero possibility.

[Paxter]

27 minutes ago, Jeor said:

I don't think the RBA could have raised rates earlier - the highest inflation reading we've had so far is 3.5% CPI (with trimmed mean reading of 2.6%), which given the 2-3% target band is not outrageous and the first time that it's poked its head over that mark in a long time. I think England and Canada had much higher inflation readings.

In the current situation, getting into government is a bit of a poisoned chalice. Whoever wins is going to have to deal with high deficits, soaring costs of living, taking away promised tax cuts (probably the only sensible position), and yet a lot of investments needing to be made in infrastructure, energy and climate security. All while the geopolitical situation is very murky and a financial crisis is a non-zero possibility.

Monetary policy always lags in effect (usually 1-2 years). So at record low unemployment rates earlier this year (around 4.5%), the Reserve should not have been running (extremely) loose policy and should have normalized policy at least somewhat before the election. The Fed was guilty of the same crime (only worse, since core inflation is running even hotter stateside). 

As for the overall position of the Aussie government, I'd still rather be governing post-pandemic than mid (assuming we are through the worst of it). 

[The Anti-Targ]

Although, you want to be governing sufficiently post-pandemic that you don't carry the sting of the immediate aftermath of the pandemic into the next election. After all, the motivation for being in govt is not to do right by the people, but to stay in govt by winning elections. One assumes that you win elections by doing right by the the people, but that also requires an assumption that the people (or at least a majority, or plurality that will win you enough seats) actually knows what's right for them.

Of course the last time we had a pandemic and a war in Europe at the same time there followed a depression, some people even called it great, some years later. And then another, bigger, war not long after that. Still, history doesn't have to repeat itself since we've learned so much since then...right?...right?

[Paxter]

Got to give Dom some credit when it's due. Looks like he is going to seek the removal of Gareth Ward from NSW Parliament, which is not in his best interests since Ward has been voting with the Liberals from the cross-bench. 

(For any non-Aussie lurkers...Ward is the former NSW minister responsible for child protection and disability services. He has been charged for sexual assault against a man and a 17-year-old boy.)

[The Anti-Targ]

Independent of whether this particular person is guilty or not, arguably it's unjust to remove someone from office when the presumption is meant to be innocent until proven guilty. However the right thing to do, IMO, is for the accused to resign from office "until I have cleared my name", because while the allegations are hanging in the public sphere it causes a major distraction in one's ability to represent their electorate, and the need to focus on mounting a defence to these allegations etc etc.

One might argue that resigning is some kind of admission, and that remaining in office is the right thing to do if you are innocent. And of course for some it will be their sole source of income and so to resign would cause economic hardship. So it's not a clear cut decision. Perhaps there should be some kind of standard practice when an elected representative is subject to criminal accusations deemed credible enough for police to investigate of a certain seriousness. When the threshold is met the person is stood down from office  / suspended, on, say, 80% pay until the case is resolved. No by-election unless / until a guilty verdict is handed down. If not guilty then full reinstatement to office, and back pay of the 20% that was not paid during the stand down. Or something. Take the politics  and public speculation out of whether a person should remain in office in these situations, and also don't penalise or punish someone when in the eyes of the law they are still innocent.

[Paxter]

I disagree. I think we have to hold politicians to a higher standard than the everyday person. I definitely think Gladys did the right thing by stepping away from politics / giving up her seat, despite having a pending (not concluded) corruption investigation.

This isn’t Ward’s first dalliance with scandal either.

[The Anti-Targ]

Holding politicians to a higher standard of behaviour is all well and good. But the processes and presumptions of the justice system should be the same for everyone. And guilty until proven innocent is not a standard that should be applied to politicians or anyone. Therefore there isn't a natural justice argument for punishing a politician in advance of a court finding them guilty. Politicians who get snapped doing or saying inappropriate (but non-criminal) things do tend to be held to a higher standard. What is made difficult is being able to function in an elected role while you are surrounded by the stench of criminality, whether or not the person is guilty. Like I said, the politics of elected people being accused or charged with crimes needs to be removed and standard steps  (like parliamentary standing orders or something) put in place that sequesters the politician somewhat without potentially an unjust punishment being imposed.

I know nothing about this particular case, so there might be good cause to preemptively impose such a punishment as removal from office. But in general I think that is quite a severe step to take against a politician who is not yet demonstrably guilty of a crime. I didn't know enough about Gladys' situation to be able to credibly comment on her resignation. If a standard procedure had been put in place then she probably wouldn't have needed to resign, but rather the deputy take up an acting role until the corruption issue had been resolved and at that time either removal from office or reinstatement would be the final outcome. 

[The Anti-Targ]

different topic so different post

da fuq? https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/thousands-struck-down-by-covidlike-symptoms-with-horrific-super-cold/news-story/a8594005eeb079161ef78df9742702c1

Quote

Thousands struck down by Covid-like symptoms with horrific ‘super cold’

First we had omicron that was COVID-19 with cold-like symptoms. Now we have a super-cold with COVID-19-like symptoms. We've gone full circle I guess.