I would blow Dane Cook posted:

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsAust/status/926956257163984896

Can't believe people say conservatives aren't funny.

Anidav posted:

Maybe working for Newscorp has made me into Rupert's sockpuppet

Andrew Bolt posted:

LIBERALS must forget winning the next election. Whoever now replaces Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister must just save their party. The next election is lost no matter who now takes over — Julie Bishop, Tony Abbott, Peter Dutton or some young cleanskin. Turnbull has made this government virtually unelectable under any leader. To start with, he has delivered record debt, record spending and record electricity prices. Worse, the Liberals are now branded as an unprincipled rabble standing for nothing but themselves. That’s not just because Turnbull took over the top job by knifing Tony Abbott, without a clue of what he’d then do for the rest of us.

“I’ve never had more fun in my life,” he declared last week, confirming for many that being Prime Minister was all he ever wanted, and too bad if it ended in tears for everyone else. It’s sure ending in tears for his original coup plotters, two of whom have reportedly defected to Immigration Minister Peter Dutton. And no wonder. Check the damage Turnbull has done to the Liberal brand with the citizenship crisis now overwhelming his government. At every step, Turnbull has called this wrong. For instance, he declared the High Court would rule that Cabinet ministers Barnaby Joyce and Fiona Nash could stay as ministers, despite being dual citizens when elected. So he refused to have them stand down, which backfired when the High Court booted both out of parliament, making the decisions they meanwhile made as ministers at risk of legal challenge. Did Turnbull also engage in a cover-up? Senate president Stephen Parry says he told Cabinet ministers two months ago he was probably British and must quit, too, but was ordered to shut up.

Turnbull says no ministers, not even fellow plotter Mitch Fifield, ever passed on to him the news that Parry was in trouble. But is that likely? And now Turnbull refuses to hold a public audit of remaining MPs to guarantee none are also dual nationals, even while ministers Josh Frydenberg and Alex Hawke now battle claims that they could be Hungarian and Greek respectively. It all makes Turnbull seem like he’s running a protection racket for a possibly illegitimate government. His bungling has caused the government immense damage, and, ironically, sacking him risks confirming the Liberals really are driven by self-interest, not national interest. But Turnbull is not just destroying the government’s election chances. He’s also destroying the Liberal party itself, bringing it ever closer to a split. Under him, the gap between the party’s Left wing and conservative base has grown dangerously unstable. On the Left, the Liberals have Labor-lite machine men, global warmists and multiculturalists. On its other side, they have deep conservatives. How can one party represent such different halves, particularly when it now lacks an overarching vision to unite them? Turnbull has widened this split, especially with his global-warning evangelism. The gloating by key ally Christopher Pyne that the Liberal Left was “in the winners’ circle” on gay marriage just made it worse.

Result: donations are drying up and a stream of Liberal members are defecting to Senator Cory Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives. Others are moving to Pauline Hanson. So how will replacing Turnbull make any of this any better? Well, it probably won’t make the Liberals much more electable. Abbott, for instance, has the vision but is loathed in the Canberra press gallery. Turnbull and his supporters would try to destroy him, and the white-anting could be devastating. Some MPs therefore prefer Dutton, another conservative. But is he ready? Does he have an agenda? Then there’s Julie Bishop, the social pages funster who in her spare time is Foreign Minister. She’s popular for now, but is a policy lightweight with no fixed ideas, distrusted by the Liberals’ conservatives. It’s hard to see her surviving intense scrutiny on policies in an election year. So, no, there is no miracle-worker likely to save the government, but two candidates might yet save their party. First, consider this: leading the Liberals from the Left, as Turnbull has done, doesn’t work. Liberal volunteers and donors don’t think it worth their sweat and money to back a party little different to Labor, especially when it will lose anyway. The Liberals have instead done best when led by a conservative who includes the Left. Think John Howard and Robert Menzies. So go through the contenders again. Could Abbott reinspire the Liberals? Absolutely. Dutton? Probably. Bishop? You’re kidding. Hasn’t Turnbull been warning enough?

Andrew Bolt posted:

quote:

The fiasco is also continuing to strain ties between the Liberals and the Nationals amid jockeying to replace Mr Parry in the plum $355,000-a-year job as Senate president.

The Nationals senator vying for the position – John "Wacka" Williams – has lashed out at the Liberal "cowards" and "bastards" who spent weeks anonymously criticising the Nationals in the media after Barnaby Joyce and Fiona Nash fell foul of section 44.

"I'll tell you what pisses me off. Those 'senior Liberals' or 'Liberal backbenchers' who got stuck into us over dual citizenship. Well next thing you know: there goes Stephen Parry," Senator Williams told Fairfax Media. "You bloody cowards. Put your name to it you bastards."

This sentiment is shared by many in the Nationals, who are seething over Senator Parry's failure to refer himself to the High Court earlier and are in no mood to compromise with the Liberals over who should replace him. There is also a view that the only Liberal to so far officially put his hand up for the job – veteran Queensland senator Ian Macdonald – is too divisive and ill-suited for the job.

If the Liberals were to nominate Senator Macdonald over someone less controversial like Liberal senators David Bushby or David Fawcett, Labor and the Greens could side with the Nationals to install Senator Williams instead, in what would be another embarrassment for Mr Turnbull.

While the job has always gone to a Liberal in the past, Senator Williams believes the Nationals have a strong claim to it this time: "If the Nats are one-sixth of the Coalition in the Senate, then one-sixth of the time in government the Nats should have the president of the Senate."

Toys For rear end Bum posted:

Then there’s Julie Bishop, the social pages funster who in her spare time is Foreign Minister. She’s popular for now, but is a policy lightweight with no fixed ideas, distrusted by the Liberals’ conservatives. It’s hard to see her surviving intense scrutiny on policies in an election year.

ModernMajorGeneral posted:

I like the implication that Dutton and Abbott are visionary statesmen with great policies.

tithin posted:

https://twitter.com/abigbagofkeys/status/926727228049670144

MikeJF posted:

the New Zealand navy still has, like, 5 ships, I say they just drive up on the basis of 'they're starving and in distress' and let them on.

quote:

Free-trade rollback to hit jobs, pay The Australian 12:00AM November 6, 2017 SIMON BENSON National Political Editor Sydney

Australia is at risk of a 2 per cent hit to economic activity, a loss of more than a quarter of a million jobs and a fall in real wages should the rest of the world continue to shift towards greater trade pro­tectionism, according to a key economic modelling report commissioned by the federal government. Revealing that Australian families had benefited by an increase of $8500 a year in household ­incomes due to 30 years of trade liberalisation, the report also warns, however, of a 3.5 per cent contraction in global economic growth from any worldwide rollback of free-trade policy. For Australia this will lead to the loss of 270,000 jobs, and an economic loss of between 1.8 per cent 2.2 per cent of GDP.

Commissioned by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and released ahead of this week’s APEC world leaders meeting in Vietnam, the report underpins the case against emerging protectionist sentiment. Tensions over trade will ­expose a central point of difference between Malcolm Turnbull and US President Donald Trump during their planned bilateral meeting, with the Prime Minister pushing for an 11-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership deal to be finalised at APEC, without the US, which withdrew from the pact. Mr Trump will respond with calls for “fair trade”, asking China, Japan and South Korea to do more to rein in their surpluses with the US. The push for the revamped TPP is being led by Japan’s Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, and Mr Turnbull. New Zealand’s new leader, Jacinda Ardern, yesterday confirmed her continuing support for the deal. China remains excluded from the TPP, but President Xi Jinping is expected to use the APEC summit and the East Asia Summit in The Philippines the following week to claim the mantle of the strongest voice for trade liberalisation in the region.

The Centre for International Economics report warns that the Asia-Pacific region will be worst affected by any shift towards ­increased trade barriers, with ASEAN nations likely to experience up to a 10 per cent decline in economic activity. Mr Turnbull warned at the weekend that trade liberalisation was under stress due to the rise of populism. The ability of world leaders to “advance trade liberalisation, contain protectionism and enforce international rules faces greater challenges than any time since the creation of the multilateral trading system in the 1940s”, Mr Turnbull said in a speech in Perth. “Moreover, there is a real risk that rising major power trade ­tensions — tensions between ­assertive state capitalism in China and populism in the US — could undermine the stability of the WTO’s rules-based trading ­system and its all-important mechanisms for settling disputes. “You don’t need a degree in economics to know that a world in which the rules-based economic system is weakened will be poorer for us. The resurgence of populism throughout the world makes it even more important that we make the case for well-regulated open markets.”

He said he would be taking a strong message to the summit for countries to resist a protectionist path, which the DFAT report cautioned would be economically disastrous for the region. “Over the last few years, there have been increasing calls to roll back decades of trade liberalisation and renegotiate, or even tear up, previously agreed to trade agreements,” the report says. “These calls have been made on the basis of an argument that trade liberalisation has been ­undertaken at the expense of local jobs and a loss of sovereignty, to the net detriment of the liberalising country. “The economic modelling suggests that if tariffs on manufacturing imports were raised such that there was a 10 per cent price increase in such products across the world, real GDP in Australia would be 1.8 per cent lower; while global real GDP would be 3.5 per cent lower.

“If tariffs on all merchandise imports were increased to raise all import prices by 10 per cent, real GDP in Australia would be 2.2 per cent lower, and global real GDP 4.1 per cent lower. “The short-term impacts of tariff increases would see job losses in Australia, while over the longer-term, real wages for Australian workers would be lower, in turn cutting household consumption and Australian living standards overall.” The report is the first modelling since 2009 to evaluate Australia’s trade contribution to GDP and ­living standards. It found average household income in Australia was $8448 higher last year than it would have been without trade ­liberalisation, with real GDP 5.4 per cent higher. The modelling also showed that investment was 11.7 per cent higher, real wages 7.4 per cent higher and prices 3.4 per cent lower due to trade liberalisation that began in the 1980s.

“Increasing protection sees distortions being introduced into the Australian economy, culminating in capital earning a lower return and therefore making Australia a less attractive destination for ­investment,” the report says. “In the short run, increased protection could lead to a decline in employment of up to 2.2 per cent, or up to 270,000 jobs. “Over time, however, real wages are ­expected to decline and employment increase back to the level ­before the change in protection.” Trade Minister Steve Ciobo said there were still lingering misconceptions about free trade and warned of the economic dangers of protectionism such as the policy position taken by One Nation. “Free trade has taken an unfair beating in recent years due to misunderstandings over its effects,” Mr Ciobo said. “Lowering the barriers to free trade has made Australians richer and our economy more competitive. This independent study is a timely reminder of trade’s benefits and shows why the Turnbull ­Coalition government is committed to further liberalisation and more trade agreements.”

Currently the government is negotiating trade agreements with India, Hong Kong and the Pacific Alliance (Mexico, Colombia, Chile and Peru), working towards the launch of FTA negotiations with the European Union. Mr Turnbull in his speech in Perth hinted that Australia would finalise an FTA with Peru this week at the APEC summit and that an agreement on TPP 11 could be finalised.

norp posted:

Also given the wording of the threats they gave a few days ago the land that it's on is owned by the Australian military

quote:

Dual citizenship crisis: The Government's own goals keep mounting up
7.30 By political correspondent David Lipson
Updated Fri at 3:24pm

Federal politics right now resembles a shapeless game of under-6 soccer.

The ball is a rolling crisis lurching back and forth, chased around by a pack of hapless politicians, with a Government team captain unwilling or unable to lead.

It's not surprising the own goals keep mounting up.

The citizenship saga is edging towards a full-blown constitutional crisis.

There are very real questions now about whether the Government legitimately has the numbers to govern in the House of Representatives.

Seven senators have now been disqualified from a pool of 76 in the Upper House.

Yet, Barnaby Joyce is the only MP out of 150 in the House of Representatives to have lost his seat.

Those numbers don't seem to add up.

There are more MPs in the Lower House who, based on previous benchmarks, should be referred to the High Court.

It's not hard to guess why the Government and Labor are resisting the prospect of an audit.

It's self-interest, plain and simple.

After spending $122 million on the same-sex marriage postal survey, the Government's claim that an audit would be too complex and too costly is laughable.

The Government is leaving it up to journalists to try and uncover the truth about people's citizenship, yet some of its own MPs refuse to provide documentation to prove they are ridgy-didge.

Labor's position is equally absurd.

Attacking the Government for its problems, while insisting all Labor MPs are fine, yet refusing to show any documentation — except in the case of the leader, who apparently has a higher benchmark.

'Australians are not concerned about it'

The Treasurer today suggested the media should just look away.

"It's one of the reasons why Australians are turning down the sound on Canberra and it's not just on politicians, it's on the media as well," he told journalists in Melbourne.

"This issue is not something that Australians are concerned about."
Believe me, we would love to cover good Government. It's been a while.

But when an elected member of Parliament, the president of the Senate no less, is told by a Cabinet member to keep concerns that he might have been unlawfully elected secret, it's a story. And it stinks.

Who could blame voters for seeking out alternatives in One Nation or Nick Xenophon.

The Greens and are the only party whose hands are clean here.

Its senators set aside their self-interest and quit as soon as their dual citizenship became apparent.

Now, they rightly call for an independent investigation of all sitting members.

The Prime Minister, as usual, is trying to ride this crisis out, without making any decisions that might upset the apple cart.

That means he, along with the rest of his team, will be left chasing the ball and down the field, hoping it doesn't end up in their goal, yet again.

Cartoon posted:

So having undergone four decades of pain as we transitioned away from protectionist policy, Some of the benefits included losing our steel and car manufacturing sectors entirely ( I can not fathom how it is possible to ship such low value commodities as iron ore and coal to china and ship back the steel more cheaply than it is to do it locally but I'm not a lying scumbag economist) we now look forward to long years of groin kicks as the rest of the world cotton on to the local implications of global free markets. Well GG LNP and Neolibs in general. Keep showing us the 'evidence' that getting kicked in the nuts is good for us.

Cartoon posted:

( I can not fathom how it is possible to ship such low value commodities as iron ore and coal to china and ship back the steel more cheaply than it is to do it locally but I'm not a lying scumbag economist)

open24hours posted:

Australia is one of the richest countries on the planet. People don't have poo poo lives because of free trade, they have poo poo lives because the wealth is squandered[citation required].

Protectionism does a lot more to help under performing business owners than it does to help employees[citation required]. It's just another form of rent seeking.

Birdstrike posted:

State-propped-up Chinese steel makers sell for below market price to grab market share, a practice known as 'dumping' for the obvious resemblance to my posting

open24hours posted:

That graph has a lot more to do with attacks on unions and workers' rights than it does with free trade.

open24hours posted:

Only in the sense that they happened at the same time. You might as well blame the decline in church attendance.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Really? You honestly think decline in union membership and the assault on worker's rights has nothing to do with neoliberalism?

open24hours posted:

Free trade and neoliberalism are not the same thing.

open24hours posted:

This kind of thinking is what got Trump elected. It's not rapacious local capitalists loving you, it's those dastardly Chinese!

open24hours posted:

This kind of thinking is what got Trump elected. It's not rapacious local capitalists loving you, it's those dastardly Chinese!

Birdstrike posted:

Classical free trade measures like reducing tariffs/subsidies/quotas are good for the economy* if they're reciprocated, which in many cases we didn't bother to check and just went ahead and removed our own barriers without getting anything in return. The asterisk is for noting that obviously some people are worse off and others are better off.

More recent moves like the TPP with ISDS clauses and whatever it's trying to do to IP rights are less 'free trade' and more 'hand over your sovereignty to multinationals.'