4
   

Oz Election Thread #4 - Gillard's Labor

 
 
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 08:49 pm
@Dutchy,
Oh, OK, Dutchy.

That's a pretty amazing payrise then! Gosh.

It doesn't help that there was no discussion in parliament about it (echoing Bob Brown's sentiments), does it? Neutral
Dutchy
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 08:53 pm
@msolga,
I haven't heard Abbott complain either. Smile
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 09:04 pm
@Eorl,
Quote:
Labor factions look to save face on gay marriage
By Jeremy Thompson
Updated December 01, 2011 13:01:53/ABC news online


http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/2853982-3x2-700x467.jpg
Partners kiss at gay marriage Photo: A vote in support of change would embarrass the PM. (Rodolfo Buhrer)

Labor Party factional leaders are searching for a face-saving compromise on the issue of same-sex marriage ahead of the ALP national conference, which starts on Friday.

Last night Queensland's Parliament upped the pressure on federal Labor when it joined Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT in passing legislation recognising same-sex civil partnerships.


Opinion polls show that the majority of Australians back same-sex civil unions but Prime Minister Julia Gillard is flatly opposed to gay marriage.

Ms Gillard is suggesting the issue be put to a conscience vote in Parliament - a vote which would be lost because the Coalition would vote against any change.

But the internal push to change the ALP platform is led by Finance Minister Penny Wong from the Left faction, and ACT Deputy Chief Minister Andrew Barr from the Right.

"I'm proposing to insert a new set of words into Labor's platform which would commit the Labor Party into amending the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage for all couples, irrespective of sex, who have a mutual commitment to a shared life," Mr Barr told Radio National.

"It's a very strong statement of values for the Labor Party. It's about ensuring that the Labor Party is on the right side of history on this issue."

Mr Barr leads the cross-factional Rainbow Labor Network, which believes it has the numbers to bring about change.

He says he has the support amounting to more than the 20 votes needed from non-Left delegates to get the motion through.

"We've been working very hard to ensure there is cross-factional support," he said. ...<cont>


Labor factions look to save face on gay marriage:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-01/labor-factions-look-to-save-face-on-gay-marriage/3706500
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 09:39 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
THE Labor Party's two most prominent gay politicians - one from the Right and one from the Left - will spearhead the push for marriage equality, as Julia Gillard struggles to maintain her authority on the issue.

ACT Deputy Chief Minister Andrew Barr, from the Right, will move and federal Finance Minister Penny Wong, from the Left, will second a ''Rainbow Labor'' motion at this weekend's ALP conference declaring that Labor ''will amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all couples irrespective of sex''. ....<cont>


Pincer move on Gillard over gay marriage:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/pincer-move-on-gillard-over-gay-marriage-20111130-1o7bn.html
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 09:58 pm
@Dutchy,
My understanding was that the payrise was accompanied by a significant cut in benefits - like the discretionary electoral budget and the infamous gold pass.

Wikipedia wrote:
The president earns a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment.[47][48] The most recent raise in salary was approved by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1999 and went into effect in 2001.


As far as the Tizer goes - one word. Murdoch. Case in point:
1 December 2011, 6.49am AEST
News Ltd carbon coverage campaigning not reporting: new report + News' response
http://theconversation.edu.au/news-ltd-carbon-coverage-campaigning-not-reporting-new-report-news-response-4530
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 01:46 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
Opinion polls show that the majority of Australians back same-sex civil unions but Prime Minister Julia Gillard is flatly opposed to gay marriage.

Interesting. So much for the prejudice that opposition to gay marriage is the domain of conservative Christian types. Why would this atheistic Labor prime minister oppose it, too? Do you know?
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 02:15 am
@Thomas,
I like to think that she is against marriage period. Regardless of the genders involved.

I suspect there's some political pragmatism in the mix as well.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 02:33 am
@Thomas,
I can only guess, Thomas.
And my guess is that she was being "pragmatic"(politically) , not too confident about how Labor's support of gay marriage would go over in the electorate & the broad community.

It has been a very tough year for Julia Gillard & the Labor government. The "hung parliament" hasn't been an easy situation to govern from, particularly with the Liberals (meaning conservatives Wink ) playing dirty, negative politics all year quite successfully (with the strong support of the media, especially News Ltd/Murdoch) in the hope of bringing on an early election.
A very tough time for Labor, so I'm guessing she was "playing safe" in her proclamations about gay marriage. Not wanting to rock the boat for Labor. (remember too, she's our first ever female PM, an Atheist, unmarried & childless ..... all of which has been used against her from time to time. As well, there has been a concerted, quite personal "hate campaign" directed at her by the leader of the opposition, News Ltd, & the worst of the media shock jocks. It is really a credit to her that she has remained so strong & determined in the face of this ugly onslaught & that her government has actually achieved most of its policy objectives in the face of all this.)

So my hunch is that this is not her true position on gay marriage at all .... but a position she felt obliged to take as Labor Leader. Sadly, it has been a miscalculation, I think, with many Labor Party members disagreeing, say nothing of some members of her own cabinet & government members (though some would agree, I'm sure), say nothing of representatives of state Labor governments.
So she is in a bit of a corner, with the ALP conference (starting tomorrow) debating the issue. I hope they can find a workable resolution to their differences. Personally I think it's critical that they do, for the sake of Labor's credibility as a progressive political party.

Anyway, these are just my perceptions, other Oz A2Kers may see things quite differently.

--
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 05:58 pm
@msolga,
Quote:

PM accepts gay reform vote

Michelle Grattan
December 3, 2011/the AGE


http://images.theage.com.au/2011/12/02/2814596/gillard-conference-420x0.jpg
Prime Minister Julia Gillard accepted the numbers were decisively there to support marriage equality. Photo: Kate Geraghty

THE Labor Party is set today to embrace gay marriage as part of its platform - but not to force its MPs to vote it into legislation.


The platform switch flies in the face of Julia Gillard's frequent declaration that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. But the Prime Minister yesterday accepted the numbers were decisively there to support marriage equality.

Sources said she had told factional chiefs that their delegates should get a free vote on changing the policy when the national conference debates it today.

Ms Gillard is set, however, to get her way on a conscience vote for Labor MPs, on which the numbers have been very close.

The factions last night agreed that the vote would be on the voices, avoiding a count which could be awkward if there were any significant defections from the Right.

The platform change will be moved by ACT Deputy Chief Minister Andrew Barr, from the Right and Finance Minister Penny Wong, from the Left. Their proposal says: "Labor will amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all couples irrespective of sex."

Ms Gillard needs a victory on the conscience vote because she has put her authority on the line over it - and also because Catholic right-wingers in the caucus have been threatening to defy any ruling from conference that binds them to vote for a private members' bill on gay marriage.

Labor sources say the new arrangement will be similar to the situation on abortion, where the party is pro-choice but does not bind its MPs. ...<cont>


http://www.theage.com.au/national/pm-accepts-gay-reform-vote-20111202-1obkh.html
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 06:07 pm
@Dutchy,
Quote:
I haven't heard Abbott complain either. Smile


Détente! Wink


http://images.theage.com.au/2011/12/02/2812269/moir10-620x0.jpg
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 06:10 pm
@msolga,
http://images.theage.com.au/2011/12/02/2812306/592967091-600x400.jpg
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 08:06 pm
@msolga,
Ah well .....
I guess that's as good as it was going to get ... a compromise position between the left & the right of the ALP.

Quote:
Labor decides on conscience vote for gay marriage

Updated December 03, 2011 12:34:04/ABC news online

Delegates at Labor's national conference in Sydney have voted to give MPs a conscience vote on the issue of gay marriage.

At the same time, the conference also voted to change its policy platform on the legal definition of marriage to extend it to same-sex couples.

That move had been fiercely opposed by some within the party, including powerbroker Joe de Bruyn, who argued the change would see Labor lose public support.

"Are we really going to say that something we regarded as fundamental all this time, we should now turn on its head?" he asked delegates.

The amendment to ensure MPs were allowed a conscience vote on the issue was moved by Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and was carried by 208 votes to 184. ...

.... It is now likely a bill will come before Federal Parliament to allow gay marriage ......<cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/3710874-3x2-700x467.jpg
Photo: Conscience vote: Julia Gillard, Treasurer Wayne Swan and Attorney-General Robert McLelland. (AAP: Dean Lewins)


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-03/labor-votes-for-conscience-vote-on-same-sex-marriage/3710828

-
Dutchy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 08:12 pm
@msolga,
Good afternoon msolga, do you think a conscience vote for gay marriage will pass this bill in Parliament? I personnally don't think so. Back to the drawing board. Smile
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 08:22 pm
@Dutchy,
Well the "expert commentators' consensus" appears to be that a Labor conscience vote will see a gay marriage bill defeated in the parliament, Dutchy.
Because the Libs probably won't allow a conscience vote on this themselves, so would most likely vote solidly in the "no" camp, along with the ALP right & the religious (especially RC ) members.
The Greens would definitely vote "yes", but the independents are an unknown quantity .... but even if all the independents did vote "yes", it is unlikely that there would be enough support across the political spectrum to pass the bill.
Of course I would love to be wrong about this!

--
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 09:00 pm
Big marriage equality rally in Sydney today - tweets very entertaining #marriageequality
https://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23marriageequality

This gets my vote as best sign!
http://yfrog.com/h4mwqtgj

Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 09:02 pm
I personally believe that bringing up this ongoing turnip issue at such a crucial time in our political history is just absolute garbage.

For thirty years this turkey has been basted, and then basted again.

If people want to be together, who the hell are we to even bother with what they want. Same with that other turkey, abortion. If women want to abort, there's nothing you, or me, or anyone can do about it.

Try focussing on some real issues, like the economy, the water supply, the atrocious cost of electricity since deregulation, ad infinitum. We won't even bother with the 20% rise in all the polly's wages at this point in time.

Let's now focus again, for the four hundredth time in thirty years, on Bruce and Bruce getting it on in the closet, because it just isn't kosher, or something.

Wake up, Australia. You're being duped again.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 09:30 pm
@hingehead,
Yeah!
Why not? Smile

http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg616/scaled.php?tn=0&server=616&filename=mwqtg.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 10:00 pm
@Builder,
Surprised

Gosh, Builder. You don't think you're overreacting a bit? Smile
But obviously I disagree with you. This is much more than Bruce & Bruce getting it on in the closet. I see it as a human rights issue, that some Australians face a form of discrimination that the rest of us heterosexuals don't have to contend with. To me it's simple: I would like gay Australians to have the same rights as the rest of us. No big deal (or it shouldn't be). Just fairness.

And you know, some "turkeys" need to be basted again & again. For starters, I'm a republican & would certainly like the see that turkey basted again before too long ...

Can I also say that just because we've been discussing this gay rights issue at the ALP conference doesn't necessarily we've completely lost track of everything else ... that simply isn't true. Well that's not how I see it, anyway ... we can discuss gay rights as well as focusing on the economy, the mining tax, uranium sales to India, the water supply, etc .... in fact we do. I'd be more than happy to discuss any of those things further with you & others here. Just start a new discussion. No worries.

-
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 10:47 pm
@msolga,
Heavy sighs.

It's like this, msolga........

Every time some major issues come up for public perusal, the old gay marriage (usually alongside the old chestnut of abortion and the rights of the unborn) gets front page status while the real issues get shunted to the fourth or fifth page.

How that pans out on web pages and on the tv I really don't know. I hate commercial tv with a passion.

Call me jaded, but Bruce and Bruce seem to hit the headlines right on cue, seemingly for the express reason of confabulation and watering down public appraisal/focus on what should be more to fore, if you catch my drift.

Put Bruce and Bruce, or Jackie and Sue to the vote. It's been "on the agenda" for decades, and I'm sick to death of their sexuality being abused and used in this blatant smokescreen attack.

Sure we can debate seventeen issues at the one time, but does the MSM give all those issues fair play in their rags and on their primetime nooz?

I don't think so.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2011 12:59 am
@Builder,
Heavy sighs.

It's like this, Builder........
Wink

It's clear we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this, but never mind, I will plough on anyway.....

It would also be pretty clear from my previous post that, unlike you, I don't see the issue of gay rights as insignificant, so of course I can't see that the media coverage of the past week as a distraction from more important political issues at all ....

You also said:
Quote:
Every time some major issues come up for public perusal, the old gay marriage (usually alongside the old chestnut of abortion and the rights of the unborn) gets front page status while the real issues get shunted to the fourth or fifth page.

In relation to the coverage of the issue of the past week, in the build-up to the ALP conference ..... what major political issue do you think was put on the back burner to give undue prominence to the gay rights issue?
I mean, parliament had finished sitting for the year, so no more bun fights to report from there .... Mr Slipper had even become old news, then there was the parliamentarians pay-rise issue ..... That came & went pretty quickly.
Then there was the looming ALP conference, in which gay marriage rights were to be debated on the first day (today).
Tomorrow they will begin debating uranium sales to India & asylum seekers, etc & those will be the fresh headlines of the day.

I honestly can't see that anything vitally important was actually pushed aside to page 4 or 5 by the smokescreen of the gay marriage/conscience vote today. That was the political news of the day. And it's an issue that matters to many people (though not to you) , so I don't see a problem with it hogging the headlines today.

Quote:
I hate commercial tv with a passion.

So do I. I don't watch it. And I'm also not crazy about the Murdoch print media, as you might have gathered.
Most of my news information is garnered from the Fairfax (Age/SMH) media, my ABC local radio, Crikey! & ABC tv & ABC news on line.
A pox on the commercials, I say!

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Beached As Bro - Discussion by dadpad
Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour - Discussion by msolga
Australian music - Discussion by Wilso
Oz Election Thread #6 - Abbott's LNP - Discussion by hingehead
AUstralian Philosophers - Discussion by dadpad
Australia voting system - Discussion by fbaezer
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 02:04:48