(Miscellaneous debris)

[Sojourner]

Derryn Hinch is back on the airwaves!

http://www.news.com.au/national/no-more ... 6227172499

[Sojourner]

Gillard’s cold-hearted priorities

Piers Akerman
Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 05:38am

Prime Minister Julia Gillard ignored the deaths of more than a hundred asylum seekers but broke her holiday to announce new funding for a car park.

How sick are her priorities?

Is this what she regards as national leadership?

The spend-thrift PM has no conscience.

Though she and her Green-Independent minority government partners must bear the full responsibility for the failed policies which even hard-line Leftists now accept lure thousands to risk their lives and in possibly a thousand cases, die, Gillard would not come out of hiding when the latest SIEV foundered with a tragic loss of up to 200 men, women and children a fortnight ago.

But a photo call at the Adelaide Oval to announce a $30 million federal government grant to help rebuild Adelaide Oval saw her emerge yesterday to take full advantage of the photo opportunity.

The funding comes on top of the $535 million the state government has committed towards the stadium.

Demonstrating her disconnect with the real world, she denied her government’s funding announcement was an attempt to buy votes in her home state.

“This is no more complicated than what you see in front of you,” Gillard told The Australian. “As someone who grew up in this place, I can remember the days that we basically all had our backs turned to the River Torrens so you didn’t really view it as a feature of the city.”

Now she turns her back on her failed policies and their lethal side effects.

Federal Liberal senator Simon Birmingham justifiably questioned the $30m contribution from the federal government, which will fund an additional 75 members’ car parking places and free up the state government to install a third replay screen.

“It’s going to provide an extra 75 car parks - whoopee,” Birmingham said.

Whoopee for a few car spaces, indeed, but not one syllable for those who died as a direct result of her failed border protection policy.

Voters should remember the day when Gillard turned her back on the dead.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph ... o.facebook

[redandblack]

You are joking

(Presumably John Howard was to blame for the SIEV X deaths, in that case).

What a nasty slimeball Akerman is.

[Q.]

What is most sick is the rightards pretending they give a **** about asylum seekers

[Leaping Lindner]

What is most sick is the rightards pretending they give a **** about asylum seekers

Exactly. I think Piers is having acid flashbacks.

[Jimmy_041]

What is most sick is the rightards pretending they give a **** about asylum seekers

Obviously Labor dont or they would engage the Greens policy instead of playing politics trying to make the Coalition change their stance.

If anything, Labor are completely devoid of any credibility on this issue.

The Coalition have their policy, the Greens have theirs, and Labor just bounces between them with NFI

[Q.]

What is most sick is the rightards pretending they give a **** about asylum seekers

Obviously Labor dont or they would engage the Greens policy instead of playing politics trying to make the Coalition change their stance.

If anything, Labor are completely devoid of any credibility on this issue.

The Coalition have their policy, the Greens have theirs, and Labor just bounces between them with NFI

Labor are also rightards.

[redandblack]

Correct.

What's also correct is that the Greens think they're right and won't shift at all, the Coalition think the're right and won't shift at all and the Government think they're right and will shift to find a solution.

The Government are the only ones who have to get the numbers from either of the sides who won't shift.

[Bat Pad]

Correct.

What's also correct is that the Greens think they're right and won't shift at all, the Coalition think the're right and won't shift at all and the Government think they're right and will shift to find a solution.The Government are the only ones who have to get the numbers from either of the sides who won't shift.

Wayne Swan says the government is even willing to compromise on something it doesn't think will work. That is beyond farsical.

We are offering Nauru ... because at such times willingness to compromise is demanded - not because we believe Nauru will work," Acting Prime Minister Wayne Swan wrote to Mr Abbott on Thursday.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/abbott-has-no-more-excuses-on-boats-20111222-1p65o.html

They only want to find a political solution

[Jimmy_041]

The Government have no policy at all - so how can they be right?
They have a very easy option but wont take it - agree with the Greens
They wont do it - why not?
No political mileage out of it

[redandblack]

They have a policy and what they think is a solution, Malaysia and a regional solution.

The can't get the numbers to pass it.

They don't agree with the Greens and have offered a compromise to Mr Abbott.

You say they only want a political solution. Do you really think Mr Abbott isn't also playing politics over this issue

As for the political solution, they wrote to Mr Abbott before the latest tragedy, saying more people would drown if a solution couldn't be found. I don't think this issue reflects well on any party, but I also don't think it's correct to blame only one party to this isue which should be about human rights, not party politics.

[Bat Pad]

They have a policy and what they think is a solution, Malaysia and a regional solution.

The can't get the numbers to pass it.

They don't agree with the Greens and have offered a compromise to Mr Abbott.

You say they only want a political solution. Do you really think Mr Abbott isn't also playing politics over this issue

As for the political solution, they wrote to Mr Abbott before the latest tragedy, saying more people would drown if a solution couldn't be found. I don't think this issue reflects well on any party, but I also don't think it's correct to blame only one party to this isue which should be about human rights, not party politics.

But why would they compromise on something they don't think will work? You may as well do nothing, it would have the same effect and be less expensive.

The Coalition are sticking with the same policy they have had for years.

Same with the Greens.

They don't even need to play politics, both parties are simply sticking up for what the believe. The fact that this has politcal implications for Labor is incidental.

But Labor just want the issue to get out of the headlines. They don't care if what they implement actually works, as long as it has that politically desirable effect. This was shown by Swan's statement.

[redandblack]

BP, I would have thought that compromise means having to support things you might not believe in?

You're quite right about it being political. It is for both parties. One party is trying to compromise, one won't budge an inch (also for political purposes).

Meanwhile people drown.

Those drowning are real people. Scared people, children, families, rightly or wrongly looking for a better life.

**** politics, compromise and do something.

[Bat Pad]

BP, I would have thought that compromise means having to support things you might not believe in?


You're quite right about it being political. It is for both parties. One party is trying to compromise, one won't budge an inch (also for political purposes).

Meanwhile people drown.

Those drowning are real people. Scared people, children, families, rightly or wrongly looking for a better life.

**** politics, compromise and do something.

That is pretty much the definition of it, but that does not mean that you should always compromise on any demand. If people lives are at stake, and you believe that one course of action is a complete waste of time, you should never compromise to take that course of action. And a Government certainly shouldn't do it just to make a political issue go away. It shows the Governement cares more about maintaining power than the actual issue at hand.

You act as if compromise is always a good thing. It isn't.

Yes people are drowning, so coming up with the correct policy is paramount, not just any old policy to make it look like you have done something will do.

This is a case where implementing bad policy will be more harmful than doing nothing at all.

[Jimmy_041]

They have a policy and what they think is a solution, Malaysia and a regional solution.

The can't get the numbers to pass it.

They don't agree with the Greens and have offered a compromise to Mr Abbott.

You say they only want a political solution. Do you really think Mr Abbott isn't also playing politics over this issue

As for the political solution, they wrote to Mr Abbott before the latest tragedy, saying more people would drown if a solution couldn't be found. I don't think this issue reflects well on any party, but I also don't think it's correct to blame only one party to this isue which should be about human rights, not party politics.

"As for the political solution, they wrote to Mr Abbott before the latest tragedy, saying more people would drown if a solution couldn't be found."
That is possibly the most puerile comment I've ever heard on this subject and just shows how the government wants to politicise this problem
There is one party in government - they cannot blame anyone other than themselves if they cannot find a solution
God forbid - could they possibly be wrong?
The Coalition has a policy - the same one they had whilst in Government - why should they compromise when their policy was working to reduce the number of people trying to get here. They have absolutely no reason to compromise to a government bereft of any policy. It would certainly reduced the number of deaths if less people try to come here, wouldn't it?????
The government have a clear choice, and purely for political reason, they choose to make political mileage.
I say it again - you talk about the humanity of the situation, but you still wont answer WHY Labor wont try to compromise with the Greens.
But we both know why - because you are as bad as them - you are merely concern yourself with the politics of the situation.
I'll say it again so hopefully you try to understand that there is a solution - compromise with the Greens

[redandblack]

BP, I certainly don't always think compromise is best and have never said so.

In this case, some compromise is just necessary, otherwise nothing will get done. Aside from Jimmy's shouting, Nauru is curently probably just as illegal as Malaysia, so compromise would be required there.

The Greens are just as intransigent as the Coalition on this. the Government don't have a majority on this question, so the either do nothing, or they compromise to some degree.

Jimmy, you may think it's peurile, but unfortunately it's also factual.

[Jimmy_041]

The only fact is that encouraging people to try to come here is part of the cause of the deaths - not the coalition sticking to its policy

At least my shouting may have got you to listen - where is your rant against the Greens for not compromising????

[Gozu]

The Greens are just as intransigent as the Coalition on this.

I thought you were better than that comment, R&B. Anyone that disagrees with the hollow men of the ALP is extreme?

in·tran·si·gent also in·tran·si·geant (n-trns-jnt, -z-)
adj.
Refusing to moderate a position, especially an extreme position; uncompromising.

Do keep trying to pump up the ALP's gutlessness & cowardice though, this is what happens when you try to out Lib the Libs.

[redandblack]

It would be nice if you would stop verballing me.

Thanks for the definition. As I said, it fits perfectly with the positions of the Coalition and the Greens, they are refusing to moderate their position as I said, so what point are you making? "I thought you were better than that, R & B' -

I posted that this situation doesn't reflect well on any party, so why drag the 'hollow men' of the Labor Party into m argument?

I've said on many occasions that I disagree with both major parties positions on this issue and I seem to be one of the few who consistently discusses the humanitarian aspect of this, and yet I'm supposed to be politicising it for disagreeing that Mr Abbott is 100% correct and is only concerned for the refugees' safety?

[dedja]

Good governments are decisive, although they may not always chose the best option or may be playing political games.

The current government is one of the most indecisive in living memory, and are almost always playing politics at the expense of good policy. Unfortunately, the Coaltion led by Abbott is driving a large truck through this policy void, perversely with a large amount of political opportunism himself. The days of bi-partisanship are long gone.

Rightly or wrongly, it is the government of the day who has to make decisions, not the opposition or minor parties.

Yes, Abbott is playing extreme partisan politics, but this poor excuse for a government is playing right into his hands.

They need to set the policy agenda, not the coalition.

The coalition and greens both have very clear policy on asylum seekers, whilst the government's position changes with the wind.

For what it's worth I don't agree with either the coalition or the greens, so I'm not condoning their positions.

The government need to grow some balls and find a solution to what is largely a political mess, which seems to be unfortunately costing innocent lives in the seas.

Whilst morally disgusting to me, the coalition are quite within their rights to play political hardball on this, and they are maximising the opportunity to greatest effect.

Call the opposition's Nauru bluff and sanction it as government policy. The coalition will then be forced to accept legislation to effect this due to the recent court ruling.

Only the government can solve this issue, no-one else. They were trying to be too cute by ruling out Nauru long ago then placing Malaysia on the table to wedge Abbott but have been outsmarted at every move.

Over to you Ms Gillard ...