-
@mariner4life said in Aussie Politics:
Interesting two Qld Labor ministers quit at almost the same time
Kate Jones who has been alright as Tourism minister going is a strange one.
Kate Jones is about the only good one up there from both corners IMO. Massive loss to politics and whilst she won’t struggle to get another gig that will be a little more family friendly, she could’ve been the next leader.
The factional stuff in Qld labor is a unique beast. The CFMMEU and AWU still hold massive sway.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Aussie Politics:
@mariner4life said in Aussie Politics:
Interesting two Qld Labor ministers quit at almost the same time
Kate Jones who has been alright as Tourism minister going is a strange one.
Kate Jones is about the only good one up there from both corners IMO. Massive loss to politics and whilst she won’t struggle to get another gig that will be a little more family friendly, she could’ve been the next leader.
The factional stuff in Qld labor is a unique beast. The CFMMEU and AWU still hold massive sway.
Running the Broncos apparently
-
@antipodean that Victorian policeman has inflicted demonstrably more brutality on a suspect than Derek Chauvin did in Minnesota.
Strange world.
-
Am quite a fan of Joe Hildebrand.
Seems quite sensible...
-
@Siam said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean that Victorian policeman has inflicted demonstrably more brutality on a suspect than Derek Chauvin did in Minnesota.
Strange world.
I'm going to stick with the not doing it for 8 minutes and it not being deadly to go the other way.
-
Was thinking about the Berejiklian saga this weekend, and I've got a theory I need to air out somewhere. Since my friends and family stopped listening to me years ago, the only forum I have left is the Fern. So here goes.
The issue with political scandals and accountability in this country is the binary lens through which it is all viewed and judged. By a binary lens I mean the only two outcomes for our leaders are to admit wrongdoing and resign, or deny wrongdoing and stay.
It's the former that is the problem. The bar for resignation is way too low IMO. This is not to say it's not appropriate in some cases, but I think the Berejiklian issue is a case in point.
She clearly should have done more when presented with the idea that her partner was doing land deals while a sitting MP. Now how much more is up for debate, but at very least she should have done more than she did.
However, she is not implicated in any corruption, and she has been an otherwise solid leader. Her opposition want her to resign, but in my eyes (and the vast majority of the public) think that is too harsh a sanction to impose.
But there's no other sanction that can be. So we ping-pong between 'she did nothing wrong' and 'she needs to resign', though most people would say the truth lies somewhere in the middle. There needs to be a way of sanctioning politicians without them having to resign, for their own sake but also for ours too (there's no way NSW would be better off with yet another new Premier, new Cabinet, etc etc).
I don't know if there's an easy answer here, other than an NRL-style judiciary where Gladys is found guilty of a grade 1 blunder and is suspended from Parliament for a week. But I think it's worth some thought, as a more nuanced public commentary would probably provoke more honesty and accountability from pollies.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Politics:
Was thinking about the Berejiklian saga this weekend, and I've got a theory I need to air out somewhere. Since my friends and family stopped listening to me years ago, the only forum I have left is the Fern. So here goes.
The issue with political scandals and accountability in this country is the binary lens through which it is all viewed and judged. By a binary lens I mean the only two outcomes for our leaders are to admit wrongdoing and resign, or deny wrongdoing and stay.
It's the former that is the problem. The bar for resignation is way too low IMO. This is not to say it's not appropriate in some cases, but I think the Berejiklian issue is a case in point.
She clearly should have done more when presented with the idea that her partner was doing land deals while a sitting MP. Now how much more is up for debate, but at very least she should have done more than she did.
However, she is not implicated in any corruption, and she has been an otherwise solid leader. Her opposition want her to resign, but in my eyes (and the vast majority of the public) think that is too harsh a sanction to impose.
But there's no other sanction that can be. So we ping-pong between 'she did nothing wrong' and 'she needs to resign', though most people would say the truth lies somewhere in the middle. There needs to be a way of sanctioning politicians without them having to resign, for their own sake but also for ours too (there's no way NSW would be better off with yet another new Premier, new Cabinet, etc etc).
I don't know if there's an easy answer here, other than an NRL-style judiciary where Gladys is found guilty of a grade 1 blunder and is suspended from Parliament for a week. But I think it's worth some thought, as a more nuanced public commentary would probably provoke more honesty and accountability from pollies.
Great post mate, totally agree. Have hashed out similar debates with friends on other forums. I haven't enjoyed the whole "I'm just a woman who fell for the wrong guy, I'll never let myself fall again" narrative, IMO its a terrible message to young women. But at the same time, she's been a fantastic premier for the most part, and I'd still vote her back in if she runs.
I dont know what an appropriate punishment would be though. I'm not sure that standing her down would help the people of NSW any, is it a financial penalty or some sort of black mark/strike on your record?
-
What penalty is required? She serves as Premier of NSW at the whim of her party. Given the rampant corruption of NSW politicians and judiciary over its history, why clamour for some sanction to be held against a politician that hasn't broken the law nor seen to be acting against the best interests of NSW residents?
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
What penalty is required? She serves as Premier of NSW at the whim of her party. Given the rampant corruption of NSW politicians and judiciary over its history, why clamour for some sanction to be held against a politician that hasn't broken the law nor seen to be acting against the best interests of NSW residents?
Really?
I like her, and think she has been a great prem over the years. But it seems irrefutable that she knew and used her position to further enable her dodgy boyfriends illegal and unethical activities.
Doesn't that deserve some sanction?
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Politics:
Was thinking about the Berejiklian saga this weekend, and I've got a theory I need to air out somewhere. Since my friends and family stopped listening to me years ago, the only forum I have left is the Fern. So here goes.
The issue with political scandals and accountability in this country is the binary lens through which it is all viewed and judged. By a binary lens I mean the only two outcomes for our leaders are to admit wrongdoing and resign, or deny wrongdoing and stay.
It's the former that is the problem. The bar for resignation is way too low IMO. This is not to say it's not appropriate in some cases, but I think the Berejiklian issue is a case in point.
She clearly should have done more when presented with the idea that her partner was doing land deals while a sitting MP. Now how much more is up for debate, but at very least she should have done more than she did.
However, she is not implicated in any corruption, and she has been an otherwise solid leader. Her opposition want her to resign, but in my eyes (and the vast majority of the public) think that is too harsh a sanction to impose.
But there's no other sanction that can be. So we ping-pong between 'she did nothing wrong' and 'she needs to resign', though most people would say the truth lies somewhere in the middle. There needs to be a way of sanctioning politicians without them having to resign, for their own sake but also for ours too (there's no way NSW would be better off with yet another new Premier, new Cabinet, etc etc).
I don't know if there's an easy answer here, other than an NRL-style judiciary where Gladys is found guilty of a grade 1 blunder and is suspended from Parliament for a week. But I think it's worth some thought, as a more nuanced public commentary would probably provoke more honesty and accountability from pollies.
Not specific to the NSW Premier’s situation, but the added dimension in this is the 4th estate and any agendas they may have in how ‘hard’, ‘soft’, ‘forensic’, ‘murky’ they make it.
Most people aren’t watching the Inquiry or Senate Committee or Question Time or even the doorstops, but they get a grab or an article in the paper or watch the odd show with some talking heads skating over the issues. So with that lens there is ‘a side’ that is pushed. That ‘reality’ often determines the level of accountability and depending on which way the wind blows, what action follows.
In my experience, for some politicians it’s an all or nothing game (eg Barry O’Farrell), but for some it’s a lets ride it out until someone else/something takes me off the front page.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Aussie Politics:
Not specific to the NSW Premier’s situation, but the added dimension in this is the 4th estate and any agendas they may have in how ‘hard’, ‘soft’, ‘forensic’, ‘murky’ they make it.
Most people aren’t watching the Inquiry or Senate Committee or Question Time or even the doorstops, but they get a grab or an article in the paper or watch the odd show with some talking heads skating over the issues. So with that lens there is ‘a side’ that is pushed. That ‘reality’ often determines the level of accountability and depending on which way the wind blows, what action follows.
In my experience, for some politicians it’s an all or nothing game (eg Barry O’Farrell), but for some it’s a lets ride it out until someone else/something takes me off the front page.
Ignoring the obvious 'pick and stick' pundits, is it only an agenda? I've been thinking this a bit with Rudd's push for an inquiry into media ownership and bias and I do wonder how much of is News Ltd papers/Sky etc pushing an agenda and how much of this is them catering to their audience. Are we sure in a lot of cases it isn't the tail wagging the dog?
If this is a black and white case where something criminal or naked corruption has taken place, then it is the media's duty to go after it. But here it is seemingly more in the willfully negligent, but not criminal/corrupt space. So it is kind of open to peruse or not at the judgement of the individual journo.
In this case going to @barbarian 's point Gladys is reasonably well liked, a lady and generally seen as competent. There is also a pandemic on. I don't particularly sense there is a strong appetite from the NSW public to go on a forensic deep dive of her personal life where things are so murky. So fair enough.
The benefit of the doubt goes both ways too; there is plenty of stuff on the fringes and theoretically in play for recent ALP leaders & senior frontbenchers that News/Sky could have run with on a full smear campaign if they were the ogre some say they are - but the the judgement clearly has been it's either not in the public interest, or the public won't cop it (the judgement might have been different for their UK sister papers though!). Similarly, the judgement was made to run hard with the Barnaby Joyce stuff as the public would take it to a point.
-
@voodoo said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
What penalty is required? She serves as Premier of NSW at the whim of her party. Given the rampant corruption of NSW politicians and judiciary over its history, why clamour for some sanction to be held against a politician that hasn't broken the law nor seen to be acting against the best interests of NSW residents?
Really?
I like her, and think she has been a great prem over the years. But it seems irrefutable that she knew and used her position to further enable her dodgy boyfriends illegal and unethical activities.
Doesn't that deserve some sanction?
If she used her position as you say, surely she'd be guilty of a crime?
-
@antipodean I think that's more likely than the alternative. It certainly seems she turned a blind eye at least, and its hard to imagine she didn't have knowledge.
Edit, Barbarians post above summed it up pretty well
-
NSW would want to be careful in setting the bar too high, it's already lost one good Premier (Nick Greiner who ironically was brought down by his own invention).
I try to be very careful separating what I know from what I believe. There's a world of difference between established facts and the leaps we make from them.
-
If anyone was still convinced that Qld border restrictions were anything but political, watch the border announcement today. Especially the Chief Health Officer.
Fucking disgraceful. This should see them wiped out in regional areas tomorrow.
Unfortunately i bet it doesn't.
-
@mariner4life Fucking ridiculous. And yet ALP is $1.20 fav to win. How is she so popular?
-
@voodoo said in Aussie Politics:
@mariner4life Fucking ridiculous. And yet ALP is $1.20 fav to win. How is she so popular?
people are fucking stupid.
The opposition are a mess.
Aussie Politics