An open thread where, at your weekend leisure, you can discuss anything you like.
(Prefer to join a more focussed discussion? Try our recent roundtables for recent lively discussions or browse our archives for topics of interest)
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
» SUBSCRIBE to LP updates.
Oooh looky! First!
Good grief. 4.11 am.
Time for bed Fred.
I tend to look at the recent comments list when deciding what to look at. So it should hardly be surprising that I don’t like the way this section now looks. Back in the good old days a reasonable number of posts would be listed with a limited number of commenters. Now two lines are taken up by every comment so that the number of posts covered can be quite small, particularly when a new post appears that attracts a lot of comments. Earlier today the only posts mentioned were the Darwin marine and Indian Uranium issues.
Can we go back to something closer to the old system? Or at least limit the number of times a particular post appears in this section?
John D, tigtog may give you the authoritative answer, but I understand the problem lies in the size of the database. With so many comments in it, it’s now quite large. I believe it’s just not practical any more to include that feature.
The Orbweavers – You Can Run
Bought this album other day. A beautiful song about a greyhound…
Re. the recent comment section…I did give the solution to Jacques a long time ago
The database could be 100 times larger and still return in 1-2 seconds. It’s the sql calls from the plugin that were poorly designed…some really hefty joins on way too much data at once. They were always going to bog down eventually.
Good lord, even the Herald Sun thinks Abbott’s speech to Obama was an embarassing cringefest. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/abbotts-sniping-tactics-are-on-the-nose/story-fn56baaq-1226199487555
Coalition, your man is unfit to be PM. Sometimes it really is that simple. Isnt that obvious to all? Even Lib MPs were “squirming in their seats”.
@Nick, you’re quite right that it was a problem with the way that the old comments-display plugin was designed to call to the database. However, it’s outside my skillset to rewrite it, and although it is kinda on the periphery of Jacques’ one-day-maybe to-do list, it’s not happening right now. (It’s also a problem AIUI that on the multisite set-up, the old plugin design reads ALL the blog databases in order to return its display, not just LP’s – the plugin needs to be rewritten from the ground up to cope with a multisite install)
No comments yet on Penny Wong’s marriage equality piece in the SMH?
Could have been worse Lefty E, he could have heckled the POTUS and been ejected.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s976274.htm
Now that would have made him a disgrace!!.
Jumpy said:
As Abbott is an all-the-way-with-the-USA type of person in an all-the-way-with-the-USA party that is recalled in the 1960s for its injunction to LBJ to run over anti-US demonstrators and was going to be given his chance to put in his ten cents worth, rather than being muzzled, this would have been not so much shameful as bizarre. He’d have been askin for more than ejection for such ejaculation.
@tigtog, yes, the multisite setup with wordpress is annoying
If I recall, Jacques had a security-related issue with the way I went about things to get around that. I’ll have another look and get back to him again…I didn’t think it was a big problem at the time, but it’d be easy enough to make sure it’s secure.
Terry @7, I’ll give you the benefit of the doub that you meant no harm, and address this not just to you but also to all commenters here.
Rather than continually asking “Why has no one commented on this?” why not just, you know, make your own comment? What point is made by pointing out that no one else has yet? I’m sure you haven’t made a blog comment about every single thing you care about, so why expect otherwise from others? Is it because you think there is a conspiracy of silence, because LP is pro/anti/ambivalent about [insert hobby horse]? If so, you should just make that argument instead so we can mock you. If not, consider why you feel the need to ask.
My comment, btw, is that is is a great piece and I’m really glad Wong finally feels like she can write it.
And just FTR, while Penny Wong is far and away my least disliked member of the government, and someone who clearly is a person of serious intellectual acumen, I disagree with her tactically on the “binding vote” issue. A conscience vote is tactically the best option, IMO, even from the ALP POV.
Wong is correct in opposing a conscience vote and calling for a change of ALP policy. Extending equal civil and political rights to all members of a democratic citizenry in a liberal democracy is not a matter of conscience. It is a matter of consistent application of the principles of liberal equality. I don’t give a fig what people’s conscience tells them about this issue except that discrimination on any grounds is unfair. After that becomes obvious, and it is, it ought to require no more than merely making the necessary corrections to relevant statutes. In other words this is most of all a matter of the application of rights rather than the extension of privilege implied by the offer of a ‘conscience vote’.
Even the idea of a conscience vote is antithetical to democratic process in so far as it allows for the idea that there may be moral issues that are beyond political discussion and resolution. This privatises ethics and asserts that there are individual and personal realms above or beyond political consideration. In turn this erodes the social capacity for finding a common language for the political resolution of contewntious issues.
When it comes to matters of subjective identity and sexuality, however, there are very few grounds for denying equal rights (criminality being one). In other words the rational application of liberal democratic rights negates the necessity for ‘conscience’ voting because it doesn’t give equal space in the discussion to people whose ‘conscience’ is offended by other people’s subjectivity and sexuality. Their ‘conscience’ is not germane whereas achieving equality is in a democracy.
Anna, interesting reading of the question. I asked in aprt because I was travelling around sports, malls etc. with a six year old, which does not lend itslef to lengthy pontificating online. A quick note on an iPhone tends to be what you do. Perhaps its more of a Twiter thing.
I thought it was a teriffic article. Very well written, and making historic connections around the issue that are distinctive and interesting. Its worht noting that Penny Wong is by far the most senior member of the Feferal ALP to support marriage equality, which is significant in itself. And before we say, “Well of course Penny Wong would support gay marriage because …”, its worth noting how often she has been criticised for not being more vocal on the issue, most famously on Q & A. My own thought was that she was not so keen to be labelled “the gay Finance Minister”, and that she was probably waiting for the right time to raise the issue.
I wondered becasue it is by far the most significant piece to appear in the Fairfax press today. it would appear that few who comment here have ventured into getting Gold Pass access to The Australian, and willingness to pay to get the weekend musings of Greg Sheridan, Christopher Pearson etc. has gone in the direction many were predicting.
Re 8, could it be that the Leader of the Opposition is expected to behave like a grown up on occasions like this?
Anthony
Your passionate plea, though ethically well-founded, misses the point. A binding vote would not be approved at the conference and so the issue would be deferred. A conscience vote is harder to oppose and will progressively corrode political resistance to the measure, while wedging the right of the parliament against the liberals and left. Abbott and Gillard will be on the same side on this one, which will embarrass them both.
A conscience vote makes whiteanting and talk of horsetrading unsustainable. When this measure passes, as it surely will, if not now then soon, it will be seen as the work of the public rather than the politicians who opposed it.
We of the Greens welcome a knock ‘em down and drag ‘em out fight on this one, and a binding vote proposal that failed wouldn’t give it to us. This way, we will be seen as fighting for the mainstream while the governing political parties will be allied with the far right. We like that fight because it underlines again that it is us speaking up for reason and equity rather than the large parties. We can say that they are pushing doctrinaire positions.
The beauty of this is that the ALP right will think this differentiates them from the Greens and makes it seem as if they are not simply being our catspaw, and of course they will be correct in this, though not to their advantage.
It’s hard to imagine too that the small-l Liberals on the other side won’t use this against Abbott too. Again, this is to our advantage. They can’t really oppose a conscience vote and I understand that even Barnaby Joyce is favouring one.
It’s all good in that respect.
It is worth noting that if a binding vote could get up in the ALP, then even a conscience vote would pass. It is precisely because the ALP is deeply divided on this that the binding vote won’t carry.
Shorter Fran: the real priority is to wedge the Labor Perty. The issue in question is beside the point.
Terry, I think you’ve comprehensively misread Fran. It’s about wedging the Right (wherever they live) rather than Labor. (And even that is only a side-effect rather than the main game.)
Au contraire. Its the NSW Greens dusting off the old Percy brothers strategy manuals from the 80s. The real enemies, and those who must be exposed as class traitors, are the fake left: the Anthony Albaneses and Penny Wongs of the world.
Bad news for the “new paradigm” crowd, and the “popular front” wing of the Greens.
The desired result on the issue in question – actual marriage equality – is likely to arrive sooner IMO with a conscience vote than with pushing for a binding vote on either the ALP or the LibNat side of the aisle.
I don’t care who’s getting wedged as long as it happens soonest.
Sam@15
“”Re 8, could it be that the Leader of the Opposition is expected to behave like a grown up on occasions like this?”"
If “Opposition” is replaced with ” Greens” , then ?
Yeah, good point.
Terry
The Anthony Albaneses and Penny Wongs are unapologetic representatives of the boss class. There’s no need for us to expose them. They volunteer this out of their own mouths and through their acts all the time.
Now, precisely because they are part of a party that wants to pander to the Lindsay crowd, and want to reassure the reactionaries by saying they aren’t like us or controlled by us, their party is proposing a ‘conscience vote’ on this issue. This is not our strategy, but theirs. If it is about ‘wedging’ then it is coming from the top of the ALP, not The Greens. They are self-wedging.
I’m merely agreeing with them that given that this is where they are and the unwillingness of their leader to do the right thing, the conscience vote approach makes sense. There’s nothing stopping them from having a binding vote if they want — certainly if they decide to go that way you won’t hear me objecting. On the contrary, I’ll be very pleased indeed. We will say that in the end, again, the alliance with the Greens has led to a better outcome than if the ALP had ruled alone, because Bob Brown’s position rather than Gillard’s prevailed. That’s why they won’t do that of course.
The fact that a conscience vote will in the long run, help us more than them is a lovely bonus, given that we are on the side of the angels on this one.
Fran, couldn’t have said it better. Looking forward to the Battle for Grayndler.
@jumpy:
Bob Brown, who was not invited to address the POTUS directly in 2003, chose to use his free speech to express his negative opinion of US policy under that President, fully aware of the likely consequences (expulsion from Parliament), and chose to follow his conscience nonetheless. He took a principled stand. You can disagree with his opinions and his principles all you like, but his acts were consistent with what he’s always stood for.
Tony Abbott, who was invited to address the POTUS directly in 2011, chose to write* and deliver a speech filled with an incoherent mass of platitudes, mixed with petty partisan snipes and topped off by referring to a book widely regarded as anti-American as if he thought the line he was quoting was a compliment. If I thought he was honestly holding some sort of mirror up to Obama about American exceptionalism and arrogance I’d have a lot more respect for him that I’ve ever had before, but I can’t believe that – he obviously thought it would be taken as a compliment. It’s not taking any sort of principled stand, it’s sheer buffoonery.
*at least I hope nobody who holds themselves out as a professional speech writer went anywhere near that mess
jumpy @ 8 and 21, and sam, it’s not about who interjected but who was interjected. Dubya was/is a fukwit. Obama’s better. Not saying how much yet but, better.
Fran @ 16: couldn’t agree more with you. My comments were meant to draw out the difference between a principled party of liberal democracy and the ALP. The latter is neither a party of the class nor has it the wherewithal to become a party of liberal democracy whilever it is captive to a right wing Catholic mafia, the sort that outsources its conscience to the Church, and a mob of wannabes whose only way forward is to mince around in working class drag all the while keeping the eye on the main chance. John Maitland and McDonald come to mind. A conscience vote? From the likes of them? A conscience? These are the sort of people who flourished under Stalinism. The reflexive reaction within the ALP to a conscience vote is puzzlement because the vote can’t be horse traded on a ‘what’s in it for me?’ basis.
The reason that a conscience vote will be more likely to succeed is that the ALP just does not have the capacity to arrive at a considered and rational position by other means.
Precisely Anthony. This way their political incoherence and pandering to the right can be dressed up as pluralism and free-thinking and transparency. That’s obviously a minor good for them, PR-wise, as well as an out for all those who are homophobic. It also gets them out of the firing line they got into over carbon pricing for being “too close to the Greens”.
If this is the kind of blarney they need for a debate to occur on this matter, then so be it, IMO. That’s nothing to do with us though.
dear Salient Green
what you say & more. this time around, bob brown also had a fleeting moment with the president, obama, after the speech at parliament: smiling, shaking hands & exchanging friendly banter. i’m sure you saw the moment, i re-ran that snippet throughout the night ’til i was sated. i liked watching obama’s face at the moment brown popped the antarctic world heritage question. well done, i reckon, and onya bob brown, never pass up any opportunity to advocate for the cause!
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/greens-raise-antarctica-with-obama/story-e6frf7kf-1226198030458
i also gorged myself with the snippet of obama entering parliament for the speech: bounding through the door, all smiley & reaching for the first hand off the rank for the shake & greet. and who should be at the other end of the presidential reaching-out hand, but young adam bandt, with big bob brown beaming beside him.
yours sincerely
alfred venison
tigtog
Bob was proved a hypocrite by criticising Bush and not Obama over war deaths , incarceration and torture by the US.
What has improved soo much to placate ” Bob the Principled “?
Marriage equality through a conscience vote has more power than that brought about on party lines because it shows that the decision is consistent with the views of ordinary Australians, and it breaks party lines. A good minority of the liberal party will back it, and some ALP reps from suburban sydney will buck it. This makes it clear that if it passes it represents the will of Australia and it carries Australians forward. There will be no debate afterwards about how ALP whips forced the decision down the throat of ordinary suburban Aussies. I’d much rather it failed on a conscience vote and the ALP (and liberals like Turnbull) kept the debate going with their rank and file until it was accepted, than that it be forced through a party that secretly hates it.
It’s coming soon, and when it does I wonder if Abbot will refuse to agree to a conscience vote. If he does, then he has already lost. And if it happens under Gillard, will we finally see the misogynist left-wing critics of her ascension and her leadership finally accept that she’s achieved more than Rudd?
For a party conscience votes make sense for an issue that is not covered by core party beliefs and has some members of the party strongly supporting different views. The case becomes even stronger when moral and religious issues are involved.
Penny made a very good argument that allowing gay marriage is in line with the core beliefs of the modern Labor Party. However, some of the opposition is based on strong religious belief – which supports the argument for the conscience vote.
Politically, it would make sense for the Labor party to change the law to allow gay marriage with the proviso that no marriage celebrant can be prosecuted under the discrimination act for refusing to perform a gay marriage. Gay marriage will continue to damage Labor until the law is changed. (and become a non-issue once the law has changed.)
It sounds as though support is growing in the LNP for them to allow a conscience vote despite it being ruled out by the negative one.
saif al-islam gaddafi, LSE’s star plagiariser student, has been captured in Libya. Now there’s a win for the LSE public relations division…
No, sg, you’re wrong to pander to such vague notions as ‘ordinary Australians’ and ‘the will of Australia’. Sacrificing principles like equality, or lawful treatment of refugees for that matter, causes problems every time. What ‘ordinary Australians’ need to hear is that the refusal of marriage rights to same sex couples is an anomoly in a liberal democracy that prides itself on individual freedom. After hearing that they need to hear that their own views as to the sexuality, sexual behaviours and the marriages of others is none of their sodding business.
Bob Brown was indeed ejected, but his actions had the full support of his colleagues.
Whereas Tony had his *squirming in their seats*. What an embarassment he is. LOL
Too keen with the pepper spray much?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57328202/video-police-pepper-spray-passive-students/
alfred @ 28, nice reply. Sadly I have not seen those clips and can’t find them. Looks like I will have to make do with your excellent description.
Clarence by-election
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/nsw/2011/clarence/result.htm
Swing to ALP, %17.9
dear Salient Green
so sad, i know. i’ve looked in vain for the “intro” & “outro” footage to the speech, but every clip now focuses exclusively on the speech itself. the nuggets i saw were courtesy of lateline. i made a little loop of it on the night & repeated with music ’til i went to bed. simple pleasures.
yours sincerely
alfred venison
Especially where “conscience” is just code for “we need to placate the religious Shoppies”.
Here is the context of the Bob Brown heckling of George W. Bush in October 2003:
http://www.world-crisis.com/analysis_comments/A120_0_15_0_C/
John Howard deliberately politicised the Bush visited. He prevented selected, elected parliamentarians freedom of movement IN THE PEOPLE’S HOUSE. This was an outrage.
Bush remarked at the time “I love free speech.” He may or may not have been speaking the truth.
Certainly, Howard demonstrated his contempt for free speech.
I’m appalled that only Brown and Nettles raised their voices against Howard’s contempt for human rights.
Perhaps other members of LP also have lives and were similarly engaged?
Well, I was in the garden. But then, I don’t read the paper anyway.
Sorry for Not Commenting on things I was Supposed To Comment On.
Other things on which I have failed to comment:
Obama in Australia!
Gaddafi’s son captured!
Demi and Ashton have separated!
OWS protests smashed by police who pepper-spray old ladies and sitting, defenceless protesters!
Australia’s international performance rankings in education have steeply declined since the steep increase in private school enrolments!
I condemn myself.
All votes in parliament should be conscience votes. MPs are meant to first represent the people of their electorate, not their party. Strong party discipline corrupts the political system.
In case you haven’t seen it yet, there’s a fairly new Australian based non profit news site
http://www.ourworldtoday.com.au/
Unlike other news sites they concentrate more on reporting positive stories not just negative ones which is more representative of what actually happens in the world.
I’ve just checked it out and clicked on the first article, “Mrs Everything-Cate Bolt”.
TEH SCARY SCARY arch-feminists! (No reflection on the excellent Ms Bolt – just the bad writing and tabloid assumptions.) If it was a dead-tree publication you’d be hearing the sound of the rag hitting the bin.
TT,
Out of sheer curiosity I’ve been over to the transcript of Abbott’s speech. The raspberries started after the first couple of sentences. What a nong!
I find it interesting that he used Ben Chifley’s “Light on the Hill” as his starting point. While Labor is no longer living up to the values embodied in that metaphor, the Liberals obviously have no big idea whatever to hang a speech on. (“Relaxed and comfortable” doesn’t really cut it, does it?)
I don’t know if they give Walkleys for the longest hissy fit by a journalist on a current affair programme but if rgey do Gerard Henderspm’s ungracious performance re Obama on the Insiders this morning has got to be the winner. Extraordinary!
Steve Coogan on Murdoch. Maginficent: http://www.theage.com.au/world/murdochs-methods-likened-to-a-racket-20111119-1noid.html
Helen @ 45 – did you bother reading the rest of the article?
Chris,
“All votes in parliament should be conscience votes. MPs are meant to first represent the people of their electorate, not their party.”
But how does my MP’s conscience represent me? I know which party she belongs to and can vote for her if I support that party’s policies. But what do I know about her conscience?
I & U is right. In that basis, there would be no relevance to public policy. Every candidate’s conscience would have to be up to date and on the public record. That could require Murdoch-style intrusion though on a much larger scale.
Chris @49 – of course!
The remainder of the article was unobjectionable, but it didn’t appear to be a world-shattering new direction in reportage, either, and I failed to see how the feminist-punching was relevant to the rest of the article.
Helen @ 52 – well if you did I would have thought you would have included the following paragraph which was immediately after the one you quoted.
So in other words, the “alarmingly” has nothing to do with feminists being scary, but that only people from a subsection of society (politicians, athletes, and public intellectual feminists) are included in the list. Unless you believe that politicians and athletes are “scary” too!
I & U – well by conscience vote, I mean largely free of party discipline and representing what they believe to be the will of the electorate. On the basis that in the lower house people vote for a person to represent them, not a party. There’d be no need for bi-elections if we were voting in party reps, we’d just allow them to replace them with someone from the same party. We could even mostly do away with MPs and just elect a party which would have a set number of votes they could use.
Chris: When I am voting for someone who is a party’s candidate I would expect them to support decisions of party room meetings except under very special circumstances. If this doesn’t happen the party I voted for is likely to get beaten by a more disciplined opponent.
In potential conflict with this expectation there is a hope that the candidate that has some moral backbone even if I don’t agree with every detail of the candidate’s moral philosophy.
So for me special circumstances can mean issues that the candidate believes important as well as issues where the candidate is being asked to vote against something that is seriously against the electorates interests. In both cases the words “important” and “seriously” were deliberately used with the expectation that the candidate would rarely vote against the party room.
Conscience votes are simply one way of dealing with moral issues that are dividing the part.
John D @ 54 – maybe I’m expecting too much of an MP, but I want to vote for someone who is intelligent enough to make their own mind up on policies, taking into account the views of their electorate. While I expect someone I vote for to broadly support the policies of the party, I certainly do not want them to be a slave to them which is what strong party discipline makes most MPs.
Automatic expulsion from a party for voting against the party line makes it highly unlikely that MPs will make even symbolic gestures to represent what they believe their electorate believes rather than what their party tells them to do. And has been described, even some party policies are only supported by a minority of the party itself because of internal deals done between factions.
“Which Bank” charged me $10 for me going $23.31 into the red when someone banked a cheque. This state of affairs lasted for one day. If this was interest it would be 42.9% for one day, or 15,658.5% interest p.a., right? Do you think in the interests of fairness I could aske them to give me the same rate of interest on my balance which is usually in the black?
Helen – true story: they once stuffed up one of my cheques and so I ‘charged’ them a $30 fee.
They paid it.
Lefty E @ 57 – thats amazing! Did you cash the cheque or frame it?
Helen – well its still cheaper than a pay day loan
I think the banks really should give customers the option of bouncing cheques like they used to if there are insufficient funds rather than charging overdraw admin fees.
Actually, Chris, the fees and charges for a bounced cheque were rather higher (particularly in 2011 $s) than the $10 Helen got slugged.
David @ 59 – ah, ok. I never really wrote that many cheques and its been many years now since I’ve even owned a cheque book.
Yeah, they bounced my cheque – even though it DID have funds in it. That being the reverse of the situ Helen speaks of, which I’d also suffered many times, I rang them up and charged them $30, as they did to me.
Like I say, they paid it. No one was more surprised than me.
I still have a cheque book, Chris, although I very rarely use it in this age of internet banking.
According to a young person of my acquaintance who worked in a bank, I’m very unusual in that respect, even amongst members of my demographic group (white males over 60).
I still have a cheque book I use on occasionly as well, especially for business purposes.
ATM I only use it for son’s guitar teacher* so he (son) isn’t carrying cash around, which could be a risk. When this cheque book is finished that might be finito for me too – I’ve just been too lazy to get his bank details.
Extraordinary story, Lefty E!
*Irrelevant fact: This is his out of school guitar teacher: the one he currently has at school taught Dan Sultan! Does education get any more awesome?
LeftyE @ 61 – it is sometimes amazing what you can get from companies just by asking. I once wrote to a lolly company complaining that the colour distribution of one of their products was not very even and I was getting too many of one colour. They sent me a cheque for $10 as compensation
David Irving @ 62 – yea even my retired mother has got rid of her cheque book and just does everything by internet banking now. Though I once made the mistake of going into a bank branch on pension day and was stunned to see all these people with little bank booklets getting them filled out when they made withdrawls.
I just thought I’d note Ian MacFarlane’s paradoxical performance on The Insiders which I caught on the radio while folding the clean laundry on Sunday. I know for sure that what I got done accomplished more than what he got done.
Speaking of the carbon price legislation, he criticised it on the basis that no other states had such a price*. Barry Cassidy asked him if he agreed with Barnaby Joyce “when he {said} that an ETS will do nothing for the climate?”
Barry Cassidy for a change, decided to mount the obvious challenge:
MacFarlane went on at some length in this vein outling how much effort the Howard regime had put into reducing emissions because Australia “had to play its part” even though “the reality is whatever we do in Australia will have no impact unless the rest of the world or at least a significant part of the rest of the world does something as well.”
One might ask whay the previous regime was wasting all that money “doing its part” if the reality was that it would make no impact. Surely he’s admitting to spending billions (with billions more to come) on empty symbolism. Only the LNP it seems can get away with the “doing our part” defence, in the past and in the future. Simply astonishing.
His comments on MRRT, though very much about defending the interests of the 0.1% against the 99.9%, were simply offensive rather than paradoxical. He did reiterate the “sovereign risk” fallacy of course:
Someone whould tap Macfarlane on the shoulder and point out that as catchy and vogue as the phrase is right now, it variance in political arrangements affecting resource investment come under the more general heading of country risk rather than sovereign risk. Sovereign risk is simply about the likelihood of the sovereign defaulting on debt. An MRRT actually decreases the likelihood of that occurring, ceteris paribus Macfarlane thus wants greater sovereign risk. Amusing.
I note also with some amusement the following item on AM this morning:
China hits mining giants with resources tax
Not a peep eh? Hmmm … imagine that.
* MacFarlane used the word “tax” throughout but I’m reversing the verbal here.
Fran quoted,from the link;
“”"Yet while the companies might not like paying more tax there’s been not a peep out of them.”"”
Then offered,
“”Not a peep eh? Hmmm … imagine that.”"”
Yet the full text was,
“”"Yet while the companies might not like paying more tax there’s been not a peep out of them.
If you take a walk along Beijing’s East Second Ring Road you’ll be looking up at the huge impressive office blocks belonging to this country’s government-owned oil companies.
The size and grandeur of their buildings are a testimony to the huge wealth that these companies have amassed. “”"
Taxing a Government owned company? Hmmmm … imagine that.
Nice try Fran Barlow…..NOT!!
Excellent post from Andrew Elder: http://andrewelder.blogspot.com/2011/11/when-bubble-bursts.html
“People want to vote Liberal because they want stability, and people only do vote Liberal when they can credibly offer that. Nobody votes Liberal because they’re enamoured with some eccentric in sluggos who could do any random thing at any random time to any random person or group of people. Nobody who insists the contrary ought to be as safe atop the Liberal Party as they appear to be. “
News Flash
Harry Jenkins, speaker of the Australian parliament, has resigned from the speaker’s role. He has said that he wants to return to the discussions on policy within the ALP. Apparently Peter Slipper will now step up …
Andrew Elder consistently produces insightful and well written commentary that puts most of the current press gallary to shame.
The NSW government intends to sell the State’s electricity generating power stations.