Federal Politics

The whole notion of Islamophobia has always been irritating and angering to me given the reality of Islamic religious culture and society across the Muslim majority world. If our friends on the left actually cared about the ideals they purport to, they’d be condemning and criticising such forces of reaction as they do Christian reactionaries.

Meanwhile Farqui is once again demonstrating how she doesn’t care that she’s siding with Islamists and Nasserites. She also happily lies about the British monarchy being behind colonial policy rather than elected British governments such as those of Disraeli and Gladston. Even when being cross-examined in the Hanson trial, by the way.

Additional aid funding for Gaza is necessary but Government needs to do far more | Australian Greens

1 Like

As much as I hate to admit it, I do kind of agree with you on that point. I’m generally centre-left but I agree the far left doesn’t ever look at Islamist governments and societies critically and objectively. Parties like the Greens would not survive in their current form in most Islamic regimes/societies due to things like their support of LGBTQ for example. They certainly would not like living in those countries.


I think Salman Rushdie puts it in far better terms than I ever could:

“The fact is that I think any human being right now has to be distressed by what is happening in Gaza because of the quantity of innocent death. I would just like some of the protests to mention Hamas. Because that’s where this started, and Hamas is a terrorist organisation. It’s very strange for young, progressive student politics to kind of support a fascist terrorist group.”

What’s going on over there is just awful, but it seems that in the desire to criticise and condemn Israel (and some of the criticism in regard to this conflict is justified, to be fair) there is a willingness among people like The Greens and their supporters to give a genuine terror group like Hamas a free pass, despite their extreme views on things like LGBTIQ+ rights. It just doesn’t make sense to me and seems like a huge double standard.


I read on the news the other day that an ANU student was expelled because as a pro-Palestine supporter she was on a radio interview trying to justify Hamas and said that they should be supported because apparently ‘Israel started it’. What rot.

The Israeli government and Hamas are both equally condemned in this conflict for the sheer lack of morality in their pursuit of their reckless agendas. Meanwhile we have the Liberals and Greens being blatant cheerleaders of each side without even considering the fault of the other side (for example, I have not seen Peter Dutton mention Islamophobia in addition to antisemitism, it’s almost as if he’s swallowing a bee whenever the topic comes up about Gaza, the Greens have not condemned Hamas. It’s all Israel bad, Palestine good). Labor of all parties are taking the sensible, centrist approach. Yet with the way some of the Jewish and Middle Eastern communities are getting sensitive about it all, it seems they’ll be punished next election if this continues on.


The thing is though, when you exclude Albania and Kosovo, one can’t really point to a Muslim majority country that is the secular, egalitarian democracy that the left such as Bandt et al so often purport to advocate. Likewise, embracing the ANC or whatever other “liberation group” one wishes to name as their ever-government even when the elections are free seems wholly indigenous a choice and not forced by long gone colonial rulers as the Greens/left like to tell us.

He’s a realist, and as you say, he knows he has to try and appeal to everyone in Australia, not just the Labor left.

It’s the same with the British Labour Party. Many of the people who supported the previous leader, Jeremy Corbyn, hate Keir Starmer with a passion because he took the party back to the centre (and are almost certainly going to be rewarded with a big majority for it). Sucks to be a Corbynista, I guess.*

*just for clarity I also voted Labour under Corbyn, so no one can go accusing me of being some closet Tory or fair weather voter.


Rhodesia’s Ian Smith was a freaking saint compared to Robert Mugabe – ditto Lon Nol versus Pol Pot.

I notice that the British far left supported tearing down statues of Coulson and Rhodes but not Gandhi or Ho Chi Minh - as with their support for the PLO/Hamas/Tamil Tigers, it seems POS are ok if they are POS that the left likes.

See also the Australian student left demanding that nothing be named after figures like Menzies or Alfred Deakin – ignoring that even the socialist wing of the Australian labour movement supported White Australia. Support of racial purity is even in the original Socialist Objective of the ALP proclaimed in 1905.

1 Like

Voters in the electorate on Sydney’s north shore will be split between the neighbouring seats of Bennelong, Bradfield and Warringah.

The Australian Electoral Commission said 45 of the remaining 46 divisions would keep their existing names.

The final one - Scott Morrison’s old seat of Cook - will keep its name but have the definition expanded to honour former prime minister Joseph Cook as well as Captain James Cook.

Had to laugh at the pic chosen for that article.

This obvious move for Kylea would be to run in Bradfield, the only liberal held seat to vote yes in the voice referendum, which is otherwise a strong correlation with teal voters. There was an independent that got 20% last time.

1 Like

Pretty bold for the AEC to abolish a federation seat such as North Sydney, when guidelines usually advises against that move. In that sense it would make more sense to abolish ‘Bradfield’ and have North Sydney move into that space.

The way I see it is the following could happen:

  • Bennelong is now notionally Liberal, but given that the suburbs distributed into Bennelong are from North Sydney which had a decent-ish Labor vote last time round overall and are more teal-friendly, plus the fact that the area have trended to Labor this century and was only Liberal when John Alexander held the seat, it’s quite ripe for picking if Labor goes hard in Bennelong. They also have an incumbent candidate so it’s possible he could get a sophomore surge.

  • Bradfield now becomes well-within reach for Teals. It’s just a matter of who to run in it. Nicolette Boele ran Paul Fletcher a very close race last time round and the seat was the only Liberal seat to vote Yes last year. Kylea Tink moving into Bradfield makes sense, but both running would split the Teal vote and Paul Fletcher might just scrape back in on minor preferences. Perhaps one of the two could consider running in Bennelong?

  • Eastern Sydney just looks like a mess with Kingsford Smith looking like there’s something sinister hanging off its edge. Wentworth is much more safer and should be an easy retain for Allegra Spender given it’s eaten into the more Labor leaning suburbs of Eastern Sydney. Warringah’s down by a bit but Zali Steggall will be safe.

  • LOL at Goulburn being removed from Hume. Angus Taylor’s going to be homeless (sarcasm). Jokes aside, it’s a town that’s trended Labor as well and was almost won in the state election by Labor last year. Going into Eden-Monaro’s not going to affect Labor too much either way despite the margin being cut by about 2 percent. What’s really interesting will be the fact that some of the Snowy Mountain towns being distributed into Riverina. They’re quite progressive in some ways (Tumbarumba has a lot of tree-changers) and could definitely keep Michael McCormack’s margin down below 10%. Disappointing there wasn’t any changes for Sussan ‘I’m SO DISAPPOINTED’ Ley’s electorate.

  • The Hunter’s just become much more interesting. Paterson’s down to 2.6% whilst Hunter is almost up to 5%. Labor’s treading on very thin ice here. The question for them is whether they want to keep their coal seats handy or do they want to just play it lightly with them and go for the inner-city votes so they can pursue a more ambitious, progressive agenda and leave the coal seats for the Coalition to dwindle into.

Labor now only can afford to lose about 0.4% on an overall swing to lose majority. It’s quite precarious for them at the moment. Although they’re probably hoping that any bigger swings will be concentrated in existing coalition seats whilst theirs are either untouched or barely touched.

‘If we do nothing, the red lines continue to be crossed.’

According to Peter Dutton, if the LNP wins they will increase the social media age limit from 13 to 16 within the first 100 days of them getting in. Reportedly a solution would be facial recognition tech introduced to track peoples ages. Albo also supports this, saying he would support one if effective. So both major parties want it.

I personally disagree with this, I believe it should be up to the parent when they want their kids to be on social media, not the government’s. Some kids mature faster than others. And I do not support a mandatory facial recognition tech, it would likely be mandatory for everyone and some people don’t want the government to access personal details.

Based on both parties stances on the eSafety issue early this year and the Digital ID, I don’t think i’ll be voting for Labor or Liberal. Most likely I will be putting them last.


Are you under 16?

1 Like

Most parents aren’t small-l liberal let alone well to the left. They probably welcome stuff like this.

I think it’s fascinating that the media has jumped at covering Dutton’s support of this campaign. The prime minister spoke about supporting the same thing a couple of weeks earlier.

The government had announced funds to test out age assurance technologies in May. He had also announced supporting the campaign for raising the age, days after it was first announced.

1 Like

I feel like this is a sleeper issue, the only ones paying attention now are the bedwetters and helicopter parents. If something actually happens, the rest of society will have something to say.

Social media has been around long enough that many parents would have had a MySpace page in their teens themselves. The one that forced you to rank your top friends publicly, barely any privacy settings and pedos everywhere. It’s part of growing up in the 21st century and taught us all online literacy.

I’m a libertarian on this issue, let the parents decide.

Hidden in this blog is a report on a Resolve poll saying Dutton has taken the lead over Albanese.

Not looking good for Labor. After all the balderdash and policy-nothingness from the Coalition, how the hell is Dutton up? And how is Albanese down despite actually implementing useful, if incremental policies?

Stage 3 tax cuts? Energy bill relief? HECS indexation reduction? Or have voters fallen for Dutton’s climate wars again?


Talk about a ‘United’ party room on energy…

Seems like they don’t even know what they’re talking about to each other. Then there’s this…

If you want a case of renewables working perfectly fine, look no further than SA, which has one of the highest rates of renewable energy usage anywhere in the world and the state has proven on so many occasions that it can power itself purely by renewables, and that’s not just your wind or solar energy, but also hydro-energy. Any talk of nuclear being the most ‘affordable’ or ‘long-lasting’ energy source is just fantasy in a bottle.

That said, if Australians, many of whom are so desperately precarious about their short-term $$$ that they’d risk anything and prefer us to be the laughing stock in the world in 10 years time in terms of the most affordable, available and sustainable energy in the world, then go right ahead and vote Dutton and his clowns in next year.

Even in SA David Spiers and the Liberals are even now pushing for a Royal Commission into Nuclear Energy, even though there already was one which ruled out nuclear energy being affordable or long lasting.

They keep going on about it being cheap, but believe it or not, it’s really affordable to run a royal commission which will most likely come back with the exact same stuff.

they are trying to kick this can down the road until after the election when the results come back and say it’s not viable.

I don’t understand the thought process on nuclear power to be honest. all i can think of is that people like Gina are pumping serious dollars into the liberal coffers in the hopes of opening up a new revenue stream.

1 Like

First two to come online in 2035-2037. Sites include Callide and Tarong in Gladstone, Liddell and Mt Piper in the Hunter, Port Augusta, Loy Yang in the La Trobe Valley and Collie.

Do they seriously think that Australians can wait till 2035-2037 for more affordable and sustainable energy? What are they going to fill the gap with in the meantime? Wouldn’t surprise me if it was more drumroll coal.