Thinking of running for it, were we, Worrals? ;)

Worth a read since we spoke about Trigg and Morrison.

One quotes out of the article I find interesting, considering the lack of respect given by Two dads and the other person in previous hearings.

It works both ways !

"Said one senior journalist last week: “I have not seen such a level of disrespect either in Senate estimates or any other kind of inquiry in my entire career.”

Scott Morrison's treatment of Gillian Triggs is endemic of the government's wider problem with women

You have to give the Lefties their due, don't you? They can dredge up the gender card and play it, and female victimhood, against the Coalition from damn near anywhere.

Yes, they do play the gender card well when they want to.

Fair enough rh200, if that's your position I can understand your POV. However, IMO it's not a public role pollies should play. Whether a person is decent/respectable has little bearing on whether they make a good MP. I honestly don't see them as social role models any more than I see footy stars as such. Apart from anything else, the skills and character traits that make a person a good MP often make them a horrible human being :(, which also applies to the footy players.

A person becomes a footy star because they're good at footy, not because they're some sort of moral beacon. Likewise pollies; if they can do politics, come up with workable policies and govern, then I honestly don't care if they go to orgies dressed in a tiger suit. Obviously dishonesty offences are a different matter (because they are entrusted with public money) but morality offences don't bother me. Nor is he an MP himself, although he's married (partnered?) to one. If he continued his criminal career then it would be a different story, but this happened quite a while ago. Whether a person could successfully run as an MP themselves with that sort of conviction is more debateable; my guess would be that no matter how competent they were, neither major party would want the hassle.

FWIW I should probably declare my hand here; I'm a big Pilbersek fan, so that may bias my opinion a bit. ;)

HELL no. After seeing just how much crap has to take place any time that guy (or girl, theoretically) goes anywhere, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. It's just insane. I nominate the next G20 be held in the middle of a desert somewhere so it doesn't drive an entire city full of people completely nuts. :ugh::ugh:Or they could have it in Washington so he could stay home without all the airshow, roadshow, gun show and fuss.

Worrals

May I ask why you are a big fan of hers ?

I like your opinions even if they are often opposite to mine but would be really interested to know.

I am sure it is more than just the "sisterhood" sticking together ;) :p :O

1. She speaks very well, I've heard her speak in public and it was excellent.
2. She's not abusive (nor is Shorten for that matter). I really disliked the slanging off and abuse that Gillard and Rudd used to publicly dish out. IMO it was impolite and degraded the position. Behind closed doors is one thing, but in the press I think the PM should show some manners. Heckling etc is beloved by the Left (which she is a member of) and probably a hangover from picket line politics, but I think it alienates middle of the road voters and is too undignified for federal politics. Just my $0.02.
4. Policy wise I've agreed with what she's said, to the best of what I can recall, anyway. The TV-throwing nerf ball has not been needed.
5. Maybe a bit of sisterhood. :O:}

However, it has been reported that within her office the walls are/were plastered with feminist/gender politics particularly directed at Abbott.

How then does this equate?

How does this equate? Because the posters are almost certainly funny. Is it a sin to poke a bit of fun at someone, even if the object of that fun is the Prime Minister? Lighten up!

How? Because she's not silly enough to carry on like that in public. Presuming it's true...

But she does,still, carry on about it. perhaps time for Labour to drop the whole misogynist baloney.

Worrals, yep thats a position that is being taken by people in the last few decades, though sound on a particular level it has a flaw. If not people we look up to, who sets acceptable social standards and direction for society?

The principle of moral bracket creep is a real one. In some cases is its good and others its bad. Sadely I think its a standard overcompensation of past injustices and another basic social evolutionary traits.

No matter what side of politics you are on, no one likes to be told how to live, or what their morals should be. In times past where we where fairly homogeneous on the culture side, it wasn't a problem. These days we are supposedly multi cultural, there are groups who believe disciplining your wife is acceptable.

A lot of our basic laws are derived from social values and norms. As such laws, values etc are set by politicians. If we where to treat the PM as purely an administrator doing a job, then yes you are correct. But to a lot of people it is so much more.

Family, IMO. It's like when the government launch healthy eating initiatives. Maybe they help some people, but fundamentally you learn healthy eating at home when you're a kid. I think social standards are similar; no footy star or pollie can replace what you hear at home, or undo whatever damage was done if your home wasn't a good place. :sad: We see this with child molestors; many of them were molested when they were children. Likewise wife-beaters; too many of them learned as children that this was how men were supposed to behave. Likewise female emotional abusers; all too often they grew up listening to their mother belittle and humiliate their father, and think that's the way to behave.

I think we overestimate the influence external 'role models' have on people. They have some influence, but not as much as we variously hope or fear. What really counts is what people hear in their own home, and TBQH all of us heard a mixture of good and bad messages that continue to influence us as adults.

Before you accuse me of contradicting myself wrt comments on another thread, I agree ;). I think family influences good and bad can be thwarted (to some degree), but I don't think an individual high-profile pollie or footy player's behaviour plays much part in that. I think we overestimate their influence and worry un-necessarily about these individuals, while ignoring much wider and more pervasive harmful messages from the media and the culture as a whole.
In some ways it was a huge problem, particularly wrt sexual abuse and domestic violence. These issues have been around since people lived in caves, but in the glorious fifties they weren't discussed. Frequently children who did come forward with abuse claims were beaten for being liars. The problem was there but it was shoved under the rug. That was within a culture that glorified moral values and held public figures such as pollies in a false high esteem, even when (like JFK for example) they led completely different private lives. Often it was a fake morality that has failed to stand up to modern scrutiny.

Of course JFK had it lucky; he lived before the internet. These days I doubt any politician could stage manage their public image to the extent that was routine in the mid twentieth century; it just isn't possible. Even as late as the 1980s Hawke got away with loads of stuff that would have been Tweeter fodder today. Of course people 'in the know' knew, but it wasn't all over the place.

I think it is unreasonable to expect politicians to lead more blameless lives than professionals or senior managers. Sure, they shouldn't be dishonest. They shouldn't be criminals and they should show some basic moral values. However, when it comes to having affairs, partners with murky pasts, former drug problems or embarassing personal habits, is that any different from many other successful people? In truth, many pollies (and other people) have always struggled with these things. The difference today is that now we all hear about them.
This is why the law is not set in stone. The government and the judiciary often struggle to establish what those social values and norms actually are. One of the more noteworthy cases of this was R v L (1991) where the High Court of Australia overturned common law precedent going back at least three hundred years that there could be no rape in marriage. The HCA found that if this was the common law, by modern standards that principle was now wrong.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/48.html
In this way the law creeps forward. Maybe 1991 was a bit late for that decision (I'd like to think so) but this case is an example of how conservative the law really is. If one minister is a bit of a lad (or a bit of a gal) he or she has very little individual influence on the law. He or she can't change the law on a whim to suit their personal circumstances. Even one High Court judge cannot do that, though (with the possible exception of Kirby J :E:}) it's debatable whether a HC Justice has ever considered behaving in a laddish/ladette manner...if we have to choose someone, maybe they're the better role models (nerds but...:8:}).

Any statute must be passed by both houses of parliament, so even allowing for party politics the majority must still approve. If the 150 members of the House of Reps and 76 Senators aren't enough people to be indicative of the morals of Australians, then I don't know what numbers they need. Hopefully a group of 226 people is reflective of the general community, because I'm guessing that if there's one thing we agree on, it's that we don't need to pay more pollies!

From Larry Pickering's latest offering.

RAAF jets and Army SAS ready to wage war on ISIS in Iraq

Granted its from news.com.au, but whats everyones thoughts on a potential Fast Jet deployment to Iraq.. again?

Not much unless they are going along with a few thousand ground troops and attack helicopters.

I would prefer they where going to the Ukraine.

As said on the previous thread, about time we used our hardware.

Attack helicopters in support of the SAS, interesting combo.

I suspect the SAS will be taking in laser target designators as well as doing a lot of forward reconnaissance, attack helicopters unlikely I would say, as the IS have some fairly sophisticated anti aircraft stuff.


I see it as a humanitarian mission.

Agree.

It might stretch the unit if they go to Iraq and are still in Afghanistan in Sqn strength. Which leaves a combines SAS/Cdo type force.
That will raise the tempo again.

Follow on from the anti Jew but saga a few weeks ago.

"Anti-Semitic flyers left in Bondi letterboxes"

Anti-Semitic flyers left in Bondi letterboxes