6 - # of Straya threads or # of times we've changed Prime Minister in a decade?

[Axver]

The second candidate is somebody called Lucy Gichuhi. Now I might be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure she is less right-wing than Day on economics (obviously all FF members are social conservatives), less likely to be as cosy with Leyonhjelm, and may vote against the ABCC bill that Day had been so keen to stay in the Senate to vote for, which is why he had been manoeuvring to get the party to appoint somebody else to his casual vacancy.

 

[Axver]

Bit more on the FF options:

- Bob Day, in the case of the casual vacancy, wants his chief of staff Rikki Lambert to get the position. Lambert would likely vote along similar lines to Day.
- Robert Brokenshire, an FF member of South Australia's upper house, may well have the support of the party for the casual vacancy. He is, of course, another social conservative but he does not share Day's economics and he may oppose the ABCC bill that Day was so determined to stay in the Senate to vote for. Day's faction, in their own paranoid way, think Brokenshire has inclinations to "soft socialism".
- If Day's election is invalid but the second Family First candidate is allowed to receive the above the line votes, then their Senator will be Lucy Gichuci, about whom it seems nobody knows much!

If Day's election is invalid and Gichuci doesn't get the above the line votes, then the seat will be filled by the ALP's Anne McEwen. So it's safe to say the ALP will be gunning hard in the Court of Disputed Returns for that outcome.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Yeah, ok so I read up a bit on it in the Guardian, which reflects the points you made there.

I guess we won't know anything for a while by the sound of it, but the options then are

Labor gunning hard and getting lucky
Bob Day clone or Bob Day not-clone
Someone from Kenya we know nothing about

Also, who knew Family First were organised enough to have factions? I assumed that apart from being a front for that happy-clapper church that Fielding belonged to, they had very little game. And I still incline to that view, that outside of their fundy concerns they probably have a pile of Amway/Prosperity-Gospel baggage and thus are proxy Coalition supporters. But still, as One Nation learned back in the day, and Clive Palmer United more recently, there's nothing to rule out a total wildcard who just joined because putting families first sounded like something they might be in favour of, and are otherwise completely outside the party's tent.

PS apologies for the brevity of my response last night but it was basically midnight and off to bed for me, and today isn't much better busy-ness-wise! Much as I'd love to join the scintillating discussion with Bob Saget and Deep over at FYM, I just can't spare the moisture.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I'll be glad when this election's over, because quite frankly I think Hillary Clinton - correction, the Clintons Inc. - is/are a terrible candidate and at least when the conversation is no longer 'but, but TRUMP!!!' maybe it will get moderately interesting.

Or not. (actually the conversation will quickly move to 'but but MIDTERMS').

 

[Vlad n U 2]

For a while it will be 'well did you want TRUMP to win???' every time Hillary stages a foreign intervention/backs a coup/etc. Hillary supporting liberals may use it as a fall back.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Probably right. Rainbows at home, bombs abroad, ain't it great (to be clear the latter seems more or less inevitable under any administration).

 

[Vlad n U 2]

"Hillary bombed Yemen again? Well, Trump would blow up the moon if he was President!"

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Probably right. Rainbows at home, bombs abroad, ain't it great (to be clear the latter seems more or less inevitable under any administration).

Think it's more like: vague neutral statements at home (see her reaction to NoDAPL), woke bombs abroad.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I was thinking of the happy new rainbow coalition for permanent democratic rule (yeah, right).

 

[Axver]

Yeah, ok so I read up a bit on it in the Guardian, which reflects the points you made there.

I guess we won't know anything for a while by the sound of it, but the options then are

Labor gunning hard and getting lucky
Bob Day clone or Bob Day not-clone
Someone from Kenya we know nothing about

Also, who knew Family First were organised enough to have factions? I assumed that apart from being a front for that happy-clapper church that Fielding belonged to, they had very little game. And I still incline to that view, that outside of their fundy concerns they probably have a pile of Amway/Prosperity-Gospel baggage and thus are proxy Coalition supporters. But still, as One Nation learned back in the day, and Clive Palmer United more recently, there's nothing to rule out a total wildcard who just joined because putting families first sounded like something they might be in favour of, and are otherwise completely outside the party's tent.

PS apologies for the brevity of my response last night but it was basically midnight and off to bed for me, and today isn't much better busy-ness-wise! Much as I'd love to join the scintillating discussion with Bob Saget and Deep over at FYM, I just can't spare the moisture.

I suspect a Family First faction comprises about five people uniting against four. But yeah, I honestly assumed that once Fielding's term expired, the party would essentially cease to exist. Day's success baffled me at the time, and still largely does. The differences between Day and Fielding do go some way to proving your point that people joined out of some vague fondness for the party's objectives without possessing any particularly firm shared platform. Day and Fielding certainly didn't get on by the end of Fielding's term!

And now we've got a second Senator off to the Court of Disputed Returns, thanks to Rod Culleton and his criminal conviction (now annulled, but still on the books when he stood, thus rendering him ineligible). But the outcome there is clearer: he will be removed and #2 on the One Nation ticket - which had three candidates - will be elected in his place. That's a bloke called Peter Georgiou, who I think is Culleton's mate. #3 on the ticket is Culleton's wife!

Also, Culleton's presser today is one of the most bizarre things you will watch. Move over Bob Katter, a new incoherent lunatic is fronting the gallery.

For a while it will be 'well did you want TRUMP to win???' every time Hillary stages a foreign intervention/backs a coup/etc. Hillary supporting liberals may use it as a fall back.

The alarming part is that there's an element of truth. I'm not even joking when I say I consider Trump the single most dangerous person to lead a major party to an election in a stable liberal democracy since the end of WWII. I have long since ceased even caring about who his rival may be or what they might have done or could do. The only thing that matters now is that Trump is stopped, and that some of the damage done to the democratic process is repaired. This shit cannot be allowed to continue. All other issues are in a deep shade. I take comfort that he simply cannot win, but the greater the size of his loss the better.

You guys know I resist alarmism in my predictions, but geez I'm beyond uncomfortable with what a Trump presidency could mean. This goes beyond ideological disagreement.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I would be extremely uncomfortable with a Trump presidency too, but weren't you the guy who just recently was saying you're all about the numbers now (not sure I really agree with that, but for the sake of argument)? How do the numbers work for Trump?

I don't pretend to be really inside the bubble or in the know, but at least one blogger (NY political science academic) I pay some heed to has been pushing the same line all year: Trump gets somewhere between high thirties and low forties. It's just not enough.

I know the media have been playing us all year, oh it's close, then it's not close, now it's close again OMG!!! I have to bear in mind that they've got clicks to sell. They really are beneath contempt, by and large.

 

[Kieran McConville]

And now we've got a second Senator off to the Court of Disputed Returns, thanks to Rod Culleton and his criminal conviction (now annulled, but still on the books when he stood, thus rendering him ineligible). But the outcome there is clearer: he will be removed and #2 on the One Nation ticket - which had three candidates - will be elected in his place. That's a bloke called Peter Georgiou, who I think is Culleton's mate. #3 on the ticket is Culleton's wife!

Also, Culleton's presser today is one of the most bizarre things you will watch. Move over Bob Katter, a new incoherent lunatic is fronting the gallery.

Yeah I heard about that. There's nothing like keeping it in the family!

Did you guys know that Malcolm Roberts: The Living Soul has an MBA from Chicago?

 

[Axver]

I would be extremely uncomfortable with a Trump presidency too, but weren't you the guy who just recently was saying you're all about the numbers now (not sure I really agree with that, but for the sake of argument)? How do the numbers work for Trump?

I don't pretend to be really inside the bubble or in the know, but at least one blogger (NY political science academic) I pay some heed to has been pushing the same line all year: Trump gets somewhere between high thirties and low forties. It's just not enough.

I know the media have been playing us all year, oh it's close, then it's not close, now it's close again OMG!!! I have to bear in mind that they've got clicks to sell. They really are beneath contempt, by and large.

Possibly? I'm pretty sure I've made my rant about historians who can't quantify what they're saying. I've suddenly become Dr Economic History among my colleagues, despite the fact my grasp on economic history is not as good as I'd like it to be.

But yeah, Trump hasn't got the numbers. He won't win. He can't win. It's exactly what you say, a quest to keep a narrative going. Anybody who reports on national polls tightening is disingenuous because those are about as meaningful as asking ten Kurdish peshmerga what they think of last year's runner-up in The Bachelor NZ.

And yet I'm still worried. I feel he needs to lose by as large a margin as possible, not just to discredit him and his nebulous movement, not just to prove to the world the US has not gone completely fucking metal, but also just for my own sanity, that whenever I next visit the US (possibly next year) I don't have to think to myself that every second or third person I speak to voted for TRUMP. I just don't want to talk to somebody with that much hate and irrationality in them.

Did you guys know that Malcolm Roberts: The Living Soul has an MBA from Chicago?

Actually I can believe that. The guy comes across as educated. It's proof a decent degree is not a cure for stupidity.

 

[Kieran McConville]

It sure isn't!

Also, even if you did visit the US next year, and even if it was close? What's the turnout in US presidential elections, fifty to sixty per cent? Maybe every tenth person you meet voted at all (varying depending on the company you keep)...

As to whether it will be a thumping or just a moderate margin, I couldn't possibly say. 2012 isn't much of a guide (Obama was alarmingly lacklustre, but Romney wasn't particularly scary, although hey, he was the Republican and I'm sure I remember some big talk).

 

[Axver]

I'm not sure I have much more respect for somebody who didn't vote in an election involving a fascist than I do for somebody who voted for the fascist.

But this sure does put the likes of Romney in perspective. Dislikable and disagreeable, yes, but not quite the devil. Then again I never really expected so much of the US - or anywhere really - to rally around a populist demagogue this straight-up moronic.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Meanwhile, the Guardian is rallying the good folk with garbage like this:

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...anic-hillary-clinton-us-presidential-election

Financial markets panic, indeed. Potential victory. Sure. Potential asteroid strike, potentially anything could happen. But likely?

 

[Axver]

I swear to god every media outlet is acting as if this is somehow a possibility. Like you said earlier, it sells copy/clicks. But come the fuck on. Trump can't win.

And if he somehow does, well fuck, see ya America.

 

[Kieran McConville]

But he won't, so it's really a good time to spare one's sanity and take a big step back from all news outlets.

 

[Kieran McConville]

The people I have the most disrespect for, because they are the most disingenuous, are the (self proclaimed) leftists-for-Trump. These I guess we'd have to put in the 'things have to get worse before they get better' or 'accentuate the contradictions' camp.

People who honestly think only someone like Trump is speaking to their grievances, my respect is irrelevant, but I get it, you know? I get it They're not politically very informed, but that describes most people in most places anywhere, most of the time.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

It sure isn't!

Also, even if you did visit the US next year, and even if it was close? What's the turnout in US presidential elections, fifty to sixty per cent? Maybe every tenth person you meet voted at all (varying depending on the company you keep)...

As to whether it will be a thumping or just a moderate margin, I couldn't possibly say. 2012 isn't much of a guide (Obama was alarmingly lacklustre, but Romney wasn't particularly scary, although hey, he was the Republican and I'm sure I remember some big talk).

One of the more disappointing things about all of this is how highly Obama is rated now. The fawning over him is excruciating, especially on FYM whenever he is discussed by the liberals there.

I'm not sure I have much more respect for somebody who didn't vote in an election involving a fascist than I do for somebody who voted for the fascist.

But this sure does put the likes of Romney in perspective. Dislikable and disagreeable, yes, but not quite the devil. Then again I never really expected so much of the US - or anywhere really - to rally around a populist demagogue this straight-up moronic.

Make up your mind.

The people I have the most disrespect for, because they are the most disingenuous, are the (self proclaimed) leftists-for-Trump. These I guess we'd have to put in the 'things have to get worse before they get better' or 'accentuate the contradictions' camp.

Accelerationism.

Where are they though? I haven't noticed.

 

[Axver]

Shall I count myself lucky that outside of BMP, I do not think I have encountered anyone with leftist-for-Trump tendencies?

In a way I suppose I can somewhat comprehend the desire to watch everything burn in the expectation some phoenix will arise from the ashes, but it's a moronic perspective that shows a remarkable degree of callousness towards anybody who may suffer in the fire. (Which might explain why it's white dudes who usually want to watch it all burn.)

 

[Axver]

Make up your mind.

Except that populist demagoguery is central to much fascist political organisation and rallying.

 

[Kieran McConville]

There was a guy on a blog I follow who has been pushing the leftist-for-Trump line pretty heavily all year. He isn't even an American. But yeah, they exist.

 

[Kieran McConville]

One of the more disappointing things about all of this is how highly Obama is rated now. The fawning over him is excruciating, especially on FYM whenever he is discussed by the liberals there.

He's one of the great orators of our time, and he sometimes guest-hosts late night chat shows and he's charming, and his family are so photogenic!

My favourite Onion headline a while back was the one about Obama guiding Michelle's hand on the joystick to execute a drone strike.




Snark aside, I'd judge Obama reasonably even-keeled, and maybe the best alternative available at the time? I give him some credit, low-level drone warfare notwithstanding, for keeping the temperature turned down on international relations that could have gotten very hot in different hands. Iran, for instance. Better than the alternatives isn't much of a legacy, but it's something, I suppose. Far from a radical socialist (whoever got such an idea?), however, he proved himself a willing captive of pretty much every corporate interest going: the banks, the security/military establishment, the health insurance industry, whoever stands to benefit from the TPP (as George Carlin said, it's a big club, and you're not in it).

Liberals in FYM like him because compromise, even compromise beyond any reason or sensible outcome, is taken as the signal virtue. Meeting in the middle is the end in itself, even if the middle is waaaaaaaaaay over there somewhere, and not a middle at all.

 

[Kieran McConville]

As this year slouches toward the finish line, a (very long but) surprisingly interesting read about the confused, Lynchian world of the alt-right/Breitbart cultural-entertainment-industrial complex, those scary folk who are going to usher in Fascism In Our Time:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/breitbart-news-drudge-alt-right-koch-trump/

Point being: a conservatism not grounded in either the free-market absolutism of libertarianism or the stodgy moral posturing of evangelicalism has little ideological space left for mooring. Ultimately, Andrew Breitbart’s dimwit Gen-X Archie Bunker-ism was destined to slide either into a begrudging liberal populism or the alt-right’s full-tilt Kulturkampf.

This, in part, explains why the alt-right has been predominantly a meme-based Internet phenomena, strongly associated with Pepe the Frog, the ironic use of McDonald’s Moon Man, and one caustically offensive Adult Swim show. It explains why Richard Spencer worked so hard to produce an alt-right logo that resembles Pitchfork Media’s old Altered Zones project. And it perhaps explains why many in the alt-right goon squad sport David Lynch haircuts and wear their chill Vaporwave musical tastes on their sleeve (where the swastika ought to be). They see forwarding their policy goals and the “blunt instrument” of the Trump campaign as secondary to their battle for cultural relevance.

 

[cobl04]

Jacobin is good.


Back in our country:

[tweet]795022480544964608[/tweet]

Labor's grandstanding shits me up the wall. Their refugee policies are only slightly the lesser of two evils. And they had three fucking years to legislate gay marriage and sat on their fucking hands.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Fuck Kevin Rudd. How he can even hold his head up in public is beyond me.

Agreed that Labor's refugee policies are pretty dire. Some have tried and failed to change that at party conferences, so here we stand. It's mostly the reason I vote Greens when I do.

 

[cobl04]

Main reason for me, too. (Although I really like Dan Andrews.) Hopefully Shorten will have the balls to block it.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Jacobin is good.

Genuine kudos to you for giving them a shot.

Back in our country:

[tweet]795022480544964608[/tweet]

Labor's grandstanding shits me up the wall. Their refugee policies are only slightly the lesser of two evils. And they had three fucking years to legislate gay marriage and sat on their fucking hands.

Incredible that Rudd has things to say. He's got absolutely no supporters.

 

[Axver]

Rudd's personal attacks on Shorten and Gillard are just bizarre. Is he really still this bitter? And in going after Cassidy he's straight-up disingenuous - being factually correct doesn't stop you from acting hypocritically.

What I think is vile is how obvious it is that the government's proposed draconian measures against asylum seekers are designed simply to wedge the ALP. It has nothing to do with compassion or humanity, nothing to do with good policy, nothing even to do with ideology. The fact it's about asylum seekers is not even important to them - it's just the easiest issue on which they can legislate to undermine their opponent.

And the ALP strategists must be shitting themselves on how to respond. Either they go along and lose even more of their Green-leaning inner urban support, or they try to mount an argument that there is no need to go further, or they backflip, and those last two options contain serious risk of damaging attacks that could cost them Liberal-leaning swing voters. From a political perspective it's hard to see what the smart move is. From a humanitarian perspective, of course, the ALP needs to recant its disgusting policies of the past few years and recognise their lurch to the right has only emboldened the extremists in the Liberals to push harder for proposals that even in the Howard years were non-starters.

PS As for Jacobin, I'm partway through that piece and it's a reminder they produce good content, even if most of the people who share it on my Facebook feed are washed-up ex-Socialist Alternative people whose politics is outdated, ineffective, and surprisingly incoherent.