On Shorten’s “Corbyn-esque” posturing
Marcus L’Estrange writes: Re. “The Labor-Labour question: just how Corbyn-esque is Bill’s new inequality thought bubble?” (Monday)
Well, well, blow me down with a feather. Comrade Shorten has ratcheted up his class war rhetoric with his anti “business class tax system” speech at the recent Melbourne University Economic Forum. Bill should have started his speech by pointing out that to attend this forum one had to pay hundreds of dollars thus ruling out 95% of Australians from attending but not our Bill. As part of the elite, he only wants to talk to the elite. Good speech and about time, as there has been a significant transfer of money from the plebes to the patricians, starting with the Hawke – Keating Accord and on to today.
One major flaw with Bill’s clarion call.In 2013 Bill supported, in Cabinet and in Caucus, a non-increase of the value of the dole — which hasn’t changed for 25 years and is one of the lowest in the developed world — the tightening up of the DSP requirements and actually moved the legislation to off load sole parents from their pension onto the dole when their child turned eight. Some sole parents, mainly women, then had to couch surf, sleep in their cars, work in massage parlors and some committed suicide, according to Centrelink. On this, the then and current ALP, plus the Coalition, has their blood on their hands with suicides still occurring. At the same time, of course, Bill supported a 35% pay increase for MPs. No wonder there is poverty then and now — not amongst MPs of course.
Bill also knew that the real unemployment figures, according to Julia Gillard and Penny Wong, showed two million unemployed chasing around 150,000 vacancies or one vacancy for every twenty unemployed but plowed on putting his class boot into those on welfare, particularly the dole. Bill also mentions the powerlessness of the masses but misses what goes on in his own party. If an ordinary ALP member tries to get a response to a policy proposal from a Labor MP it is well nigh impossible. Labor MPs simply don’t believe they have any need to reply to members of the ALP ‘rank and vile’ and God help a battler if s/he writes to a Labor MP. You might as well send the letter to the ‘Bermuda Triangle’ such as your chances of getting a meaty reply. Bill really should receive an Oscar for his crocodile tears and so called, confected interest, in the poor and he is nowhere in the same league as Comrade Corbyn.
On section 44 of the constitution
Maire Mannik writes: “Poll Bludger: are the Greens cooked?” (Monday)
The purpose of Section 44 is to prevent divided allegiance. Labor had parliamentarians swearing allegiance to the people of Australia but Howard and Abbott changed it back to swearing allegiance to the Queen (of England). The two Greens senators unknowingly had allegiance to the head of state of New Zealand and Canada: who is the Queen (of England). So therefore they did not breach their allegiance requirement.
I think you’ll find the oath or affirmation taken by federal parliamentarians is in the schedule to the constitution and not able to be changed on a whim (as distinct from oaths/affirmations cabinet members take); and that the same constitutional alchemy that turned family in the Commonwealth into foreigners also turned the sovereign to whom the oath or affirmation is sworn into the Queen of Australia. The Queen of Canada, Queen of New Zealand, Queen of PNG, Queen of the UK etc are all quite separate and distinct roles and jobs, they are just, at this time, all held by the one person. Its a bit like a lot of us who work in the gig economy – lots of separate jobs held by one person. No reason why these separate royal jobs might not be held by separate persons in the future.
Marcus – better be careful or, as BazzaR explained, “STFU” – no criticism of bumBoil Shlernt’s hypocrisy is permissible or Domican & Meissner will do a Baldwin on you.