4 ms·

This is a very sympathetic interpretation of Labor’s actions. Passing a law despite admitting it needed a few amendments at the very least, with a vague verbal

This is a very sympathetic interpretation of Labor’s actions. Passing a law despite admitting it needed a few amendments at the very least, with a vague verbal agreement that it might be amended sometime in the first half of the next year, is neither a very promising nor a politically responsible course of action for a party hoping (and likely) to govern within six months. It’s legislative and electoral cowardice more than political pragmatism.

ux-app 8y ago
> It’s legislative and electoral cowardice more than political pragmatism. The only reason you can say this is because you have no skin in the game. If you were in Parliament, faced with a fringe issue (I don't think it is, but the vast, vast majority of Aussies do, probably because they don't understand the ramifications), then, unless you wanted to commit political seppuku, you'd have done the rational thing and supported this bill. Politics isn't like Internet armchair quarterbacking, you do what you can to ensure that a) your position is safe, and b) that you will lose the battle to eventually win the war. The privilege of never compromising on your values is reserved for the rest of us who have nothing to lose by criticizing the process.
- jpatokal 8y ago
  The Greens voted against it, and do not seemed to have suffered political disembowelment as a result. And yes, I know they're also not in a position to win the next election, but Labor's total capitulation to the Libs here was still pretty darn craven.
  - ux-app 8y ago
    Greens don't count, they have no real political clout, and their tiny base rewards them for an anti-stand.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  Your comment only works because Australian politics lacks any real clear distinction between the two major political parties, and also lacks any real leadership. You can choose from any of the following one broad categories of incompetence. So to hell with pragmatism. Politicians deserve, and should be subject to, unrelenting ridicule and scorn.
  - ux-app 8y ago
    >Your comment only works because Australian politics lacks any real clear distinction between the two major political parties, and also lacks any real leadership. Yes it fucking sucks. But please point out to me any other democratic country that is not a 2 party system? I don't know of any and maybe that says something about democracy itself. This may be any issue that can't be fixed.
    - starbeast 8y ago
      The UK hasn't been two party for the last few elections.
    - mmusc 8y ago
      Germany, Italy, Greece and several other EU countries...
      - icebraining 8y ago
        Portugal and Spain too, as of the last few years, though we'll see if that remains.
        tremon 8y ago
        As are Belgium, The Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Ireland...
      - ux-app 8y ago
        Thanks, I appreciate it, I'm not well versed in foreign politics, so digging into these examples now. Germany, in particular seems to be a great example of political plurality.
- thomasfoster96 8y ago
  > The only reason you can say this is because you have no skin in the game. If you were in Parliament, faced with a fringe issue (I don't think it is, but the vast, vast majority of Aussies do, probably because they don't understand the ramifications), then, unless you wanted to commit political seppuku, you'd have done the rational thing and supported this bill. I absolutely, as an Australian citizen, resident and voter, have skin in the game. Labor losing the next election just because they refused to pass this specific bill is an extremely unlikely course of events. I don’t find it particularly rational – especially when the urgency to do so is blatantly manufactured and it was so widely opposed by public submissions – to pass a potentially disastrous, under scrutinised and widely criticised law, just because you’re worried a hypothetical scare campaign might work. It sounds a lot like paranoia or cowardice. > Politics isn't like Internet armchair quarterbacking, you do what you can to ensure that a) your position is safe, and b) that you will lose the battle to eventually win the war. What’s the war here? If you keep losing battles you’re certain to lose the war. If the war is the election, Labor could certainly have afforded to lose this PR battle. If the war is cybersecurity policy in Australia, then I think the tech industry and tech users are getting quite sick of people trying to make excuses for yet another surrender. > The privilege of never compromising on your values is reserved for the rest of us who have nothing to lose by criticizing the process. A lot of people have a lot to lose if the process is abused or outright fails.
  - ux-app 8y ago
    > I absolutely, as an Australian citizen, resident and voter, have skin in the game. sigh, I meant real skin in the game, i.e. you would face another 4 years in opposition if Murdoch and mates politicized your "support of ISIS". >Labor losing the next election just because they refused to pass this specific bill is an extremely unlikely course of events. I wish the world were different, but it just isn't. Given a modest 1/10,000 possibility of some "terror" attack over Christmas, would a rational actor hang their political future on an issue that 99.99% of average Aussies don't understand? I hate this bill. I hate that we're moving in the direction of a world with mass surveillance, but realistically, if we take off our rose coloured glasses, and putting aside political idealism, would we expect Labor to do any different?
- zmmmmm 8y ago
  > you'd have done the rational thing and supported this bill. I actually think they've created a huge problem for themselves. Instead of shelving this issue away for the election, they have guaranteed it's going to come back. The government is already flagging they will not accept amendments as a political tactic to prolong the discussion because they think it will distract from all their other policy failures. This may actually be a massive own-goal from Shorten.
  - robryan 8y ago
    They don’t want to fight the election on any of the major details of national security. The liberals would be happy to fight the election on this front if Labor stopped supporting every bill that come up.

ux-app 8y ago

> It’s legislative and electoral cowardice more than political pragmatism. The only reason you can say this is because you have no skin in the game. If you were in Parliament, faced with a fringe issue (I don't think it is, but the vast, vast majority of Aussies do, probably because they don't understand the ramifications), then, unless you wanted to commit political seppuku, you'd have done the rational thing and supported this bill. Politics isn't like Internet armchair quarterbacking, you do what you can to ensure that a) your position is safe, and b) that you will lose the battle to eventually win the war. The privilege of never compromising on your values is reserved for the rest of us who have nothing to lose by criticizing the process.

jpatokal 8y ago
The Greens voted against it, and do not seemed to have suffered political disembowelment as a result. And yes, I know they're also not in a position to win the next election, but Labor's total capitulation to the Libs here was still pretty darn craven.
- ux-app 8y ago
  Greens don't count, they have no real political clout, and their tiny base rewards them for an anti-stand.
TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
Your comment only works because Australian politics lacks any real clear distinction between the two major political parties, and also lacks any real leadership. You can choose from any of the following one broad categories of incompetence. So to hell with pragmatism. Politicians deserve, and should be subject to, unrelenting ridicule and scorn.
- ux-app 8y ago
  >Your comment only works because Australian politics lacks any real clear distinction between the two major political parties, and also lacks any real leadership. Yes it fucking sucks. But please point out to me any other democratic country that is not a 2 party system? I don't know of any and maybe that says something about democracy itself. This may be any issue that can't be fixed.
  - starbeast 8y ago
    The UK hasn't been two party for the last few elections.
  - mmusc 8y ago
    Germany, Italy, Greece and several other EU countries...
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Portugal and Spain too, as of the last few years, though we'll see if that remains.
      - tremon 8y ago
        As are Belgium, The Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Ireland...
    - ux-app 8y ago
      Thanks, I appreciate it, I'm not well versed in foreign politics, so digging into these examples now. Germany, in particular seems to be a great example of political plurality.
thomasfoster96 8y ago
> The only reason you can say this is because you have no skin in the game. If you were in Parliament, faced with a fringe issue (I don't think it is, but the vast, vast majority of Aussies do, probably because they don't understand the ramifications), then, unless you wanted to commit political seppuku, you'd have done the rational thing and supported this bill. I absolutely, as an Australian citizen, resident and voter, have skin in the game. Labor losing the next election just because they refused to pass this specific bill is an extremely unlikely course of events. I don’t find it particularly rational – especially when the urgency to do so is blatantly manufactured and it was so widely opposed by public submissions – to pass a potentially disastrous, under scrutinised and widely criticised law, just because you’re worried a hypothetical scare campaign might work. It sounds a lot like paranoia or cowardice. > Politics isn't like Internet armchair quarterbacking, you do what you can to ensure that a) your position is safe, and b) that you will lose the battle to eventually win the war. What’s the war here? If you keep losing battles you’re certain to lose the war. If the war is the election, Labor could certainly have afforded to lose this PR battle. If the war is cybersecurity policy in Australia, then I think the tech industry and tech users are getting quite sick of people trying to make excuses for yet another surrender. > The privilege of never compromising on your values is reserved for the rest of us who have nothing to lose by criticizing the process. A lot of people have a lot to lose if the process is abused or outright fails.
- ux-app 8y ago
  > I absolutely, as an Australian citizen, resident and voter, have skin in the game. sigh, I meant real skin in the game, i.e. you would face another 4 years in opposition if Murdoch and mates politicized your "support of ISIS". >Labor losing the next election just because they refused to pass this specific bill is an extremely unlikely course of events. I wish the world were different, but it just isn't. Given a modest 1/10,000 possibility of some "terror" attack over Christmas, would a rational actor hang their political future on an issue that 99.99% of average Aussies don't understand? I hate this bill. I hate that we're moving in the direction of a world with mass surveillance, but realistically, if we take off our rose coloured glasses, and putting aside political idealism, would we expect Labor to do any different?
zmmmmm 8y ago
> you'd have done the rational thing and supported this bill. I actually think they've created a huge problem for themselves. Instead of shelving this issue away for the election, they have guaranteed it's going to come back. The government is already flagging they will not accept amendments as a political tactic to prolong the discussion because they think it will distract from all their other policy failures. This may actually be a massive own-goal from Shorten.
- robryan 8y ago
  They don’t want to fight the election on any of the major details of national security. The liberals would be happy to fight the election on this front if Labor stopped supporting every bill that come up.