The first standing PM to attend a Mardi Gra

What are people's thoughts on the ramifications of Malcolm Turnbull attending a Mardi Gras? I understand he has been in attendance many times before, but this is different.

 

Depends what he was (or wasn't) wearing!!!

 

Turnbull's electorate contains a higher than average percentage of openly gay people and I believe he has a pretty good relationship with the community. If this had happened a decade ago it might have been a 'big thing', especially with the pious churchy hypocrites we had in the lodge from '96 to 2010.

This is just an admission of where we are at as a society. For the majority of people homosexuality is no biggie. One of the reasons our moralizers wanted to keep homosexuality illegal & in the closet is that they knew that once people started 'coming out' in numbers people would realize that homosexuals were their friends & family. Thus the speed with which acceptance has proceeded. From illegality to this in a generation, and marriage to follow soon.

 

I believe he is trying to show people he is also a man with a slightly leftish side, which might come handy next election....

 

Yeah bigfella, I was thinking it may still have negative repercussions from hard nosed conservatives within his party who are already upset that their voice (Tones) was kicked to the curb by him. It would be interesting to see a break down from the next opinion poll. Hey actions like this may see him lose some ultra conservative voters but also bring across the disgruntled righties from the red team. As you point out, it may be a non issue for most voters and probably much slower to progress due to ideals from previous leaders. It was actually a lost opportunity for Abbott to demonstrate he was in touch.

M2, I think he has made known his social left side before, and something people were waiting for him to demonstrate as PM.

I notice George Brandis has promised to carry through with changes to the same sex marriage laws if their promised plebiscite is favourable.

 

The hard line conservatives already know that if Mal wins the next election the political death squads will be out to get them (appropriate given the connections of the hard right in NSW with people associated with the real thing). There are some nasty pre-selection battles going on as we speak with the moderates re-asserting themselves. Mal is staying on the sidelines officially, but once he has a mandate that will change. There are some who suspect the far right of the party might even be prepared to try to sink the party at the next election to avoid that.

I don't think the Mardi Gras thing will make much of an electoral difference. Some of the right wing ALP voters are actually anti-gay marriage anyway. Conservatives may send a few first preferences off to some far right party, but their preferences will come home, and I doubt it will be enough to impact a single seat.

This is evidence of how silly the whole thing is. He can do that tomorrow, and he should. There is no need for this vote. There never has been. We didn't vote on decriminalizing abortion or homosexuality or about women voting. Nor did we vote when Howard changed the legal definition of marriage to specifically exclude same sex marriage. Parliament did its job & passed legislation on all those occasions.

Every time you hear some conservative bleating about money being wasted by anyone, anywhere, just remember this particular waste of $160 million.

 

Gay is not 'left'.... rofl, ffs. There are sexually 'conservative' people on all parts of the political spectrum.

 

Are you speaking from first hand experience? All good if you are.

 

If he loses, the hard liners will take it as justification for their need to be harder. Probably one of the reasons people like Bolt are calling for a purely Conservative party, because he suspects his own voice and ideals will look completely out of touch, which they are anyway.

You're right though, the public sentiment has been clear for some time on marriage equality and would be simpler and more cost effective to move directly through our parliaments. Brandis and others know that it is inevitable and seems obvious they don't want to be seen to be pro marriage equality personally. At the end of the day it is a basic human right to love anyone and seal relationship with a vow if they choose.

Interesting political times heading our way.

 

I knew I would get a reply from you, isn't it correct to put all those people in one bin?:

Lefties, Greenis, Commus, gays and lesbians, teachers and all those belonging to Unions?

Come on mate, we know who is talking...
Cheerio

 

It's a political spectrum, not a bigotry one. Perhaps you've been peddling baseless insults so long you've started to believe they are true? The most anti-gay people I've met were Unionist's, followed closely by ultra conservative abrahamic followers like some Muslims and Christians. The only thing connecting the Green's with the ALP is the agenda of protest politics, appealing to the popular at the cost of truth... and yes to me defines the left much more then sexual preference. I stand by that the left and right here are not very related to the US terms, they are just different systems with different representation and relationship to many issues, such as sexuality.

 

I wonder if anyone recognised Malcolm from the waist down...

 

Your letting your intelligence show again.

 

Progressive is the term forgotten in your spiel.

 

I agree that his attendance was to be expected, but we shouldn't read too much into it. By the way, weren't the "the pious churchy hypocrites" in the lodge until 15 September 2015?

 

There was a break of about 3 years in the middle. However, my broader point was about changes in attitudes over a period of time so the recent unlamented occupants of the Lodge didn't come into consideration.

 

Spiel, I got lots of spiel if you want spiel..
Constantly winding back IR to protect Union's is not progressive. Creating green policy which does quite literally nothing except undermine the economy is not progressive. Creating a platform for acquisition of growing national debt and hiding it by draining government agency operating funds and fudging the budget is not progressive. Perhaps you mean 'talk' progressive instead of 'act' progressive. To take an extreme example, Workchoices was real 'progressive', but it was just way over progressive and not properly executed.

The left is talk the walk, the right is walk the walk. It's why the media loves the left, little brainbytes which turn into neat soundbytes which don't have to be true, just sound attractive. Its not good government though, good government is trying to the right thing in governing the progress of the nation (even at the cost of public opinion often (because the issues are often too complex to communicate in detail).)... that takes time, and is complex - both things the media cannot work with.

Like how teachers love the left too, they don't want to actually teach complexity, just entertain their students with shallow stuff because its all they've got - not actually having the real world experience to know what they are talking about. Teachers only talk about what they read, which only goes so far. It goes on and on, and the only thing left for the left to complain about is to sit back and point at the failures of the only ones actually trying to do the right thing, do the actual hard work. In an economy of money, the work is white collar. Blue collar work is just the stuff machines don't do yet. Progressive societies understand this.

But to succeed you have to know how to fail - its all about intention. Politics is about running the nation's growth best... not left v right. Seemingly though the left only wants to get in and stay in power, while the right wants business to grow, so wealth can grow, so the country can grow. Its blinking obvious if you have eyes enough to see... but too many are one eyed when personalities become more important then performance. That the left even consider business the enemy shows the depths of their inability to be realistic about the things being told them.

 

Why shouldn't Malcolm go to the Mardi Gras, it isafter all quite an entertaining spectacle. Normal people don't go parading down the street flaunting their sexuality like that.

 

i asked for a spiel not gibberish. Not one point has any validity or makes any commonsense. The coalition have never been good economic managers, they've just convinced small minded one dimensional thinkers of such. Lotto winner economics may make some feel warm and fuzzy but grown ups know that managing the economy takes comprehensive planning that considers the all important human element. Most people work to live not live to work. If you're wanting status through monetary measure then you pay for the privelege of having people work in common rest times that are reserved for people to be human and enjoy the important things in life.......family!

 

Yes,
tell me about it, normal people. Those with their standard sexual procedure once a week, in the good old bedroom, with lights switched off, 3min max and if you are lucky you might get an additional cuddle.....

Sexuality shouldn't be denied, it should be celebrated....

Cheers

 

Is that what you think normal people do? Obviously you are not 'normal' or you would not make such a stupid statement.

Normal people don't deny their sexuality, what can they deny? Only abnormal people can deny their sexuality.

Why?

 

I think it was good he attended. Of course there could be political reasons for it but either way a PM goes (sorry, bad choice of words) they are going to upset someone. If they go the hard right gets cranky, if they don't go the left gets cranky. But he went and that's that. Some of the hard right religious types got upset but frankly they've got to much influence on government on a day to day basis so maybe Mr T was telling them to get stuffed.

 

1: He's trying to win an election.
2: He's read Machiavelli..

 

The Muffets must have been your favorite TV show.

 

Intelligent counter argument as expected.. Nothing new here