• ZagorathOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Labor’s excuse:

    Greens were deliberately setting up the vote to fail, due to procedural motions in the lower house always being opposed.

    Whatever the fuck that’s supposed to mean.

    It failed 80 votes to 5. The 5 included the 4 Greens MPs and independent MP Andrew Wilkie. The fact that there were only 80 noes makes it hard to say precisely who they were and indicates that everyone was so sure it would fail by a large margin that Labor and the LNP didn’t bother whipping up their MPs to go vote for it. Disappointing that the other independents didn’t bother either.

    • zero_gravitas
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Half the independents got in on a campaign that they would basically be Liberals except giving a shit about climate change, so we shouldn’t really be surprised. Allegra Spender was out there the other day calling the uni encampments anti-semitic 🙄

    • Ilandar
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      He is right to an extent, The Greens would have pushed ahead with the vote knowing full well that it would suffer a near unanimous defeat. For them it would have been partially strategical in the sense that they can point to this result in the future as a clear point of moral difference. It was also clearly a sincere motion though, so Watts and Leeser trying to frame it as anything else is pretty stupid. Particularly when neither them nor their respective parties are doing anything to help the situation here or in Gaza.

      • ZagorathOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        He is right to an extent

        Disagree. I understand what you’re getting at, but I don’t think it accurately represents what he said. If he had said “the Greens set this up to fail because Labor has no interest in supporting Palestinian statehood”, he would have been right. But he didn’t say it would fail because they don’t support it, he said it would fail because “it’s procedural”.

        If Labor had decided to amend it to be more clear in what it would accomplish (because it would not, of course, actually result in the nation of Australia recognising Palestine, just the House of Representatives, a mostly meaningless gesture), or if the Labor Foreign Minister had turned around and recognised it officially through their powers, he would have a point. Heck, I’ll allow Labor to the end of the week for me to say “hey, actually, Labor did the right thing here”. But as it stands right now? Labor has no defence. Anything they try to say is a transparent attempt to avoid saying “we don’t support Palestinian statehood” while holding exactly that position.