Talking Politics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Talking Politics

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,705
1,729
According to AbC the process had begun before Dutton got the Defence job.
This whole submarine debacle was really a Malcolm Turnbull-Christopher Pyne-Julie Bishop and friends balls up.

Abbott pretty much had the deal done to purchase Japanese Soryu subs off the shelf. At the eleventh hour, Poodle Pyne organised a revolt, as the Japanese solution didn’t allow for enough SA local content. And he was more worried about losing some marginal SA seats than the best overall solution for the nation.

He got Turnbull involved. And together they used the issue as a rallying point for the moderate faction to raise a wider coup against Abbott and the conservatives. It was the beginning of the end for Abbott’s reign. And in truth, Turnbull had been looking for an opportunity to oust him for a while. He now had an opportunity. And then the French deal is what we got.

When Turnbull and his allies were ousted from power of the party, with Morrison and Dutton taking over. I get the sense the French deal that Turnbull and Pyne signed up for was possibly always in a precarious position.

Don’t get me wrong. No particular love for Abbott. Just calling it how I have read accounts from neutral observers in that space.

It does illustrate though. How people more concerned with their own internal and cynical political outlook easily lose sight of the bigger more holistic picture of what they are there to achieve. With disastrously expensive and adverse strategic consequences.
 
Last edited:

eZyT

Tiger Legend
Jun 28, 2019
21,434
25,774
And Porter is finally gawn

just to the backbench?

pissweak stooge.

he should reveal the source and resign from parliament.

sits on the backbench on $300k and protects his donor? *smile* me these *smile* are crooked
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Jul 26, 2004
78,241
38,240
www.redbubble.com
He could lose Pearce, which he holds by 3.8 per cent.

Should be lucky to get 3.8% of the vote in entirety.

just to the backbench?

pissweak stooge.

he should reveal the source and resign from parliament.

sits on the backbench on $300k and protects his donor? *smile* me these *smile* are crooked
Absolutely. Bloody ridiculous he remains in Parliament. Should have his arse kicked to the curb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
44,113
18,924
if he think he can still win then expect him to run as an independent or one of the far right parties.

If that doesn't eventuate he'll end up with a plum public service posting.
 

IanG

Tiger Legend
Sep 27, 2004
18,087
3,323
Melbourne
just to the backbench?

pissweak stooge.

he should reveal the source and resign from parliament.

sits on the backbench on $300k and protects his donor? *smile* me these *smile* are crooked

Yeah its apparently ok to receive a $1m anonymous donation if you're a backbencher
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
44,113
18,924
Morrison won't force anyone out of the party. Lamming, Porter. He even accepted Craig Kelly as a member of the Libs. He needs to keep that slim majority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

22nd Man

Tiger Legend
Aug 29, 2011
9,185
3,597
Essex Heights
One issue seems to be that we handicap ourselves somewhat by operating out of Perth and Sydney.

For years there has been talk of establishing a more significant RAN forward operating base at Exmouth in WA and on the Eastern seaboard, options like Bundaberg or Gladstone in QLD have been mentioned. This would give greater strategic capability and flexibility.

However there are reasons for Perth and Sydney. Contrary to common perception the main motivation isn’t being further from harm’s way. Bundaberg or Exmouth are not as far north as say Darwin, Broome or Cairns. It’s more to do with personnel retention. Both uniformed and civilian technical contractors.
The Naval Dockyard in Synde harbour would be on some of the.most expensive real estate in the country...potts point Woolloomooloo.... no decentralisation there...
 

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,705
1,729
Have never been able to work out the logic of our Submarines operating out of Wa, but maintained in South Australia.
Part of the fleet operates out of fleet base west in Perth and the other part out of fleet base east in Sydney. It’s a dual coastline strategy. Perhaps Adelaide being roughly half way between the two works well.

Not sure of the history behind why Adelaide was chosen to be the centre for submarine construction and servicing back in the 1980s, when the Collins Class project began. These days there is a fair bit of cynical political pork barrelling around it. But perhaps it wasn’t purely just that in the first place. Maybe connected to the amount of heavy auto and machinery manufacturing that Adelaide has a history in, meant there were some synergies. That’s not to say Melbourne wouldn’t have also had the capability to serve this function for similar reasons. Which is where an element of parochial politicking perhaps comes in.
 

K3

Tiger Legend
Oct 9, 2006
5,213
972
Morrison won't force anyone out of the party. Lamming, Porter. He even accepted Craig Kelly as a member of the Libs. He needs to keep that slim majority.
The things people will sell-out on for the lure of power.

Over the past few years Morrison has shown he cares about nothing but the power, this "lack of doing anything", really rams that home!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,705
1,729
The Naval Dockyard in Synde harbour would be on some of the.most expensive real estate in the country...potts point Woolloomooloo.... no decentralisation there...
Don’t worry. That has indeed been noticed. Over the years there have been proposals to move fleet base East (or at least some functions of it) firstly to Jervis Bay on the south coast of NSW. Newcastle has also been discussed, achieving synergies with nearby RAAF Williamtown. And more recently QLD options like Brisbane, the Port of Bundaberg and Gladstone.

The RAN brass don’t want to move though. They go through the motions to make it look like they consider alternative proposals. But I have my doubts there is any intention to even look half seriously at it. Moving would mean giving up their offices with million dollar views. And their cheap, subsidised ADF housing in Australia’s most desirable addresses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
10,523
17,874
Melbourne
Apart from now looking to have nuclear subs in about 15 years time, which I object to because I object to nuclear power, the real questions here are about what the world will look like in 15 years time.

Clearly China is on the rise and is a major rival to the USA and China's power is increasing while the USA looks fairly stagnant. The unipolar world we have seen since the cold war ended is breaking down, if it has not already disappeared.

The move to nuclear subs can mean only one thing really for Australia, we have chosen a side.

Now, one could say that we chose a side in the cold war decades ago. But that was fundamentally different. We are a long way from the Soviet Union, we traded with the USSR but it wasn't a huge amount of trade. The USSR was on Europe's doorstep, not in our region. We have massive trade with China, the whole world relies on China for manufacturing, this is simply not the same. Whether the nongs who we currently have as a government realise this is questionable as this move certainly looks like they are fighting the previous (cold) war.

We are going to have to live with a more powerful China and while I really can't see a hot war there will be rivalries and there will be consequences.

One immediate consequence is that we are not just tied into the USA side of the rivalries, but we will be exposed to their supply chains and maintenance. I'm not sure they have fleshed out the fine detail of this deal but I have real doubts we will be allowed to maintain the propulsion systems on these subs, because that is USA technology they will want to hold on to. Even if we do get to maintain that part of the subs, where do we get the spares from? If there really was a conflict, their own subs will be the priority, not ours. At least if we bought conventional subs we could secure our own borders.

Australia should be having a debate on how we deal with a world which is changing, not just an announcement with little detail, with delivery on the never-never and no questioning of where we fit in a changing world.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,705
1,729
Apart from now looking to have nuclear subs in about 15 years time, which I object to because I object to nuclear power, the real questions here are about what the world will look like in 15 years time.

Clearly China is on the rise and is a major rival to the USA and China's power is increasing while the USA looks fairly stagnant. The unipolar world we have seen since the cold war ended is breaking down, if it has not already disappeared.

The move to nuclear subs can mean only one thing really for Australia, we have chosen a side.

Now, one could say that we chose a side in the cold war decades ago. But that was fundamentally different. We are a long way from the Soviet Union, we traded with the USSR but it wasn't a huge amount of trade. The USSR was on Europe's doorstep, not in our region. We have massive trade with China, the whole world relies on China for manufacturing, this is simply not the same. Whether the nongs who we currently have as a government realise this is questionable as this move certainly looks like they are fighting the previous (cold) war.

We are going to have to live with a more powerful China and while I really can't see a hot war there will be rivalries and there will be consequences.

One immediate consequence is that we are not just tied into the USA side of the rivalries, but we will be exposed to their supply chains and maintenance. I'm not sure they have fleshed out the fine detail of this deal but I have real doubts we will be allowed to maintain the propulsion systems on these subs, because that is USA technology they will want to hold on to. Even if we do get to maintain that part of the subs, where do we get the spares from? If there really was a conflict, their own subs will be the priority, not ours. At least if we bought conventional subs we could secure our own borders.

Australia should be having a debate on how we deal with a world which is changing, not just an announcement with little detail, with delivery on the never-never and no questioning of where we fit in a changing world.

DS
Like I said earlier. I favour Professor Hugh White's version of armed neutrality. It will cost more than the status quo of essentially being a plug in to the US military system (he quotes 3.5% of GDP over the current 1.8%-2.2%). But that's the price you pay to have more control over your own destiny in terms of sovereignty over foreign policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

IanG

Tiger Legend
Sep 27, 2004
18,087
3,323
Melbourne
Like I said earlier. I favour Professor Hugh White's version of armed neutrality. It will cost more than the status quo of essentially being a plug in to the US military system (he quotes 3.5% of GDP over the current 1.8%-2.2%). But that's the price you pay to have more control over your own destiny in terms of sovereignty over foreign policy.

Out of interest would it mean some form of national service?
 
Last edited:

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,705
1,729
Out of interest would it mean some for of national service?
Under the proposed model in the book. He argued not, unless you found yourself actually in a conflict for your nation's survival. So national service is only an absolute last resort. The sort of high tech skills that formed the backbone of the model he set out in the book, meant that national servicemen/women probably wouldn't be the most effective or efficient solution for personnel. It was very much based around a professional, volunteer force. As well as linking into skills in the civilian sector. Perhaps also having a properly funded ADF reserve force too (rather than the barely organised, underfunded mishmash that it currently is) works pragmatically in with the realities of the modern world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user