On hearing the news, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said, “Until this war concludes, we’ll just have two parties saying the same thing, so it makes sense to put one away for now”.
Labor leader Bill Shorten later released a statement saying “Until this war concludes, we’ll just have two parties saying the same thing, so it makes sense to put one away for now”.
I mean, I know some love to think that a blog / tv show full of snarky jokes gives a hint of political driving forces behind decisions, or, you know, anything political in the slightest
You don't think it's an accurate remark about how dangerous it is politically to oppose a war drummed up to drive fear into the public? About how major parties lock step in times like these?
"Soft on terrorism", "Can't defend our shores", etc. Huge political risk to work against what's happening.
the idea that the opposition actually needs to oppose every proposal by the government in power is what leads to the current situation in the US congress.
When it comes to certain thing people happen to agree.
If the government came out against eating babies, does the opposition have to start taking a literal interpretation of Swift?
(I am not saying that the Iraq War is "obviously right", I'm just saying that cooperation in government is a possible thing)
Not dismissing that. It's more a comment of locking step as a response to fear and war. Too politically risky not to. I commented slightly up the chain with a little bit more.
Labor Party To Close Down Until After Iraq War: http://www.theshovel.com.au/2014/09/23/labor-party-to-close-...
On hearing the news, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said, “Until this war concludes, we’ll just have two parties saying the same thing, so it makes sense to put one away for now”.
Labor leader Bill Shorten later released a statement saying “Until this war concludes, we’ll just have two parties saying the same thing, so it makes sense to put one away for now”.