What do we do about Sam?
By Steve Laing
A smartly dressed man walks up to an attractive woman sitting alone at a hotel bar. “If I give you $50, will you have sex with me?” he asks. “Certainly not” she replies aghast, “I’m not that kind of woman”. “What if I make it $500?” “I’ve already told you, I’m not that type of woman”. “OK, $5,000”. “Listen, I’ve told you, no”. “What about $50,000?” “No, I’m not interested, please leave me alone”.
“OK, what if I were to give you $500,000 – that’s half a million dollars”. “Half a million you say? Just to have sex with you? No, I’ve already said, I’m not that kind of woman.” “What if I were to offer you five million dollars?” “Five million you say?” “Yep” he replies. “For sex, just once?”, she questions. “Yep”. “OK then, lets do it,” she agrees.
“OK, how about you let me have sex with you for $50”. “Hang on, you just said Five Million! And I’ve already told you, I’m not that type of woman!”
“Actually, we have established you are that type of woman, and now we are just haggling”.
OK, it’s an oldie, and undoubtedly highly offensive to some, for which I apologise (can I claim 18D?), but it highlights a very important, and particularly timely question. And it has got the Labor Party in a very ugly pickle.
“That Sam-I-am, that Sam-I-am, I do not like that Sam-I-am.“ Actually, I do rather like Mr Dastayari, he is clearly smart and funny, and whilst a total media tart, he does manage better than many of his colleagues to get the message across.
But some of his past actions and judgment, whilst looking entirely business as usual if conducted by the other side of the house, have raised some very fundamental concerns amongst the public, and are allowing the government to retaliate after a very, very poor start to the 45th Parliament. And like the joke above he has revealed he has a price, and thus his judgement is now forever open to question.
He has, of course, broken no rules (these politicians somehow never do), yet again the ugly reality of the grubby deals undertaken to gain campaign funds, particularly from the established parties is highlighted, as indeed is their preference to not do anything about it other than to cast aspersions on the morality of the other side. It’s a perfect politics shitstorm, and how Bill deals with it will reveal much.
In the real world, Sam would have been appropriately dealt with already. And in fact had Bill been smarter, he should probably have removed him from his post (at the very least temporarily) as soon as it was clear how smelly this would get. But as with Bronniegate, the lack of action creates a political vacuum that must be filled, and it might be difficult for Bill to come out of it looking good.
If he sacks Sam now, the Coalition will claim victory. But if he doesn’t deal with him, then it will be construed that money (and the factions that sit behind such) talks, and that Bill (like Turnbull) is powerless – another hollow man. And that would be a bigger disaster, because if there is one thing that the Coalition are excellent at, it is repeating their opponents mistakes over and over and over again. One thing is for sure. This issue won’t just go away.
So what will Bill do? I fear, like all political leaders, he will try and hunker down and hope it loses importance. I guarantee it won’t. And like it or not, Sam has broken the trust pact with non-Labor supporters that Bill has slowly been building up. The Coalition will continue to milk this for all it is worth – anything to deflect from their own disasters. Of course, they will do nothing about supporting changes to the rules because that isn’t how they run, but they will very publicly political point score till the cows come home.
Which is why Bill needs to do exactly what they don’t expect. Agree with the Coalition, and sack Sam. Of course the Coalition will rub their hands with glee, considering this a major win, but without realizing that this will also do two things.
- It shows that Bill and his cabinet (rather than the factions) are in charge of his party, won’t tolerate this type of behavior, and thus (exactly in line with the Coalition message) PROVE that he is actually prime minister material. This will also win support from the general public who aren’t rusted on Labor supporters, who will actually expect nothing less.
- It gives Labor moral authority to pursue the rules that govern party funding, which they are currently chasing as their only line of defence against Coalition attacks.As I’ve suggested before, if Labor wants to cast off the accusation of being in the pocket of the union movement (rather than working in alliance with), it needs to somehow unshackle itself from union funding, although recognizing that this can only come about when the Coalition’s usual (and often debatable) sources of funding are similarly blunted. This will also gain support from the sectors of the electorate that Labor need to drive a convincing win at the next election (by which I mean votes, not seats) because many see the system as being a large part of the problem.
So will they do it? Will Labor be bold and take the rather unexpected opportunity to try to change the system, or will they try and play the usual political games? Will their loyalty to Sam (and the faction that sits behind him) stay their hand? Will their desire to keep the Greens underfunded be more important than trying to undermine the funding of their real opponents? Because as we know Labor does not like Green Eggs and Ham, they do not like them Sam-I-am.
(And with that I’ll now retreat to the bunker…).
53 comments
Login here Register here-
paulwalter -
paulwalter -
Klaus -
Annie B -
jim -
paulwalter -
philgorman2014 -
John -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
jimhaz -
Never Been There -
lawrencewinder -
Michael -
Terry2 -
Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.com -
paulwalter -
cornlegend -
corvus boreus -
cornlegend -
paulwalter -
paulwalter -
diannaart -
bobrafto -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
cornlegend -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
wam -
cornlegend -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
Joan Day -
Bighead1883 -
cornlegend -
Bighead1883 -
Harquebus -
Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.com -
cornlegend -
jimhaz -
Kaye Lee -
cornlegend -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
Wayne Turner -
paulwalter -
paulwalter -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
Annie B -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
Annie B -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
paulwalter -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
randalstella -
Michael Taylor -
helvityni
Return to home pageSam is a cultural product of Australian politics..
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/foreign-minister-julie-bishops-links-to-chinese-political-donors-20160823-gqzauy.html
ps, loved the anecdote.
I am a strong Labor supporter but I said to my wife on the day, the story broke, “That Sam has to go. It is bad news for Labor, but this is the price to pay”.
Now, in paying that price, I would insist on structural reforms on foreign donations and while we are at it, donations in general. What is hard about publishing the donations in real time. Technology makes that possible. The Liberals have way too much to loose, if this were the case.
But reform of the whole donation criminality has to be the price for Sam’s head.
Good one Steve … well said.
Please forward a copy of it to Bill Shorten …. he absolutely needs to hear the points you have made, so he can score the points on the board himself. Voters and votes that is, and at the same time deliver a serve to the Coalition that they are not expecting. Would be interesting.
Cheers ….
IMO, a $ 1,400 gift is a lot less that a $5,000 helicopter ride. I think this will eventually come bck and bit the Liberals hard.
Then, of course, there is the problem of getting the truth out of them once they have been detected:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-06/george-brandis-and-mark-dreyfus-foi-dispute/7818938
How is it the AG is so charry about his diary, that he would waste $50,000 of taxpayers money fighting the courts over its release during a period of “budget repair”?
But then he has been involved in and likely benefited from, a rort so huge few identified it, the RC into trades unions- he should have been able to pay his legal bills himself ( irony alert!)).
I too was taken in by Sam’s Dudley Moorish appeal. Is there no end to the petty and not so petty malfeasance of the political classes in this country? Have they no sense of right or wrong? Can they really be so stupid? How can there be any public trust in any level of government?
No, no, yes. Not while it’s business as usual.
Nothing short of a Federal ICAC will do to straighten up Canberra’s ship of fools and rogues. And while we’re at it let’s make sure all the state and territory ICAC equivalents are brought into line so they actually do as good a job as the NSW ICAC was once allowed to do. No ifs, no buts; it’s time to muck out the stables.
A complimentary Royal Commission to investigate the financial sector of the economy would complete the trifector required to restore public confidence in our debauched democracy..
Shorten could take advice from the LNP playbook. After all, Sinodinos is still in the senate.
If Shorten shifts Sam as punishment, the LNP won’t be able to baulk at doing likewise when another one of their degenerates is caught with their fingers in the till.
Also, once party donations are tightened so corporates and unions can’t call the shots, it will be a giant step forward to opening up the electoral system to a multi-party ruling system which will demand more accountability and transparency all round. That can then be good for laying the foundations for democratic socialism instead of neoliberalism.
As of this minute the SMH in the Politics section has SIX articles about this Dastyari issue.
There was only one other article on a different topic.
Embattled Dastyari fails to answer one key question
Dastyari, former Labor star, talks his way to nowhere
The rules stink! You know it, I know it and most MPs know it too
Shorten locks in behind ‘junior’ senator Dastyari
Dastyari goes to ground, Brandis questions if he obeyed law
Shorten stumbles, Brandis blathers and voters turn off (starts off about Dastyari)
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/chinese-donor-the-yuhu-group-steps-in-to-help-sam-dastyari-20150327-1m9be2.html
Pyne and Ashby, Brough and Slipper, Sinodinas, Bishop x2 …Liarbrils never, ever admit fault..it’s always the other side to blame! Labor should do as they do, tough it out and then put legislation to the parliament to eliminate this and the expenses rorts. Hoist the Liarbril bastards on their own Petard when they refuse to act.
Bill: “Here’s the deal, Fizza – Sam in return for electoral reform (as detailed by Bill this afternoon) – could not possibly get better than that?”
Sam: “Yeah, let’s do it.”
Fizza: pssssss
The real question is,what will the government do about clarifying the “Rules” ?
We KNOW the gubbmint will try to do nothing about the rule – not because they are worried about Labor apparently, but because they are worried that it won’t stop the public crowd funding activist groups like change.org and getup. We can’t be having the bloody people getting all uppity and trying to persuade people who to vote for! That’s just not party politics!
And because we know they won’t, which is why Bill has to do what W.C. Fields suggested. Namely take the bull by the tail, and face the situation. In the short-term, it may not be pretty, but it should be worth it IF the Labor party really are wanting a more transparent donation system. As I’ve said, I’m not totally convinced they do, but I’m really hoping that Bill might prove me wrong. Like a Federal ICAC, it would get an awful lot of public support, and that shouldn’t be sniffed at.
Sfa, Terry2. The parties are dependent on private funding and will drop their tweeds and bend over for survival.like the best of them down the Cross. Most of them have their snouts in the trough, anyway…far easier to go along with these things than make a stand.
Someone above mentioned the amount of bash Sam is copping on a quiet news week; the other person singled out appears to be Dr. Mary Anne Demasi, the Catalyst host who fell out with ABC management.
I guess the other thing with Mr.Bean is that he is of the conservative Labor right-faction and he is thus not going to be that much liked by the inner city journos and op- makers either.
Dastyari broke no rules but rectified the situation because, admittedly not a good look, but nothing illegal there
Mr Shorten said he told Senator Dastyari “he shouldn’t have done it and he said he won’t do it again.”
“I have spoken Mr Dastyari,” he said.
“He should’ve paid this himself. I have certainly explained my unhappiness with what he has done.
All done, Sams going nowhere, moving right along
Steve Laing,
Labor, though a recent statement by senator Conroy, have again ruled out the notion of a federal ‘ICAC’ (or similar).
They have tabled a few suggestions for tweaks to tighten future rules on foreign corporate donations, and reduce time-frames for mandatory disclosure (opposed by the coalition), but would rather not air any old laundry for independent inspection.
A shame. As you say, a federal ICAC would get a lot of public support.
As for senator Dastayari (should he stay or should he go?), that’s strictly up to Labor.
Sam isn’t the worst in the house.
The Government is waging a personal campaign against Labor senator Sam Dastyari, raising a series of questions about his links to Beijing and pointing to a paper trail in his disclosure log which tracks a history of accepting Chinese money.
Most Government critics have stopped short of accusing Senator Dastyari of breaking any rules or laws, but they are suggesting the senator has been influenced by the payments in his comments on China.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-05/sam-dastyari-chinese-donations-furore-explained/7816588
The only ones getting their knickers in a knot are Fizza ,Pyne, Barnaby trying to regain some face after Tony Burke humiliated them and the gaggle and the usual Labor haters, thinking maybe a little bit of kerfuffle might somehow benefit the Green cause,
Totally expected
Cornlegend, I agree. This is all a diversion, so many worse examples.
It is indeed so that the legality is not a problem but the morality turns people off and this only the latest of a raft of examples involving dodgy funding etc.
What it all says when put together, is that we have a system where the game is now (possibly) a scramble for necessary funding arrangements, even to the extent of trumping policy and its fair and objective implementation.
Corvus boreus, Such a redoubt Conroy is on this deeply moral thing about slush funds. Pity they weren’t so redoubtable when it comes to pension cuts, DR, ‘FTA’s Israel/US, etc.
As CB said “Sam isn’t the worst in the house” no he’s far from the worst and that’s just Labor I’m talking about, don’t get me started on the LNP.
A good strategic move would be for Bill to sack Dastyayri – to show that justice can be done. I agree completely with Steve Laing, appearing to punish Sam for his indiscretion(s) is a good look.
It is too late? No, given that this ‘crisis’ has endless possibilities for the LNP to milk, put Sam on the shelf.
Steve
My view of prostitutes is that they are a deal more honest than the ‘society’ types who marry for money. Rather fed up with the idea that prostitutes are somehow dumb or liars or untrustworthy.
Yes, I know it a joke – no longer funny, if it ever was.
Then there was a Chinese billionaire who gave Abbott & Co very, very, expensive Rolex watches worth over $40K a pop and Abbott & Co said or thought they were fakes. Really, a billionaire trying to impress with fake watches.
Exactly bobrafto,
why is that example of rabid Abbott’s and Margy’s Rolex watches alone, not being brought up to counter the attack from the Degenerates?
However, the donation system must change, so that donations become inclusive and equitable to all parties. Suits me as I’m an opponent of the duopoly flipflop dinosaurs’ self-entitled belief they alone should rule. Same goes for any alternatives too, if they suffer from the same terminal disease.
(Equitable of course might mean that smaller parties will receive more proportion of the donations to bring every party up to the same level like a good democratic socialist system should work.)
Just a suggestion, if the theme has to fit in with a Dr. Seuss story, for Sam, may I suggest
“Oh, the Places You’ll Go!”.If I Ran the Zoo or “Great Day for Up!”
Ham would be a no no,
hardly one of Sams dietary requirements
I understand ehy a number of Parties would like to see Sam gone.
He gave them hell in his massive effort across states in the BillBus during the campaign
True, Dastayari has done well to fight Big Biz tax avoidance. So, anybody in their right mind, should not want him gone (even though he’s been a greedy, little dickhead.) DuH!
But, the emphasis needs to be on WHO donates to WHOM and HOW all those donations, can be equitably distributed to the electable parties and candidates.
Then, HOW those $$$ will build up the multi-party system that brings back Democratic Socialism that Gough promised, but has since been destroyed by the Lib/Labs for 4 decades.
spot on klaus dastyari’s first inclination was not to pay this young man is in the top 1% of salary earners and bums cash as a first move.
Little billy should have stood him down instantly but no he heads for the sand and lets the turnballs off any hook and gives the diludbrankimbuck a stick to smack labor. pathetic.
jthe joke was, according to churchill would you go to bed with me for $5 million she ponders and he say how about for 6d and says what do you take me for and he say we know what you are we are merely haggling over the price
Jim the principle is not the same. One is a greedy twit and the other an arrogant arsehole neither deserve to be in parliament. the twit could just as easily big tax as a lobbyist.
“HOW all those donations, can be equitably distributed”
They all get their per vote $ from the AEC
How can private donations be ” equitably distributed”?
The chances of any other Partythan Labor getting my hard earned is buckleys
What do you want?
some sort of roster for donations ?
Yep, for time being until the new government formation happens.
Then not roster, but proportionate distribution based on primary votes once electoral distribution is better spread.
It is no different to doing something like this, maybe even worse, corrupt and a conflict of interest, when it comes this sort of top secretive action. Taken by the Prime Minister in a Double Dissolution Election:
MALCOLM Turnbull reportedly donated $1 million from his own pocket, to the Liberal Party, during the federal election.
The Australian reports unnamed sources as saying the prime minister made the “tightly kept secret” donation, in the second half of the eight-week campaign and it is understood not to be tax-deductible.
This must be valued in Rolexes
Is the calculation equal to a zircon encrusted watchband?
Is telling on yourself a bad thing?
“Hey guys,here`s something that could have come off”
If everyone understands that showing up matters and wrong has many dimensions
‘Unfortunately for the Labor Party, they were not able to take full advantage of the self-granted early marks and gain a Banking Royal Commission as they attempted twice. Unfortunately even with the absent Liberals, Labor found itself a couple of votes shy of being able to carry a vote for the Commission.
So what votes were missing?
Independent MP Cathy McGowan had left the building and was unavailable to vote, and the Greens Adam Bandt had decided he had better things to do other than represent his electorate and had left also.
Now I know that spending two whole days working in Canberra must be quite a chore and the prospect of sneaking off early may be tempting, but Greens voters should expect more from the Party’s sole member of the House Of Representatives.”
Jennifer Meyer-Smith
on your rosters
“Yep, for time being until the new government formation happens”
Really?
You have to be joking?
So, if your name came up when the Hanson One Nation reached the top. you’d donate to Pauline ,
Joan Day September 6, 2016 at 9:52 pm
Yes Joan and succinctly put
This donation aka: Turnbull is buying power just as Clive Palmer had done
This power is only used to benefit the 1% delivered by the Legislated 4% paid for by the 95%
What do we do about Sam and all the rest?
A few ideas.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF PUNISHMENTS
http://www.localhistories.org/pun.html
Search criteria: old punishments
Whether Sam has done nothing illegal, or that coalition have done worse actually matters not one jot, because one thing I learned very early on in my career is that perception IS reality, and the perception is that Sam has been taking money when perhaps he ought not to have. The point of my poor tale is that once you’ve surrendered your values, you are no longer able to defend them. Sam can no longer attack the values of a greedy banking system without such attacks looking very hollow.
Whilst I am sure that Labor supporters believe there is nothing to see here, that isn’t the public perception, and sure, the media may be somewhat over egging the pudding, but did you expect otherwise? This is the perception that the undecided voter sees, and it doesn’t look good for Labor at all. The Coalition know this, which is why they are attacking, knowing their attack will likely make Labor dig in. If Sam stays, the Coalition will be quietly delighted.
With regards to the nice deflection from Bighead regarding independents and Greens members leaving the chamber early (whilst conveniently de-emphasising the fact that at least one Labor member was in a taxi on the way to the airport at the time and was called back by the whip, a communication that neither Bandt nor McGowan would have been privy to), you are in many ways correct. All members should be there till the bell is rung. And that includes the Labor ones too. So many thanks for pointing out yet another issue with our “fabulous” system of governance.
And Cornlegend, having seen Sam necking a cold one, I’d suggest that despite his background, he isn’t strictly halal in his habits, however perhaps the ham I was quoting had more to do with the quality of his public apology…
Steve
“perception is the reality”
“The point of my poor tale is that once you’ve surrendered your values, you are no longer able to defend them.”
Now that would be if they are not on your team anf you want a free kick?
I looked back over your articles Steve, just to see of the moral conviction stuck but it seems not always,
“”The national minimum wage is currently $17.70 per hour or $672.70 per 38 hour week (before tax). Casual employees covered by the national minimum wage also get at least a 25 per cent casual loading”
Fair Work Ombudsman”
And I wondered where the exploitation on workers fitted in the moral indignation.
Di Natale and his $4 an hour AU Pairs, child minders,cook, bottlewashers and any other job deemed necessary and all was quiet.
Di Natale promised all documentation and paperwork back then, still none
and the 10%ers went quiet.
No wonder the Greens failed to make submission on Penalty rates to to the Fair Work Commission inquiry on the issue.but littlwe wonder when Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson who described penalty rates as part of a “white Anglo-Saxon cultural’’ inheritance no longer relevant for many workers.
Me, I’m more inclined to get really pissed of over worker exploitation, particularly exploitation of the low paid. but I guess
moral indignation and “perception is the reality” count more when you can point score against the other team.
Steve, what rule or Law DID Sam break ?
Of the list in Harquebus link, I’d choose
Scold’s Bridle: This was a metal frame place over a woman’s head. It had a bit that stuck in her mouth to prevent her talking.
Oh for the good old days of silent dependent servitude
Kaye Lee
I see, I can see YOU would like a Scold’s Bridle 😀
I’ll see what I could knock up for you
Not that I want to give cornlegend any ideas,
my understanding was a Scold’s Bridle was something the Crusaders imposed upon their wives to keep their virtuousness while the Crusaders were off fighting in the Crusades.
I strongly disagree with this article,and suggestion to sack Dastyari.It’s caving in to the bullying of both the LNP and their MSM.Also,it will be pandering to the gullible idiots in the public,who will then follow via the MSM,that: “He must have done something illegal then”.
Anyway:-
NEWS JUST IN: Dastyari has punished himself.
This article is better:-
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-sharks-the-scent-of-blood-and-sam-dastyari,9444
Jennifer MS, you have a Scold’s Bridle confused with a Chastity Belt..A Scold’s Bridle is a bit like a horse’s bit, designed to fit into an offenders mouth, over the tongue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scold%27s_bridle
An interesting read .http://junkee.com/leigh-sales-ripped-barnaby-joyce-last-night-donation-received-gina-rinehart/84648
I accept your interpretation, paulwalter, but I seem to remember a BBC series shown on good old Aunty well before the time of Mark Scott and the even worse Michelle Guthrie, which was entitled as such and was explained once the whodunit was solved.
I accept criticism for not being more forensic than that but what can I say?!
Jennifer ……
paulwalter got in before me …. LOL.
The Chastity Belt ( what a gross bit of ‘machinery’ that was ) was indeed used through the Crusades and further middle ages, by men going to war ( of any description ) who wanted to keep their lady/ ladies ( some had more than 1 ) … for themselves, and only for themselves.
So, under lock and key they ‘jiggered things up’, for any roaming knight who had a need !! 😉 ..
Maybe Aunty got it wrong …. and the BBC have been known to mess up a few stories in their time.
What can you say ? … what could anyone say about that particular little *delight* !!! 🙁 Thankfully, we have moved on from those times – but then again ? … brutal mistreatment of women is still alive and well today.
Must end there – don’t want to get too fired up.
Thankyou Annie B,
I knew about that chastity belt bit
then learnt about scolds bit of bullshit
Oh good grief Jennifer …. After I had posted that rigmarole about chastity belts, and time had gone past editing, I thought …. how bloody condescending of me to explain all that to you … 🙁
My apologies. I get carried away – and the written word has to be carefully done, in order not to insult, offend or patronise. ( of course, none of those things intended to you ).
My Mum ( now gone from us ) used to say ( and I thought she was rather paranoid ) ….. ” never put anything in writing ” !!
She was adamant about it. Must have been bitten at some stage – which is something she would never have admitted btw.
I don’t dare touch the Scolds’ Bridle thing. 🙂 🙂
Annie B,
my respects to you anytime.
You do not condescend.
Just awake from a snooze.
JMS, I know the show you mean from back around or a bit after “House of Cards”, when Britain were still doing cutting edge tv.
Based on a novel by the typically quirky Minette Walters, the cast was at the top of its game, the action fast and complex, dialogue crisp and some times a bit nasty, since it in the end deals with some nasty themes.
If people loved House of Cards they would love this…classic Brit noir.
Exactly, paulwalter.
Stan Dastyari broke no laws.
In fact he complied with one of the foundational laws of the land.
He acted on the Media law: Labor are equivalent to the Liberals.
It is a law governing perception. A very big and powerful law.
I agree with you, randalstella. I can’t see what law he broke.
This has been a combination of another one of the Liberal’s “hey, look over there” and the media making a beat-up over a very small story.
Too right, Michael.
The Libs are not too happy that Labor is ahead at the polls.
And when they are doing badly, they turn the spotlight towards Labor: CFA, Sam Sam the Muslim Man, RC into anything to unseat Gillard, Shorten, whoever…
They also have so much secret men’s business, they stay silent about ‘on water matters’, ‘on air matters’,’under-water boat matters’…