Also worth noting the hypocrisy of a UK Immigration Minister complaining about open borders and freedom of movement when a UK passport gives you the right to enter like 180 countries either without a visa, or with the bare minimum of entry requirements, often extendable (basically) in perpetuity.

Neezy, for the rizz. Obviously.

Wait so I assume this imposes legal restrictions on Game ever starting up another "Sarah Game [party] Party"? Does being called Sarah Game give her a legal right to challenge the use of her name by the party, or open up legal loopholes to start other eponymous parties? This is nuts, I need to know

The point is, it's generally a good thing for anti-hate speech campaigns to be educative, at least in addition to, if not instead of, repressive. If the behaviour of the right since the 90s is any indication, telling people "you can't say that" without telling them why is unlikely to help.

There are other points that're less unacceptable. "Globalise the intifada" is militaristic and has clear antisemitic implications, although I wonder if, like "from the river to the sea," it's not in many cases being adopted by well-intentioned (but ignorant) activists who don't get the connotations.

Although NSW police physically endangering people in the name of being tougher on crime (of whatever kind) isn't exactly new. Recall the invasive full-body searches on teenagers at music festivals, adopted as an alternative to pill-testing under the Berejiklian Govt. www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12...

Also worth noting Abbott's unusually chill reactions in his new book to, e.g., the massacres in Francoist Spain (or, say, colonial Australia). Abbott isn't typical of people worried for Australian Jews, but he's not the only one on the right who seems to think not all massacres are created equal.

Price and Joyce have very different appeal, though - Price's utility, to the right, is that she makes anti-Indigenous rhetoric more plausible. Joyce is seen to have more agency - he's a Sky hog too, but he also plays to the cultural idea of Nats as a check on big-city Liberals much more effectively.

There's Barton in 1901 and Deakin in 1903 running unopposed, but feels like "technically 100%" goes against the spirit of the exercise.

It's an awful movie. But it's genuinely interesting. The movie doesn't deny that Amazon staff are underpaid, or that their work is demeaning - the message is that they deserve to be badly compensated for demeaning work, because they're all idiots.

The point of the Warringah rules - and any so-called democratisation push in the Liberal Party today - could only ever be to hand the party to its parliamentary extremists, using an appeal to the membership and the branches to dress it up in some phony legitimacy.

As proxies for "moderate" and "right" the combined support ("support") for Price-Hastie-Taylor and Ley-Spender(?)-Wilson seems pretty realistic. But when you shed genuine prospective leaders for three elections in a row, none of the options are realistically going to drum up much actual enthusiasm.