Support NeoGAF

[Shaneus]

I was in the Young Labor party at a G8 university. Our meetings consisted of drinking beer and working out new ways to torture the young liberal guys. Our days were full.

It's like an Australian version of Animal House.

 

[bobnowhere]

Potential One Nation senator fails in bid to delay trial over stealing charge

The likely ONP senator elect from WA is facing separate theft charges in NSW and WA! Both seem to stem from interfering with legal repossession proceedings. It cannot be that hard to vet potential representatives. Are you currently facing charges? Yes/No

 

[Elaugaufein]

Potential One Nation senator fails in bid to delay trial over stealing charge

The likely ONP senator elect from WA is facing separate theft charges in NSW and WA! Both seem to stem from interfering with legal repossession proceedings. It cannot be that hard to vet potential representatives. Are you currently facing charges? Yes/No

Except that people lie and One Nation has nothing like the resources of even the Greens to do things like comprehensive background checks.

 

[Arksy]

Bottom up vs top down is a pretty good way of describing how the left and right generally approach issues. At least before the right got drunk with power and forgot that they were supposed to believe in something.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Bottom up vs top down is a pretty good way of describing how the left and right generally approach issues. At least before the right got drunk with power and forgot that they were supposed to believe in something.

If the left can ever figure out one thing we all agree we stand for we'll let you know and you can go from there. (Don't hold your breath)

 

[darkace]

If the left can ever figure out one thing we all agree we stand for we'll let you know and you can go from there. (Don't hold your breath)

I always thought you knew what you stood for, you just disagreed on the method and extent. Very much a 'perfect is the enemy of the good'.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I always thought you knew what you stood for, you just disagreed on the method and extent. Very much a 'perfect is the enemy of the good'.

I doubt there's a whole lot that a Labor Right Union Boss , D.Lo, me , and a Socialist Equality member all agree on even in terms of fundamental axioms. Excessive corporate power is a problematic thing maybe ?

And different extents of standing for things can effectively be standing for different things. Different positions on things the scale of free speech vs anti-discrimination can read entirely differently even if we both agree that people shouldn't be verbally attacked on discriminatory grounds.

 

[D.Lo]

I doubt there's a whole lot that a Labor Right Union Boss , D.Lo, me , and a Socialist Equality member all agree on even in terms of fundamental axioms. Excessive corporate power is a problematic thing maybe ?

And different extents of standing for things can effectively be standing for different things. Different positions on things the scale of free speech vs anti-discrimination can read entirely differently even if we both agree that people shouldn't be verbally attacked on discriminatory grounds.

I think there may be some fundamentals in economic terms, at least in terms of direction (eg less capital concentration, more social policy) if not an end point (Nordic social states? Further?)

But other issues get in the way. Primarily individual vs society rights issues. We can't get fairness in the tax system organised because we're too busy arguing whether marijuana should be legalised or not etc.

And historic elements like the role of unions are difficult to tackle, since they come with baggage.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I think there may be some fundamentals in economic terms, at least in terms of direction (eg less capital concentration, more social policy) if not an end point (Nordic social states? Further?)

But other issues get in the way. Primarily individual vs society rights issues. We can't get fairness in the tax system organised because we're too busy arguing whether marijuana should be legalised or not etc.

And historic elements like the role of unions are difficult to tackle, since they come with baggage.

Of course there are people who are only on the left because of some of those issues and don't give a squib about the economic part.

And we're just talking about Australian politics here , in the US there's also much stronger explicitly racial elements (there's some in Australia but our different demographics make it far less central , Pauline Hansons rise is a thing but her success is tiny compared to say Trump).

 

[30yearsofhurt]

Potential One Nation senator fails in bid to delay trial over stealing charge

The likely ONP senator elect from WA is facing separate theft charges in NSW and WA! Both seem to stem from interfering with legal repossession proceedings. It cannot be that hard to vet potential representatives. Are you currently facing charges? Yes/No

I've said it before in this thread.
The standards of professionalism of political parties versus the standards of the public institutions they're supposed to 'lead' is like night and fucking day.
Get rid of politicians and the public service would solve half the country's problems in no time on their own.

edit: With the exception of QLD. They're all incompetent up there.

 

[Arksy]

I had a thought, and I want people's opinions, because it kind of struck me today. The topic is the outrage following the Cheltenham Girls High School Drama.

I don't really want to talk about the politics of it, because I frankly don't give a shit...but a thought struck me. I've heard many objections here in this thread regarding direct democracy, but hasn't society created a kind of "resulting direct democracy"? Take this issue, which is basically an issue between the schoolkids, the parents and the school administration has become a national issue, with social pressure one way or another having a huge impact, wanted or not. The school is now having to juggle their public image, rightly or wrongly, when this could have probably been solved at a local level between the actual affected parties? Instead it seems like the loudest screams from the public will decide this issue.

Don't you think that the same issues inherent with direct democracy (from what I understand, a tragedy of the commons objection) also inherent when things like this blow up and are subject to social media?

I don't want to blame something like outrage culture, because I think that's just a symptom of a massively interconnected world, and even I strongly disagree, I hate the idea that people can't express themselves.....but it seems like everyone has an opinion on what is essentially a private matter. You can find these sorts of examples all over the news, at a greater frequency.

What do you guys think? Do you guys think there are some issues here? Do you disagree and think I'm full of it? I want to know, because it's been a thought I can't get out of my head. I don't think it's an issue for society to resolve its problems publicly through debate, that's how it should happen in my mind...but I don't feel like there's much constructive debate going on when you have 5 thousand people sending 140 characters of mere disgust. A part of me thinks that out of everything going on, this is how we focus our energy? On a private matter? Don't we have actual issues to deal with?

Edit: Consequently this is why I hate reddit, no one can ever get a dissenting voice in.

 

[Tommy DJ]

Its only a public issue because The Daily Telegraph made it a public issue. It should have been solved at a local level between teachers, students, parents. Yet it isn't because The Daily Telegraph, who I believe first published this news, has no interest in presenting actual facts. Because they're actually not interested in what the school does and is doing.

Unsurprisingly, the school has hit back at Miranda Devine saying that they never told teachers to use gender neutral terms. Nevermind that staff using gender neutral terms at girls-only schools isn't all that new because "ladies" and "girls" often sounds pretty anachronistic and condescending.

The issue is that people aren't thinking critically about these issues. This is a literal non-issue for everyone involved that has become something bigger because you have a columnist, who has a history of being extremely loose with the facts, trying to do another hit piece against the Safe Schools program. Even if they were told to use gender neutral terms, teachers at the school are either going to call female students collectively as "students" or we go back to refer students as girls/ladies if student(s) are actually legitimately offended for some reason.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here to be honest. I honestly don't think anyone cares about this school and what its actually doing, regardless of the media attention its getting. Its still a private matter for the school between the supposed parents who object and the school administration. What you're seeing are political motivated people using this as a springboard to hit out against something else (in this case, Safe Schools program).

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

I had a thought, and I want people's opinions, because it kind of struck me today. The topic is the outrage following the Cheltenham Girls High School Drama.

I don't really want to talk about the politics of it, because I frankly don't give a shit...but a thought struck me. I've heard many objections here in this thread regarding direct democracy, but hasn't society created a kind of "resulting direct democracy"? Take this issue, which is basically an issue between the schoolkids, the parents and the school administration has become a national issue, with social pressure one way or another having a huge impact, wanted or not. The school is now having to juggle their public image, rightly or wrongly, when this could have probably been solved at a local level between the actual affected parties? Instead it seems like the loudest screams from the public will decide this issue.

Don't you think that the same issues inherent with direct democracy (from what I understand, a tragedy of the commons objection) also inherent when things like this blow up and are subject to social media?

I don't want to blame something like outrage culture, because I think that's just a symptom of a massively interconnected world, and even I strongly disagree, I hate the idea that people can't express themselves.....but it seems like everyone has an opinion on what is essentially a private matter. You can find these sorts of examples all over the news, at a greater frequency.

What do you guys think? Do you guys think there are some issues here? Do you disagree and think I'm full of it? I want to know, because it's been a thought I can't get out of my head. I don't think it's an issue for society to resolve its problems publicly through debate, that's how it should happen in my mind...but I don't feel like there's much constructive debate going on when you have 5 thousand people sending 140 characters of mere disgust. A part of me thinks that out of everything going on, this is how we focus our energy? On a private matter? Don't we have actual issues to deal with?

Edit: Consequently this is why I hate reddit, no one can ever get a dissenting voice in.

People have been sticking their noses into their neighbours' business since before we were able to stand upright. It is human nature to gossip and also human nature to punish the socially divergent and drown out their objections with the deafening roar of orthodoxy. Believe me, in a different age, the same kind of outrage would have played out in the letters to the editor and on radio programs.

The school's actions are rather unusual and make me think that it might have been prompted by a very specific situation that may have occurred at the school. I'm not exactly clear on what prompted the guidelines, but the outrage seems to be from religious folk and average mums and dads horrified at the thought of having to make allowance for someone whose existence they'd never previously had to devote any thought to.

Gender issues are sensitive topics and cut to the very core of human identity. Think about how insulting it is in our culture to insinuate that a man is feminine or that a woman is masculine because they don't quite fit the mould. A man who loves musical theatre or a woman who goes pig shooting aren't going to have a good time of it socially, but for the most part, their identity as a man or as a woman is never called into question. Now imagine not fitting into neat categories at all, not even simply being gay or straight, but feeling as though you were born into the wrong body, feeling as though you were neither male nor female, feeling as though you were both. The simple dignity of being addressed by and treated as the gender you identify as would always be denied you.

I can't even imagine the kind of anxiety that would generate.

The religious folk's disapproval, I can understand, if not condone. The Bible does indeed take a very conservative line on sexual matters and is even ambivalent when it comes to sex within monogamous heterosexual relationships. Anything falling outside of that is, at best a loss of honour and at worst an abomination. Identify as a Christian of any sort and there will be voices within your community who will make these arguments with at least the legitimacy of scriptural backing. Though you may ultimately dismiss what they have to say, even when using scriptural arguments of your own (e.g. application of the Golden Rule), their voices cannot be simply ignored. A true believer, whose worldview rightly or wrongly includes a reverence for the text of the Bible, might feel compelled to feel this way about the topic when they otherwise mightn't.

Personally, I cannot reconcile the moral imperatives (including the Golden Rule) within Christian practice with the pain caused by the social ostracism of gay people that following the Bible entails.

The rest though, whose lives aren't guided by religious ideology, are just being dicks.

 

[Yagharek]

It's nice to know a controversy has been whipped up by Miranda Devine so I know before even reading anything about it that it is a non-issue blown up into a hard right nutjob rage fest.

 

[Arksy]

I don't actually care about the politics of the matter. I was just using it as a springboard for further discussion on the nature of our interconnected world.

Visciouskillersquirrel is right that this has been happening forever, but given that it no longer requires any where near the amount of effort (the internet) and the fact that everyone can play a part, the volume has increased drastically.

My question, proposition was; do you guys think it's at all an issue that this keeps happening? There is no rhyme or rhythmn to it, the noise swings both left and right.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

It's nice to know a controversy has been whipped up by Miranda Devine so I know before even reading anything about it that it is a non-issue blown up into a hard right nutjob rage fest.

Wait, this is a Miranda Devine job? Total non-issue. Regardless of her faith or lack thereof, I cannot imagine she would ever deliberately be a good person or knowingly make a moral decision based on empathy or kindness.

I don't actually care about the politics of the matter. I was just using it as a springboard for further discussion on the nature of our interconnected world.

Visciouskillersquirrel is right that this has been happening forever, but given that it no longer requires any where near the amount of effort (the internet) and the fact that everyone can play a part, the volume has increased drastically.

My question, proposition was; do you guys think it's at all an issue that this keeps happening? There is no rhyme or rhythmn to it, the noise swings both left and right.

Eh. Even before the Internet, these things were occurring with frequency and voices were being heard from all sorts of people who had no business commenting. I don't suppose you have ever heard of an obscure television program called A Current Affair?

Do you remember how fifteen years ago, teenagers were apparently wearing colour coded bracelets that indicated the kinds of deviant sex acts they were willing to perform on anyone who knew the codes? How they had orgiastic parties that were full-on drunken, drug-fuelled wall-to-wall Eyes-Wide-Shut-esque bacchanalia? Parties, I might add, that you never seemed to be invited to, even though they were apparently happening all the time?

Frothing outrage is more efficiently delivered, perhaps, but it froths no more than it did yesteryear.

 

[Fredescu]

but given that it no longer requires any where near the amount of effort (the internet) and the fact that everyone can play a part, the volume has increased drastically.

I think you're right. "It always used to happen" sure, for people who actively wanted to stay informed and get involved. Now it happens on Facebook. Come for the baby pics, stay for the radicalisation.

My question, proposition was; do you guys think it's at all an issue that this keeps happening? There is no rhyme or rhythmn to it, the noise swings both left and right.

Yeah, I honestly don't see an antidote to outrage culture and the knee jerk reactions that it results in.

 

[Fredescu]

Eh. Even before the Internet, these things were occurring with frequency and voices were being heard from all sorts of people who had no business commenting. I don't suppose you have ever heard of an obscure television program called A Current Affair?

About a million viewers vs 15 million active Facebook users. Thats a huge shift.

 

[Arksy]

It's hard to argue against its power. My argument is that it's creating on its own an anarchistic force of substantial power with the power to affect a lot of change. Obviously it can be for the good or bad....my question was; do you look at this as a type of mob rule?

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

About a million viewers vs 15 million active Facebook users. Thats a huge shift.

That's like comparing the number of ACA viewers to the number of people who own televisions. I have to concede that people who are willing to listen to nonsense are easier to reach, but does that amount to mob rule in a way that is new or unprecedented? I doubt it.

 

[Fredescu]

That's like comparing the number of ACA viewers to the number of people who own televisions. I have to concede that people who are willing to listen to nonsense are easier to reach, but does that amount to mob rule in a way that is new or unprecedented? I doubt it.

Political news has essentially become opt out rather than opt in. I think this is unprecedented. Mob rule I'm not so sure about.

 

[Elaugaufein]

It's hard to argue against its power. My argument is that it's creating on its own an anarchistic force of substantial power with the power to affect a lot of change. Obviously it can be for the good or bad....my question was; do you look at this as a type of mob rule?

Yes. Its got pretty much the same characteristics as a mob. People pile on just to be seen agreeing and sometimes the sheer magnitude of people involved causes outcomes disproportionate to the original issue. And it's not unusual for people to fail to check that the information presented is correct.

When that's people trying to put pressure on decision makers that's fine (that's literally what a politicians job should be listening to the people , finding the correct outcome , explaining why (whether it agrees with be pressure groups desires or not) and then actualizing it.


When it's pressure on other groups or individuals its a lot more potentially destructive because they seldom have both the inclination and resources to correctly address these things.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

Political news has essentially become opt out rather than opt in. I think this is unprecedented. Mob rule I'm not so sure about.

The way I see it, the Internet is bringing us back to the kind of civic communication you could have when the biggest political unit you could live under was a city state. In those days, you knew the politicians, because you had familial, tribal or patronage ties to them. They were your cousins, your neighbours, your landlords.

These notables couldn't even break wind without the whole town knowing about it. Even if you didn't care, you'd find out about it just going about your daily life, either because you personally gagged upon smelling the deed or because your buddy did and told you about it. Everything everyone did affected everyone else and the city regulated itself as much with social pressure as with civic.

It feels as though the clock is being turned back to the days of (say) the Roman Republic. It comes with its upsides, allowing greater participation from people who were previously isolated or disengaged by the tyranny of distance. The downsides though, are that people like Andrew Bolt are able to find an audience.

Maybe it's turning up the pressure on our society, but I think we'll adjust.

 

[Bernbaum]

Regarding recent Pauline Hanson news.

My partner and I traveled to Cairns this past weekend to attend the Cairns Indigenous Art Festival (CIAF). We flew out of Brisbane Domestic airport and stood behind Pauline Hanson at check in. We commented, "Ah crap, Pauline Hanson". This was the day before she got ejected from the event and yelled at. She had an entourage and was generally left alone and proceeded through baggage claim and security as per everyone else

Whilst in Cairns, and prior to her ejection from the venue, we read this quote from Pauline in the Guardian:

"I’m in Cairns and I actually got here on a commercial flight so at the Brisbane airport I was surprised to see so many security people there beefed up because of what’s happened in Paris,”

That statement has no factual basis. There was no security beyond the normal standard. Either she is so disconnected from what everyday travellers experience with Air travel, or she is overstating the level of airport security to make a sensationalist remark.

We really did not want her to attend CIAF. When we landed in Cairns, we saw she was there and knew immediately she was going to pull some kind of stunt.

 

[Fredescu]

The way I see it, the Internet is bringing us back to the kind of civic communication you could have when the biggest political unit you could live under was a city state. In those days, you knew the politicians, because you had familial, tribal or patronage ties to them. They were your cousins, your neighbours, your landlords.

Civic communication is happening worldwide and language that stokes strong emotion spreads the quickest. Facts are boring and truth is difficult. Filling people with certainty is easy when they desire to be filled. The internet is allowing people who might not have had a pre existing prejudice to develop one and has greatly lowered the barrier to entry into communities expressing said prejudice. For example, I found out recently that a friends sister married a guy who seemed ok at the time I guess, but has since joined the ALA and taken to writing daily anti Muslim screeds on Facebook.

I guess the main benefit to all this is the massive splintering that is occurring that will probably result in a lot of political inaction, but I don't know how places without preferential voting are going to cope. It seems like real representation will just get lower and lower. Somethings gotta give.

but I think we'll adjust.

What would not adjusting look like to you? I'm not saying we're all doomed, but political uncertainty is surely on the up and up.

 

[Quasar]

A little bit of positive news.

A new mosque development in Cessnock in the hunter valley got approved tonight by council. Really did think in the current climate it was doomed.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

Civic communication is happening worldwide and language that stokes strong emotion spreads the quickest. Facts are boring and truth is difficult. Filling people with certainty is easy when they desire to be filled. The internet is allowing people who might not have had a pre existing prejudice to develop one and has greatly lowered the barrier to entry into communities expressing said prejudice. For example, I found out recently that a friends sister married a guy who seemed ok at the time I guess, but has since joined the ALA and taken to writing daily anti Muslim screeds on Facebook.

I guess the main benefit to all this is the massive splintering that is occurring that will probably result in a lot of political inaction, but I don't know how places without preferential voting are going to cope. It seems like real representation will just get lower and lower. Somethings gotta give.



What would not adjusting look like to you? I'm not saying we're all doomed, but political uncertainty is surely on the up and up.

Demagoguery isn't new at all. Sir Joh getting re-elected all those times in Queensland wasn't an aberration.

Perhaps Facebook is replacing the conversations people had around the tea table or at the pub, but the base motivations behind people's opinions remain the same. Humans are emotional, rather than rational beings. Lots of people haven't had a rational thought in their lives and have no desire to either. This leaves them prey to the rantings of demagogues, something that can only be fought with education and counter-messaging that appeals to the gut as well as the head.

If we're made uncomfortable by the exposure extreme opinions are getting nowadays, it's because we haven't ever had to deal with this sort of riff raff before. The major political parties rightfully excluded them from mainstream discourse and relegated them to their own little corner away from civilised people.

We cannot completely silence these voices anymore, but we can paint them as what they are. More discourse, not less, is required.

And an example of not coping with these changes might be Greece in the past few years, or even the late Roman Republic. Neither are good outcomes but they came about because of a failure of mainstream politics to resolve real (as opposed to budget) crises.

 

[Fredescu]

Demagoguery isn't new at all. Sir Joh getting re-elected all those times in Queensland wasn't an aberration.

It's not new, but it's has been decentralised. Both the communication channels and the sources. Anti vax is a good example of something that is on the rise without there needing to be a high profile public figure or mainstream media source in support of it.

Perhaps Facebook is replacing the conversations people had around the tea table or at the pub

It's really scale we're talking about, and the effects of that scale. People don't have to physically get together. News spreads faster and gets to more people. Outrage gets amplified with numbers. People habitually check Facebook multiple times a day. It is easy to become part of that outraged mob. A dentist has to close his practice for weeks because he killed a lion. A mother gets harassed because her kid fell into a gorilla pen. Yes outrage at similar things has happened in the past, but when millions of people find out about something at once, there is no cooling effect of finding out a few days later. The scale and speed of news is unprecedented. Our legal and political systems have yet to properly adjust. Some shitty things will happen until they do.

 

[Fredescu]

It's not 100% on topic, but since the thread is slow and we've been talking about internet demagoguery, you should read this thing on Milo and the effect of internet trolls on politics: https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-banned-8d1b6e0b2932#.zbwlrp1qg

"Weaponised insincerity" goddamn. To make it on topic, which Aussie nutjob pundits do you guys think are believers, and which are trolls? I reckon Bolt is a believer and Rita Panahi is a troll. I'd put Chris Kenny in the troll column too.

 

[Elaugaufein]

It's not 100% on topic, but since the thread is slow and we've been talking about internet demagoguery, you should read this thing on Milo and the effect of internet trolls on politics: https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-banned-8d1b6e0b2932#.zbwlrp1qg

"Weaponised insincerity" goddamn. To make it on topic, which Aussie nutjob pundits do you guys think are believers, and which are trolls? I reckon Bolt is a believer and Rita Panahi is a troll. I'd put Chris Kenny in the troll column too.

Bolt actually has some history on the left side of politics which means that troll is possible. But he'd hardly be the only person with previous left wing associations who swung hard right.

(Of course trolling left-wingers and being sincerely right wing aren't mutually exclusive to start with.)

 

[Fredescu]

(Of course trolling left-wingers and being sincerely right wing aren't mutually exclusive to start with.)

Yep, I'm referring to those who aren't sincere at all in their right wing beliefs, not just those who like to get a rise out of the other side. See the description of Milo in the linked article for context.

 

[Arksy]

Bolt is one of the best trolls in the world.

 

[Quasar]

Demagoguery isn't new at all. Sir Joh getting re-elected all those times in Queensland wasn't an aberration.

I just kind of think its made worse by internet and how it so easily to filer out your own views and only from the voices that reinforce and/or egg on your own views.

Of course that's just a step up from only accepting news from one outlet that agrees with you, such as fox news, but still. Not that I'm immune from that...given how I try and filter out the likes of bolt, akermain, devine, etc.

 

[Jintor]

i still find it unbelievable australian politics is this shithouse and yet american politics manages to be somehow even worse

 

[Yagharek]

i still find it unbelievable australian politics is this shithouse and yet american politics manages to be somehow even worse

I think so far as the anglosphere goes its something like NZ > Canada > R. Ireland > Australia > UK > USA

 

[Yagharek]

It's not 100% on topic, but since the thread is slow and we've been talking about internet demagoguery, you should read this thing on Milo and the effect of internet trolls on politics: https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-banned-8d1b6e0b2932#.zbwlrp1qg

"Weaponised insincerity" goddamn. To make it on topic, which Aussie nutjob pundits do you guys think are believers, and which are trolls? I reckon Bolt is a believer and Rita Panahi is a troll. I'd put Chris Kenny in the troll column too.

I'm not sure what's worse. Someone who genuinely believes something stupid or someone who does it for money.

I think a sincere idiot at least can be educated. Someone who does it for money has already demonstrated they prioritise money over all else, knowingly.

 

[bobnowhere]

Shenanigans going on Labor caucus. Kim Carr was going to be dumped by the left from cabinet for being far too cozy with Shorten's right but instead Carr has split from the Socialist left faction to form the progressive/industrial left faction but was unable to get enough numbers to get one cabinet spot. But Billy saved his mate and now there are going to be 32 in cabinet, 2 more than allowed. The solution? Andrew Leigh and Sam Dastyari while still on the front bench will only be paid as backbenchers!

Sam is clearly not the power broker he thought he was and Leigh is probably being punished for ticking the "none of the above" box when it comes to filling out factional allegiance forms.

 

[Dead Man]

Shenanigans going on Labor caucus. Kim Carr was going to be dumped by the left from cabinet for being far too cozy with Shorten's right but instead Carr has split from the Socialist left faction to form the progressive/industrial left faction but was unable to get enough numbers to get one cabinet spot. But Billy saved his mate and now there are going to be 32 in cabinet, 2 more than allowed. The solution? Andrew Leigh and Sam Dastyari while still on the front bench will only be paid as backbenchers!

Sam is clearly not the power broker he thought he was and Leigh is probably being punished for ticking the "none of the above" box when it comes to filling out factional allegiance forms.

They have to declare factional allegiances? That's hilarious.

 

[bomma_man]

not this shit again

 

[bobnowhere]

They have to declare factional allegiances? That's hilarious.

More of a figure of speech really! But it does go to show that not being a part of one of the 2 major factions can hurt your chances even when you're smarter than most of the rest put together.

How it used to work was you joined the party and then formally joined a separate faction but it's a long time since I was a member of the ALP.

 

[bomma_man]

More of a figure of speech really! But it does go to show that not being a part of one of the 2 major factions can hurt your chances even when you're smarter than most of the rest put together.

How it used to work was you joined the party and then formally joined a separate faction but it's a long time since I was a member of the ALP.

I like that Tasmania stuck it up the factions by reelecting Lisa Singh purely on below the line preferences.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I like that Tasmania stuck it up the factions by reelecting Lisa Singh purely on below the line preferences.

I don't think she got a Quota but she's Close enough to bump the person ahead.

(Also I thought it was policy to put sitting Sensators at the top in order of rank and then seniority. How did a sitting Sensator end up in a losing spot ? I know the factions can be dumb (see also WA with Bullock and the massive vote increase Ludlam got as a result) but surely not that dumb.

 

[bomma_man]

They're pretty dumb.

Iirc there was even talk of Wong getting kicked down the ticket (not into last place, but still).

 

[Arksy]

It'll be nigh on impossible to get rid of Wong. She has pretty high support from ALP voters and non-ALP voters. Especially when have to put down 12 votes below the line. I remember putting her in my top 12. I don't much agree with her, but she's effective opposition.

 

[bobnowhere]

They're pretty dumb.

Iirc there was even talk of Wong getting kicked down the ticket (not into last place, but still).

I think it was 2013, she was pushed down the order into 2nd place my factional weeny Don Farrell but there was a massive stink and she was reinstated to 1st. Luckily she was as Labor only got 1 in SA that election. Don Farrell got in this time though.

I don't think she got a Quota but she's Close enough to bump the person ahead.

(Also I thought it was policy to put sitting Sensators at the top in order of rank and then seniority. How did a sitting Sensator end up in a losing spot ? I know the factions can be dumb (see also WA with Bullock and the massive vote increase Ludlam got as a result) but surely not that dumb.

Another non-factional labor person forgotten! Apparently she ran a great below the line campaign in and around Hobart even with Greens voters and that should move her from 6th to 5th in the order.

 

[bomma_man]

There were some inner city booths where she got more below the line votes than Labor got above the line. The article I read attributed it to Tasmanians being pretty comfortable with proportional voting systems.

 

[bomma_man]

It's snowed at sea level (or close enough to it) twice already this year, after it happening once last year. Prior to that it, since I've been alive, happened in like 2006 and 1994.

We are fucked.

 

[Elaugaufein]

It's snowed at sea level (or close enough to it) twice already this year, after it happening once last year. Prior to that it, since I've been alive, happened in like 2006 and 1994.

We are fucked.

See Global Warming isn't real or it wouldn't be snowing more often. QED

Spoiler

/s

 

[shanshan310]

Holy shit my fb feed had just exploded with people I thought reasonable posting dumb crap in support of Sonja whatshername. I can't believe it.

Best worst part: "I have lots of Muslim friends but I want them banned from Australia". I'm sure they are really close friends of yours indeed. If she had met any Muslims at all I doubt she'd be saying any of this....

Also perplexed and annoyed that Japan continues to be held up as some weird holy land for anti-islam people. Sure I don't need to tell you folks but most of the weird stuff people are saying (Japan being tough on Islam etc) is completely fabricated. It's really sad because despite the fear of isis Japan generally doesn't have any problem with regular Muslim people.

 

[Jintor]

i liked the bit where george whatshisface used two seperate violent incidents to say "SEE MOOSLIMS ATTACKING OUR WAY OF LIFE" and then had to retract them because he jumped the gun somewhat.

actually i dunno that he retracted them. either way he's a humungeous prick.