Maybe Labor can one day dream of becoming a party of opposition too.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
Maybe Labor can one day dream of becoming a party of opposition too.
Sure, no arguments there. But you're unlikely to win people over from other viewpoints when more often than not you immediately jump into the vitriolic diatribe.
Edit: See the post above me (or a significant portion of the last page). Apart from contributing to the circle-jerk, what does it actually accomplish apart from making people give less weight in the future to what you say?
There was a legitimate question from someone trying to understand the Greens policy on genuine refugees near the top of the last page, and instead of answering the question you all decided it was more important to cry about everyone not Greens. Which do you think is more productive and likely to actually convert someone to your viewpoint? If it's the latter than you seriously need to re-evaluate your priorities.
Oh go stack some branches if you want to be a Labor apologist. The fact is that Labor have amounted to a substance-less "opposition" since 2013. Now we have them capitulating to the right wing war hawk version of humanitarian aid and dealing with
Anyway, if you want a better quality of dialogue maybe write to your local member instead of posting faux outrage at people who are fucking sick of the inane ramblings of the political class and their enablers in this country.
To wit:
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/po...e-melee-rules-20150723-giijo4?skin=dumb-phone
Sorry, didn't read. If you'd like to rephrase your response civilly instead, I'll read it instead of assuming that I'm talking to the far-left version of the One Nation Party.
Haven't seen this flavour of Godwin since circa 1998.
Maybe I'm in a bubble then; I just haven't seen it to anywhere near the same extent. In fact slacktivism is the more common dig I see of your stereotypical Greens voter.
I'm a member of the Labor party but I'll be the first to admit I should be more active, but I study and work in Melbourne and have very little time to attend branch meetings in my home town. During election times I have campaigned for both the Greens (before I joined Labor) and Labor at different elections but I've found campaigning for Labor in my marginal electorate to be far more useful and rewarding.
But venting on the internet is a much easier thing to do.
I still think there is little chance of Labor becoming a minority party but are spot on about them having to work with minor parties (the greens may even be the first of many).
That has many challenges associated with it and I hope they're able to figure out how to do that because demonising voters from those parties is a grave mistake.
When the only goal the parties have is re-election being the goal in and of itself, there is no purpose to become a member of any of them.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...nation-andrews-election-fund-xenophon/6650512
Oh look, gambling industry donates to parties who either legislate how they want the laws to be, or in order to do so at a later date.
#changefromwithin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...nation-andrews-election-fund-xenophon/6650512
Oh look, gambling industry donates to parties who either legislate how they want the laws to be, or in order to do so at a later date.
#changefromwithin
That's interesting because literally no one said that.
I didn't accuse anyone of it either. Funny that.
Then why bring it up?
As a counter to the narrative on this page that it is important to be constructive from within a Party framework.
The parties themselves are not amenable to change, and on current observable evidence the major parties at least seem only interested in being re-elected, not actual long-term policies. That's why we have endless distractions about the aesthetics of wind farms, helicopter protocols, ages of entitlement and three word slogans lacking substance.
Power should never in and of it self be the end game.
Given the hours and hours spent on internal negotiations to determine a party position or policy, I don't think this is true.
I agree..but it's somewhat mitigated by the fact that the people are the arbiters of that power...Someone will have the position of power and that person has to have the support of the people.
the people are idiots! benevolent dictatorship for all! *fires guns into air*
Seriously though, I think the people as arbiters of power works best when all or at least a majority are rational participants in the electoral process, which I don't know is what's happening at the moment.
Seriously though, I think the people as arbiters of power works best when all or at least a majority are rational participants in the electoral process, which I don't know is what's happening at the moment.
worst form of government except for all the others etc etc
But you advocate a bill of rights because you recognise that power should be limited, right? I think the "power as an end goal" type wants to see expanding power. Removing the citizenship of sole nationals is a good example of that. It's supported by a large majority of people, but it's ultimately a power the government should not have and not the right solution to that problem. So you have to balance "what the people want" with ... something else.
But at the end of all the negotiations we have a couple of demagogues in charge. And the alternative is the same. This leads me to the not-unreasonable conclusion that either the parties don't change, or they only change in one direction.
Yes absolutely. The whole point that I was trying to make that seeking re-election can be construed to be a noble goal because it is the ultimate test of your lelegitimacy. Of course that means that our entire system of forcing even the worst kinds to act nobly and soberly should remain in place.
Obviously a political party needs to adopt policies that are at least appealing enough for enough marginal voters to support them. And while the major political parties need serious democratic reforms I hardly see working towards such reforms to be worthless.
It is a slog and after the weekend a number of people at my work were pretty demoralised but it is fundamentally the only way to achieve positive reform.
There seems to be a lot of snark around the 'change from within' philosophy. I absolutely understand why that is but what I haven't found is a viable alternative to any of that.
I haven't heard one single proposal more viable than that for asylum seekers or national security issues. Especially since the Greens have little appeal outside of young people and inner-city professionals.
Australian Democracy is dooooooooooooooooooooooooooomed.
Exactly. It isn't impossible to work within a party to try and change policy. Its incredibly difficult, as evident from this weekend, yet that doesn't mean you should have to abandon the party which best represents your ideals/beliefs. No point complaining about the process and arguing for change if you aren't there at the table negotiating for it.
I'm not even that sure the asylum seeker thing is demagoguery. I think it's just pure fear of the enemy. I thought this was a good read: http://www.pipingshrike.com/2015/07/unity-is-death.html
Exerpt:
It's "a" goal. I think the point of what you quoted was *the* goal. Wanting to be re elected in order to pursue policies you believe in mean it isn't *the* goal.
Holy shit.
Yeah wow. Let the Right realize that when our inner-city primary votes collapses come next election.
Could argue also that 2007 was won on Work Choices more so than immigration however.
I'd wager the same system minus a crackdown on reporting child abuse would be one such proposal that is already widely voiced.
But in principle the only way to get any kind of solution that is both humane and practical is to get dozens of regional countries involved. At the moment you either have LNP being antagonistic towards Indonesia with the tow back regime and linking aid to death penalty debates, or the Labor party and the suspension of live trade also poisoning the well.
If you want to stop pretending to care about lives lost at sea, and actually demonstrate a will to prevent people getting on boats and not being for show then Indonesia needs to be a party to discussion in the public sphere. This is their problem too; not ours alone.
So you would either want to set up some kind of regional registration system in the transit countries, and then other regional countries could take a quota each year. Anyone who tries to sail goes to the back of the line or loses choice in where to go - some deterrent may be necessary.
If you want to "break the business model" of the people smugglers, then do their job for free.
I'm sure there are plenty of 'economic migrants' who might have skills that could be put to use in remote/regional centres which would in turn help boost the local economies and stop the pattern of eventual migration of everyone to capital cities. And tie support structures to location of residence so they have to stay in a certain region for a while.
And then for the actual refugees of war/famine/etc they can be posted to capitals or major centres where there exists the resources to help them manage their trauma and find stability and safety.
Islands like Nauru and places like PNG have limited capacity and resources to manage large scale influx, but they might be able to help for sure. Maybe skilled migrants could be helped in terms of education and training if they elect to go to those places which might already have a gap in skills.
tl'dr the major parties need to stop seeing economic migrants as a blight and humanitarian migrants as a burden. See them instead as respectively an opportunity and a responsibility. Migration has been a part of human history for about 200,000 years or more, so pretending its nothing to do with us is reckless. The people will not go away, and turning them back only moves the problem rather than addresses it.
I saw that piece and thought it made some interesting points, namely that the Liberals will always win the asylum seeker debate because they are always capable of being more inhumane than labor.
But I think the author forgets what it was like in the Rudd years and how much flak they coped from every source imaginable and how much damage it did them every single time a boat turned up.
A more humane approach to asylum seekers means more boats and I think that argument needs to be made but it wouldn't come without significant political cost, given that Abbott's mob can very easily exploit the issue and swing votes.
But I think the author forgets what it was like in the Rudd years and how much flak they coped from every source imaginable and how much damage it did them every single time a boat turned up.
A more humane approach to asylum seekers means more boats and I think that argument needs to be made but it wouldn't come without significant political cost, given that Abbott's mob can very easily exploit the issue and swing votes.
I think an unintended (or maybe intended) side effect of some of the more draconian laws being passed in relation to asylum seekers and the public's ability to obtain that information will be that it's simply easier for governments to protect themselves from criticism by the Opposition by just obfuscating what's actually going on.
If Labor gets into government at the next election I can't really see why they wouldn't simply use all the tools Abbott has left them to do as his government has.
If Labor gets into government at the next election I can't really see why they wouldn't simply use all the tools Abbott has left them to do as his government has.
I have yet to meet a single person, Labor or otherwise who supported the whistleblower laws to be a good idea and not opposing that was one of the most cowardly things Labor has ever done.
A lot of what you say is accurate but actually getting any of it done is the real problem. One of the big barriers to achieving reasonable reform on asylum seekers that both acknowledges our global responsibility and isn't an open borders solution is that the majority of people don't give a shit about our relationship with neibouring countries. Obviously Australia needs to seriously engage our neighbours, particularly Indonesia and Labor needs to at least show why positive relations with them are important, which I believe is doable but far from easy.
Point is though that the people of Australia, and marginal voters in particular have to want a more humane approach to asylum seekers and being forced to accept such an approach is a non-viable solution.
BTW does anyone know what the Greens asylum seeker policy is?
This is nonsense. If the only way to make any contribution or be heard is to first align yourself with a faction then nothing constructive can be done.
I'll damn well complain because the whole process and system is fucked. Joining any of those parties would in itself be a compromise of my beliefs which I am not prepared to do. Ergo I'm entitled to call them all out.
While I'm linking, Tony Windsor's article on Asylum Seeker policy is a good read: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au...y-dark-spot-australias-history/14353272002050
Pretty sure it's been linked here before, but eh it's on topic.
Pretty sure it's been linked here before, but eh it's on topic.
I mean there is no way of knowing whether that would have solved the political impasse but I do think it would be a hell of an improvement over the current situation.
Cheers mate.
Yeah it was a brilliant article and I share his concern over how the current 'solution' has serious consequences in the long term.
Another problem that people forget is that the national conversation around boats changed in the Rudd years for the worse. It was in those years that we learned for certain that a more humane approach to asylum seekers meant more boats would arrive and that idea is fundamentally ingrained in the mind of an electorate intent on stopping boats.
It basically means that Labor must defend a policy of more boats which is retry difficult to do at this point in time.
It depends on where you frequent. News websites tend to favour the Liberals, online communities tend towards being a Greens echo chamber where anyone who they think doesn't align with their worldview is jumped on.
Look at the response to me - all it took was saying I disagreed with the Liberal behavior and calling out the Greens circle jerk and I've been immediately (and incorrectly) labeled as a Labor apologist and going Godwin. Given the content of the last page I'm kind of surprised they didn't shove in "child rape enabler" as well.
Methinks the pot may be besmirching the name of the kettle.
Hard-line anti-nuclear people are pretty frustrating, not sure if they're not that frustrating though
I still think the most obnoxious group around at the moment is Socialist Alternative. I have to be honest, I've never had a bad interaction from anyone from the greens (as in party members, in real life), even when we have heated policy discussions, we've all still managed to remain somewhat cordial and respectful.
1. Call a group unbearable
2. Claim moral high ground
3. Admit that the place you called said group unbearable tends to contain said group
4. Act shocked at response
#freemarkot
Maybe, but I'm fairly sure taxes will be a key part of the party platform, so maybe not that broad.
Is that Lafs mob?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked