• 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?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
Anyone listening to ABC NSW on the radio in the past half an hour will have had the misfortune of being subjected to the host's ill-considered ramblings on the drawbacks of preferential voting: "If you vote for a minor candidate your vote can get counted more than three times!". There was also a listener poll where 70% of respondents favoured first past the post, the main reason seeming to be that the Coalition generally has a higher primary vote than Labor so clearly more people prefer them.
 
Anyone listening to ABC NSW on the radio in the past half an hour will have had the misfortune of being subjected to the host's ill-considered ramblings on the drawbacks of preferential voting: "If you vote for a minor candidate your vote can get counted more than three times!". There was also a listener poll where 70% of respondents favoured first past the post, the main reason seeming to be that the Coalition generally has a higher primary vote than Labor so clearly more people prefer them.

Oh Yes. Just what we need a US style system where we have only 2 parties effectively at a time when people are at record levels of dissatisfaction with both of them.
 

Dead Man

Member
Anyone listening to ABC NSW on the radio in the past half an hour will have had the misfortune of being subjected to the host's ill-considered ramblings on the drawbacks of preferential voting: "If you vote for a minor candidate your vote can get counted more than three times!". There was also a listener poll where 70% of respondents favoured first past the post, the main reason seeming to be that the Coalition generally has a higher primary vote than Labor so clearly more people prefer them.

Utter wankers.
 

Lafiel

と呼ぶがよい
Man even kids are disillusioned with Tony Abbott. Overheard some grade 3&4s talking about him at work today - some lines that were heard.

"I hope Tony Abbott dies because he's a racist idiot!"

"Tony Abbott doesn't allow gay marriage *sad look on the girls face* "

"Tony Abbott is MAKING cuts to our education'

"I don't know anyone who voted for Tony Abbott!"

"My dad voted for the Sex Party"
 

wonzo

Banned
Man even kids are disillusioned with Tony Abbott. Overheard some grade 3&4s talking about him at work today - some lines that were heard.

"I hope Tony Abbott dies because he's a racist idiot!"

"Tony Abbott doesn't allow gay marriage *sad look on the girls face* "

"Tony Abbott is MAKING cuts to our education'

"I don't know anyone who voted for Tony Abbott!"

"My dad voted for the Sex Party"
its all thanks to that commienazi loving edumacational curriculum #shitlibssay
 

Jintor

Member
Heard Tony talking about the mandate for change he's been handed this morning. I hope someone keeps a running tally.
 

Jintor

Member
That Lib-Dem senator is pretty good at hiding himself as being a proper nutter and party preference funneller so far in interviews.

I can only hope the Motoring Party guy gets a good interview with Leigh Sales at some point. That'll be good.
 
I hope he's ready to pander to some random minor party senators, it's going to be an interesting if disappointing ride.

Several of them he'd love to pander too. The LDP and Family First are very similar to his personal economic and religious beliefs respectively. The MEP are pretty much LDP in a lot of policy positions, though looking at their candidate I could say less kind things. The Sport's Party has no real policy positions apart from more sport but don't actually make any decisive declaration about only voting on that, so we'll see how it goes, but looking at their preferences they'll probably favor the Coalition over the Labor/Greens.


The way things look:
Coalition has 33 in their own right, Labor + Greens only have 35. 39 is enough to pass irrelevant of opposition. They've pretty much got 2 clear (35). Extremely likely the MEP as well (36). Palmer will almost certainly support Abbot on a number of things (Carbon Tax Repeal , Mining Tax Repeal , Tax Cuts,etc) but will likely require concessions for other things. I suspect the Sports Party will play pretty similarly to Palmer: they'll get stuff out of it but they'll ultimately go along with the Coalition. That's 39. So you can basically assume that the Coalition control the Senate, from July 2014 to July 2017, though it'll be at a price and he likely won't be able to pass anything that's outright socially repressive. Clive Palmer's raising idea of the pension (which will likely be a concession he wants) and the LDP candidates position to more government welfare ought to make for interesting negotiation (the Coalition and Palmer might be able to pass that with support from them though; I doubt Labor and the Greens are really hostile to it. Depends on if Abbot is willing to negotiate with people he's basically declared his sworn enemies).
 
That Lib-Dem senator is pretty good at hiding himself as being a proper nutter and party preference funneller so far in interviews.

I can only hope the Motoring Party guy gets a good interview with Leigh Sales at some point. That'll be good.

Saw something this afternoon, not only is he the head of the LDP but he's also the head of the Smoker's Rights Party, the Stop the Greens Party and at least one other I've forgotten the name of. All four "parties" also share the exact same executive. Talk about gaming the system.
 

markot

Banned
He is our Ron Paul.

Get ready for the internet to looooooooove him and ignore all the nasty stuff!

Srsly though, 6 years he gets. 6!
 

BowieZ

Banned
Apart from the gun ownership rights policy, I think the LDP platform is quite reasonable. It's a shame that their one elected official is obviously a bit of a nutcase.

Why can't libertarians concede that a disarmed populace is not perfect but unequivocally safer than the alternative? (Firearms themselves are not a right. Just like bombs or chemical weapons aren't.)
 

markot

Banned
He also says it is an "objective fact" that the Sandy Hook school massacre in the United States could have been avoided if teachers had been armed.

Mr Leyonhjelm says allowing the public to carry guns would be a new approach to help tackle the spate of shootings in Sydney.

"What happens is that criminals don't know who's carrying a gun and they're very wary of using a gun themselves because they don't know who's going to shoot back at them," he said.

"In actual fact it's a massive deterrent. You don't make a safer society by taking the guns off the good guys and leaving the bad guys to have the guns."

"But there are two guiding principles that determine our approach to legislation - we would never vote for an increase in taxes and we would never vote for a reduction in liberty."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-09/nsw-sends-liberal-democrat-to-senate/4945080

GO BACK TO RUSSIA
 
Apart from the gun ownership rights policy, I think the LDP platform is quite reasonable. It's a shame that their one elected official is obviously a bit of a nutcase.

Why can't libertarians concede that a disarmed populace is not perfect but unequivocally safer than the alternative? (Firearms themselves are not a right. Just like bombs or chemical weapons aren't.)

Libertarian philosophy is founded on more or less unlimited individual liberty any restrictions on it are essentially anathema (the most extreme basically want a government only to enforce property rights). Libertarian policy is pretty idealistic in the belief that if everyone is allowed to do their own thing , things will turn out well due to social mechanisms. It gets co-opted by certain interests who agree with it's economic policy (i.e no regulation) or interpret it to mean that being an asshole is A-OK, and then use the libertarian ideology as a cloak while still carrying the rest of their baggage with them.
 

Yagharek

Member
Meh. I'm not going to be bothered defending libertarianism on GAF lol

What about defending their support of candidates farming preferences, therefore committing what is tantamount to electoral fraud? Or is that one of the key tenets of libertarianism?
 
Ventron, I saw this and thought of you:

1378727671423.jpg
 

Jintor

Member
Fuck the Sex Party.

(lol)

There is a fucking serious problem with the lack of transparency - and probably equally the lack of voter engagement - about where above-the-line party preferences will end up at the end of the day.

/edit however, in Vic, it looks like there were some exenuating circumstances because the only parties left to give votes to by the time it ticked around was the Motorists or the LNP.
 

Jintor

Member
Had a look at the NSW ballot; between the Sex Party and the Wikileaks party, slightly over 50k votes ended up going to the Lib-Dems ahead of the Greens.
 

D.Lo

Member
Fuck the Sex Party.

(lol)

There is a fucking serious problem with the lack of transparency - and probably equally the lack of voter engagement - about where above-the-line party preferences will end up at the end of the day.

/edit however, in Vic, it looks like there were some exenuating circumstances because the only parties left to give votes to by the time it ticked around was the Motorists or the LNP.
Gah, yeah.
Guy at my work thought the Bullet Train idea was great idea, the first time he'd ever heard of it was reading the ballot.

...and he ended up putting LDP guy in.
 
Self-interest is definitely a key tenant.

I think that's Rand's objectivsim you're thinking of. Which basically defines liberty as "fuck you , got mine", though having been raised in Communist Russia and her family having had a bad time of it her hatred for anything even vaguely associated with Communism is perhaps understandable.
 
Had a look at the NSW ballot; between the Sex Party and the Wikileaks party, slightly over 50k votes ended up going to the Lib-Dems ahead of the Greens.

Yup. Wikileaks won't see much change as a result. They lost the people who cared about that in the melt down. The Sex Party may not get treated as kindly by some next time around though , which does make me kind of sad , I voted for them in 2010 but you make the bed you lay in.
 

Jintor

Member
McGowan is poised to take Mirabelle's seat, but postal votes haven't been counted yet. Hopefully we'll know tomorrow.
 

Fredescu

Member
I think that's Rand's objectivsim you're thinking of. Which basically defines liberty as "fuck you , got mine", though having been raised in Communist Russia and her family having had a bad time of it her hatred for anything even vaguely associated with Communism is perhaps understandable.

Rand's philosophy is almost entirely a philosophical justification for libertarianism. I don't see how you could separate political or economic libertarianism from self interest.
 

Dead Man

Member
I suppose this is the general politics thread now? Anyway:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...ny-post-by-incoming-abbott-government/4947454

Former Labor premier Steve Bracks says his appointment as consul-general in New York has been revoked by the incoming Abbott government.

Mr Bracks was appointed to the role in May and was due to start work in the US financial capital this week.

But he issued a statement this morning saying he was informed last night of the decision by Foreign Minister-elect Julie Bishop to strip him of the role.

"The Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs informed me last night following a briefing he had with the Foreign Minister-elect, The Hon Julie Bishop, that she would be revoking my position as Australia's consul-general in New York," the statement said.

Outgoing Labor minister Tanya Plibersek says the decision to strip Mr Bracks of the role is extraordinary.

"I was very disappointed to hear [this was] the first act of an incoming foreign minister; it's both petty and vindictive," she said.

"This was an appointment announced in May, well before we went into the caretaker period, and Steve Bracks is eminently qualified to serve as consul-general.

"When we came into government in 2007, Amanda Vanstone was allowed to complete her term in Italy.

"But even on top of that, we appointed both Tim Fischer and Brendan Nelson to represent Australia overseas.

"We considered that they were suitable people to do so. We acted in a bipartisan way, in the best interests of Australia.

"I just think the pettiness of it is extraordinary."

Outgoing immigration minister Brendan O'Connor says the decision was "very vindictive" and a "grave mistake".

"It's an insight into Mr Abbott's view of power and authority to actually revoke the appointment of a very popular and extraordinarily competent and capable person," he told Sky News.

Mr Turnbull said the Labor government's decision to appoint Mr Bracks just before the caretaker period came into effect was unprecedented.

"I think the decisions to appoint people to positions, a number of positions, including diplomatic positions, literally on the eve of the beginning of the caretaker period, with the appointment to take effect after the date of the election, or around the date of the election, was also unprecedented," he said.

Former Victorian Liberal premier Jeff Kennett says Ms Bishop was not acting vindictively when she removed Mr Bracks from the position.

"Steven was a political appointment made a time when the election had been called, although a long time in advance," he said.

"It's always been said and Julie Bishop has indicated that this appointment, if he doesn't take up the job before the Coalition was elected, would not go ahead.

"This was a political appointment by a person who was still very political, was involved in this campaign, who hadn't taken up his post."

Incoming attorney-general George Brandis says the Coalition disagreed with the timing of Mr Bracks's appointment.

"Mr Bracks's credentials for the New York post having been a state premier were not obvious to us," he said.

"We weren't consulted about it, it was a decision made at the very end of the government when the consultation requirement was in place."

Outgoing Labor minister Mark Dreyfus says the Government was not required to consult the Coalition about the appointment.

Partisan politics, fucking yay :/
 

DrSlek

Member
Fuck the Sex Party.

(lol)

There is a fucking serious problem with the lack of transparency - and probably equally the lack of voter engagement - about where above-the-line party preferences will end up at the end of the day.

/edit however, in Vic, it looks like there were some exenuating circumstances because the only parties left to give votes to by the time it ticked around was the Motorists or the LNP.

This is probably a good argument for electronic ballots. A quick tap/click on a candidate/party can reveal preference flows and party platforms, allowing even complete idiots to make a semi-informed choice.

Though then the trustworthiness of electronic voting machines would need to be highly scrutinized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom