-
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 I'm looking to much into this conference but I get the impression that that is not the case.
I don't think Shorten is even remotely electable but I believe that both Albo and Shorten will better leaders than either Rudd or Gillard.
Funny how I never heard this before the election, it was always "Abbott is too negative" or he "just says no to everything".
(Not from you specifically, markot, but generally. Anyway, they'll reap what they sow...)
Elaugaufein
Member
Huh. Didn't expect the second part. Props to him.
What has that got to do with the concept of a mandate?
CrazedProfessional
Member
Give him time.
Elaugaufein
Member
Abbot basically did say no to almost everything remotely controversial. The major exception (the NDIS) was an admittedly brilliant political move on his part, he didn't want to go to the election opposing it.
I hope the ALP and Greens are less argumentative and give good ideas fair shrift but I'm also happy for them to stick to their principles on their beliefs.
There's a pretty big gap there.
CrazedProfessional
Member
Oh god it sounds like he's reading off a Teleprompter.
If the Opposition is allowed to stand up for what it believes in, and there's no such thing as a mandate, then the same courtesy should've been extended to Turnbull and Abbott when they blocked bills, instead of them being labelled as just saying no to everything and not respecting Labor's mandate.
CrazedProfessional
Member
#Pray4Albo
Left Wing Bias from the Free and Independent Media.
https://twitter.com/newscomauHQ/status/378008154308485120
https://twitter.com/newscomauHQ/status/378008154308485120
D.Lo
Member
Except that they voted against things they previously supported, or in fact now have as policies (eg education) just to be politically difficult.
Anyway I don't even care, Abbott is bad because he has no ideas and leads a low-talent group, not because he voted no in the senate.
That is certainly the the case but I never heard anyone say that the Coalition had to support all of Labor's policies.
I didn't agree with all the complaints about their negativity, but they definitely voted against things they believe in. The company tax cut for example they blocked in the senate, and then turned it into an election promise.
If it's a consistent position, sure, but it wasn't. They said no just because it was Labors idea, then took the same idea themselves.
Fake edit: Beaten.
shanshan310
Member
What an asshat.
roosters93
Member
But it's missing all the cool stuff! like no ticket voting, no GVTs, you only need to fill in as many preferences as there are vacancies.
I think the coolest thing is the randomised ballot paper. Candidates appear at different levels (within fixed columns) on different ballot papers reducing the effect of donkey voting. Also
That's Turnbull, "we were voted in, therefore it means the majority support ALL of our policies".
Elaugaufein
Member
Pretty standard political rhetoric for everybody. Though I'm pretty sure they wouldn't like the implication that the majority support all of there policies equally , it would be pretty depressing even for them if their $TINY_VALUE to X was held to the same level of value as $MAJOR_VALUE for Y.
shanshan310
Member
Even if this petition obviously states that it's not the case. What happened to representing the people?
The only true 'mandate' in elections arises if an issue divides the parliament and a double dissolution election is called based on the failed passage of said bill. It doesn't exist in any other circumstance - does anyone actually believe that every voter who preferences the Coalition above Labor supports every single one of their policies and vehemently opposes every Labor policy?
Elaugaufein
Member
Silly you. They meant representing the (right kind of) people.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Have all asylum seekers been killed yet?
Elaugaufein
Member
There'll be someone out there that does. Trust me. Politics is not a field inured from crazy.
They do represent the people. They represent the ~30% of voters that understand a vote for the coalition is a vote for less government spending and vote for them for that reason. How can you represent the ~10% who vote by flipping a coin?
Murdoch's tweet was more or less accurate really. A vote for the coalition is a vote for public servants losing their jobs. The implication that everyone knows this is the only thing he got wrong.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
It's proving tougher than first thought. Tony Burke probably gave them all food rations and guns when he released them into the community
detention.
Elaugaufein
Member
You're being generous if you giving that much support for it. National voters (who are a decent percentage) are generally well in favor of the government spending money from the cities on them. There's probably also a small but noticeable percentage who vote Coalition because everyone else are godless heathens corrupting our morals. I'm sure there's about a dozen other interest groups represented by the fixed coalition vote too (like Ventron who votes for them because they are closest to his (libertarian?) views not because he agrees with all their policies). I'd also bet a large sum of money that there's a reasonable block of Coalition voters who'd eviscerate the Paid Parental Leave scheme if it was an ALP policy.
The left is no better in that regard, its just much more obvious because the ALP and Greens aren't in a Coalition who's votes are added together, as a result you can pretty clearly see that ~10% of the Left don't agree with Labors policies on many things.
Elaugaufein
Member
I thought they where waiting to have the media block in place and the army turning back the boats before they started sinking the boats because the refugees opened fire on them.
I'm not sure how an internet poll is more representative than the election we just had.
I'm not sure I understand you completely, but I'm quite sure most people who are rusted on Coalition voters understand that "less government spending" is a key part of their platform. They understand what they're voting for, whether they support it or not.
Also I think the Nationals want protectionism first and conservatism second.
I agree that the poll is worthless, but it's not like the election we just had is representative for any particular issue.
MANDATE!
Of course not, but that's the point of an election. People put different priorities on different things when it comes to voting, and at the end of the day they weigh it up and say "I like this party more than this party" and take it as a package. A lot of people who voted for the Coalition probably like the NBN, but not enough to vote Labor, and as such, they understand that the Coalition policy will be enacted.
The arguing about a mandate is stupid. Does the elected government have the right to try and enact the policies they campaigned on to win government? Of course they do. That's the entire point of an election. If the make up of the Senate means that particular policies can't get through, well that's the whole point of a house of review.
We're not a direct democracy.
Fredescu said:
See above.
shanshan310
Member
200,000 is a pretty significant amount of people. Plus there were even posters on here IIRC that voted LNP but wanted the NBN. The election doesn't say much about peoples' opinions on particular issues. Labor kind of lost on drama rather than the Libs winning on policy anyway.
That's about 1-2 seats worth of people. Not that many.
200,000 people on the internet. A significant number of which might not even be Australian. I just signed it saying I was from Aruba.
For what it's worth, I agree with the petition. But, I didn't vote Labor. And I knew what that meant.
shanshan310
Member
uuhhh why? To prove your point? I mean, if you think it's a waste of time why even bother signing it?
Elaugaufein
Member
Yeah given the distinction between understand and support , I'll agree that the greater part of that block understand that "less government spending (except on farmers/graziers and things that attract big businesses)" is part of the platform.
Also no amount of money is too much money when it comes to boat stopping.
Elaugaufein
Member
You can actually look through a lot of the signatories. There certainly are people not from Australia on it (I saw the European SO of some Australian in the reasons section), but not a lot of them (why would there be ? What do they care ?).
Elaugaufein
Member
BRB, putting in a bid to erect a massive perimeter of artificial land that's edge is way above sea level on the edge of Australian territorial waters, that'll stop those boats.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
uhhhhhh
Read my post shan!
Anyway, I signed it from Aruba so I could make that point and know I was being accurate and not making something up. I didn't want to say "pfft you could sign it from ANYWHERE" without knowing if that was the case.
Girt by DMZ
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked