• 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.
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.

You agree with the petition but you don't think it will do anything. So why sign it?

And then you go on to say that people can sign it from anywhere, so it's not very legitimate. So then you illegitimize it further by signing it and saying your not Australian? Helpful!
 

Jintor

Member
Read this quickly before it goes behind a paywall re: asylum seekers

I was thinking about something while chewing on dinner while mum had A Current Affair blaring on in the background about some poor chappies who got ripped off on gumtree. Imagine if the 6:30 'investigative journalism' shows actually used the power of their insipid, emotive, 'hard-hitting' programs to look at the types of people who come here on boats and why. Just imagine it.

Obviously it wouldn't be very compatible with a 'four six minute long stories a day five days a week format though, among other things.
 

Dead Man

Member
Read this quickly before it goes behind a paywall re: asylum seekers

I was thinking about something while chewing on dinner while mum had A Current Affair blaring on in the background about some poor chappies who got ripped off on gumtree. Imagine if the 6:30 'investigative journalism' shows actually used the power of their insipid, emotive, 'hard-hitting' programs to look at the types of people who come here on boats and why. Just imagine it.

Obviously it wouldn't be very compatible with a 'four six minute long stories a day five days a week format though, among other things.

Yeah, it's a good piece I've been pimping on FB.

In other news:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/10/us-pope-refugees-idUSBRE98918N20130910

Disused church buildings should be used to house refugees, who must be embraced rather than feared, Pope Francis told asylum seekers in Rome on Tuesday, underlining his papacy's emphasis on the poor and the plight of immigrants.

Turning convents and monasteries that have emptied due to a drop in vocations into hotels has raised funds for the Church, but also attracted criticism.

"Empty convents and monasteries should not be turned into hotels by the Church to earn money ... (the buildings) are not ours, they are for the flesh of Christ, which is what the refugees are," Francis told a private audience in the Jesuit Astalli Centre for refugees, in a speech released to the press.

He met several asylum seekers, including some from Syria, after making an impassioned appeal for peace in the war-torn country at the weekend.

Francis said looking after the poor should not be the work of only "specialists", but engaged in by all members of the Church. It should also be part of the training of priests.

"The word solidarity frightens people in the developed world," the leader of the Catholic Church said.

Since expressing his wish for a "poor Church, and for the poor" shortly after his election in March, Francis' papacy has been marked by his humble style and the prominence given to the destitute.

In July he visited the Italian island of Lampedusa, where tens of thousands of illegal migrants arrive yearly, and condemned indifference to many who die making the treacherous journey across the Mediterranean seeking a better life.

Be a good Catholic, Tony.
 

Router

Hopsiah the Kanga-Jew
Well, at east Sophie Mirabella looks to have lost her seat of INDI to Cathy McGowan. The count was full of drama and I fully expect the Liberals to launch a legal fight to try and hold onto the seat.
 

tborsje

Member
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.

Well no shit, I wouldn't suggest that governments shouldn't seek enact legislation that they have as a part of their platform willy-nilly. But in the end, election is only one channel of accountability to executive governments. It's not like last Saturday represents some snapshot of time where all considerations of policy are set in stone, unchanging until the next time that the public heads to the polls. It's not silly to say that governments should respond to changing public sentiment regarding one of their policies, provided that it is a large enough sentiment to warrant such a reversal. Whether or not this issue is big enough... we will see. The fact that you say that...
A lot of people who voted for the Coalition probably like the NBN, but not enough to vote Labor
... simply represents an inefficiency that could conceivably be corrected.

Personally I think the House of Reps is not a representative enough body anyway, in the absence of proportional representation. The idea that a party with ~45% of the primary vote contains a 'mandate' is based on shaky logic due to the disproportionate makeup of the lower house. The system represents a trade-off where stable government (and an easier process of forming government in the first place) is favoured over a true representation of the preferences of the public. I wouldn't say that this system is 'worse', but I don't trust anyone who speaks about 'mandates'.

This isn't about direct democracy at all (which is of course impossible for a modern nation-state in a pure form). The means by which representative are elected is more relevant for my thinking.
 
Read this quickly before it goes behind a paywall re: asylum seekers

I was thinking about something while chewing on dinner while mum had A Current Affair blaring on in the background about some poor chappies who got ripped off on gumtree. Imagine if the 6:30 'investigative journalism' shows actually used the power of their insipid, emotive, 'hard-hitting' programs to look at the types of people who come here on boats and why. Just imagine it.

Obviously it wouldn't be very compatible with a 'four six minute long stories a day five days a week format though, among other things.

The major viewership of those shows are also unlikely to be sympathetic. If you watch the polls on their stories they are consistently at 70%+ for "Should we be more horrible to X because X scares/disgusts/is icky to you?" (Even though being more horrible to X is usually at best value neutral for the audience and often value negative).
 

lexi

Banned
Malcolm Turnbull in a completely unsurprising response

The campaigning website change.org has been hosting an onine petition calling on the Coalition to abandon its NBN policy and complete the National Broadband Network on the same design as that set out by Labor - fibre to the premises to 93% of the population.

Last Saturday there was a general election at which the NBN was one of the most prominent issues. The Coalition's NBN Policy - which can be read here had been published in April - five months ahead of the election. The Coalition won the election.

The promoters of this petition apparently believe that we should ignore the lengthy public debate on the NBN that preceded the election and also ignore the election result. We should within days of the election walk away from one of our most well debated, well understood and prominent policies. Democracy? I don't think so.

lol @ 'most prominent issues'. The NBN was completely absent from Liberal propaganda.
 

Jintor

Member
Well understood lol

The major viewership of those shows are also unlikely to be sympathetic. If you watch the polls on their stories they are consistently at 70%+ for "Should we be more horrible to X because X scares/disgusts/is icky to you?" (Even though being more horrible to X is usually at best value neutral for the audience and often value negative).

Seems like a feedback loop. The show doesn't change because the viewership doesn't change, and the viewership doesn't change because the show doesn't change.
 
Malcolm Turnbull in a completely unsurprising response



lol @ 'most prominent issues'. The NBN was completely absent from Liberal propaganda.

I will personally eat my satellite modem if the NBN issue was, in fact, well understood by the majority of the people who voted for the LNP (I'd almost be willing to make the same bet on if it was well understood by the majority of the LNP party room) .

ETA - On further reflection , I kind of doubt it was well understood by the majority of voters for any party. The way the demographics work I'd probably bet the largest percentage of understanding would be Greens and "well understood" would still be below 50%.
 
Oh fuck off Turnbull. You know what you're pushing is bullshit, considering you're investing in fibre in Europe. Come on, show some backbone you asshole.
 

Carton

Member
What a shamelessly contradictory post by Turnbulll; in one paragraph he makes very specific cost and time projections, whilst in the next he speaks of a review being conducted in order to establish both cost and time projections; it reduces his earlier claims to nothing more than conjecture, yet he dishonestly presents it as established fact.
 

Shandy

Member
Debate? You mean "We're deliberately implementing a poorer system because it's cheaper and quicker and we don't care what you think"? That debate? Y'all better revise the curriculum, because that does not match what I learnt of debates.
 
Debate? You mean "We're deliberately implementing a poorer system because it's cheaper and quicker and we don't care what you think"? That debate? Y'all better revise the curriculum, because that does not match what I learnt of debates.

Already on the to do list , the curriculum has a Leftist bias. Hadn't you heard?
 

mjontrix

Member
Debate? You mean "We're deliberately implementing a poorer system because it's cheaper and quicker and we don't care what you think"? That debate? Y'all better revise the curriculum, because that does not match what I learnt of debates.

Not we - what Murdoch wants. Cmon, it's clear who the Glorious Leader of Australia is...

Oh fuck off Turnbull. You know what you're pushing is bullshit, considering you're investing in fibre in Europe. Come on, show some backbone you asshole.

Someone should point this out to him - his response will be worth a GIF I hope...
 

senahorse

Member
Someone should point this out to him - his response will be worth a GIF I hope...

He has responded to this a couple of times. His response is basically along the lines of him investing in what will potentially give him the most return, in these countries FTTH makes sense, in Australia it doesn't. Just to be clear, that's his line of thought, not mine.
 

DrSlek

Member
Oh fuck off Turnbull. You know what you're pushing is bullshit, considering you're investing in fibre in Europe. Come on, show some backbone you asshole.

I just know his response would be some bullshit about how FTTH should be rolled out by telecommunications businesses, because blah blah cheaper to consumer, blah blah free market bullshit.
 

Dead Man

Member
Chris Bowen will be acting leader until the ballot is concluded.

Maybe now Conroy will shut the fuck up.

Also: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-12/indonesia-set-to-reject-abbotts-asylum-boat-plan/4954574

No shit Indonesia isn't going to just do what you want. Lol at Indonesia recognising the blatant posturing of Abbott:
Indonesian foreign minister Marty Natelegawa told a meeting of his parliament's foreign affairs commission yesterday that Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott's "policy about people smuggling" was a "problem" that Indonesia had to manage.

He said Indonesia would have to differentiate between the political campaign Mr Abbott was trying to win and what the reality would be once he is sworn in.
 

hidys

Member

hidys

Member
Why should they?

Because it means that the party leader will be chosen in an open and transparent way and not chosen behind closed doors by whoever can get the most factional leaders to support them.

Uggggggggggghhhhhhh.....

The members elect the people who stand for seats. That's enough. The mps should then be free to elect as they wish.

Yeah right...

By the way is anyone here a member of the Labor party and if so, who will you vote for?
 

markot

Banned
Because it means that the party leader will be chosen in an open and transparent way and not chosen behind closed doors by whoever can get the most factional leaders to support them.



Yeah right...
Factions exist everywhere.


If you think they cant even get in on preselections, why give them the most important job?
 

Fredescu

Member
The worst thing that could happen is for damaging public campaigning between potential leaders to pick up the members votes. They won't be bad about it this time because the wound is fresh, but I could see it being a problem down the track.
 

hidys

Member
Factions exist everywhere.


If you think they cant even get in on preselections, why give them the most important job?

Preselections are quite often influenced by the National Executive and I know for a fact that in my sate of Victoria there is a "stability pact" between the right and the left where the top end of each choose their own candidates depending on whose turn it is to get preselection. I believe leadership votes must be done in person without interference from the national executive. If you want to know how preselections work here is a link http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/30/special-report-how-to-become-a-federal-mp-part-1-alp/
 
Because it means that the party leader will be chosen in an open and transparent way and not chosen behind closed doors by whoever can get the most factional leaders to support them.

People in the US don't get to vote for Speaker of the House or Senate Majority/Minority Leader. It's the choice of the caucus.

This may be a 'grass is always greener' type of situation, because believe me, letting the party membership choose the people running for a seat isn't always the best idea.
 

Jintor

Member
Was watching Albo's press conference while I was in the kitchen for a bit. He's saying all the right things, says he won't be running a negative campaign against shorten or anything. Wonder if that'll actually get him anywhere. Hope so.
 

hidys

Member
People in the US don't get to vote for Speaker of the House or Senate Majority/Minority Leader. It's the choice of the caucus.

This may be a 'grass is always greener' type of situation, because believe me, letting the party membership choose the people running for a seat isn't always the best idea.

I accept the people don't always get it right. But I would trust them over Conroy, Feeney etc. You don't just have to look at the United States, look at Britain and Canada where all major parties have their leaders chosen with a say by the members of their respective parties.

On another note Sportsbet puts Albo at 1.30 with Shorten out to 3.10 http://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics/australian-federal-politics
 
Preselections are quite often influenced by the National Executive and I know for a fact that in my sate of Victoria there is a "stability pact" between the right and the left where the top end of each choose their own candidates depending on whose turn it is to get preselection. I believe leadership votes must be done in person without interference from the national executive. If you want to know how preselections work here is a link http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/30/special-report-how-to-become-a-federal-mp-part-1-alp/

Now that Nick Sherry and Peter Garret have left parliament, there is only one non-faction aligned member left in the Federal Labor Party, my local member Andrew Leigh.

When both the local Canberra seats were left vacant in 2010, the factions got together and assigned interstate factional staffers to the 2 seats, one from the left in the north and one from the right in the south. Both lost preselection battles to local members, Leigh in the North and Gai Brotman, vaguely right aligned and the wife of ABC's Chris Ulman in the South. No party should be afraid of increased democracy even if it undermines their long promised positions.
 

Fredescu

Member
First Dog supports Albo (via SA).

E2QGg5s.jpg
 

tborsje

Member
Yeah right...

By the way is anyone here a member of the Labor party and if so, who will you vote for?

I just signed up to become a member, anyone know how long it takes to go through? Not expecting to be able to vote in this leadership issue of course
 

hidys

Member
We have a Prime Minister who was virtually unelectable.

(I don't support Shorten.)

Fair point. No one in 2009 thought Abbott would go all the way. Though I will say the reasons Shorten would be bad for Labor and the supposed reasons Abbott would have been bad for the Liberals are entirely different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom