Support NeoGAF

[Arksy]

His ideas of individual freedom seems to be letting Andrew Bolt say racist things and the incredibly weak media reforms, which is the way should be. While I'm probably in the minority here and I do believe Andrew Bolt should have a right to be racist though I thought the media reforms were important. If he really gave a shit about the rights of the individual, he would support a bill of rights (which the greens support).

I can't speak for Brandis but I, personally, would love to see a bill of rights. I would personally like to see wholesale constitutional reform in order to guarantee civil liberties.

 

[hidys]

I can't speak for Brandis but I, personally, would love to see a bill of rights. I would personally like to see wholesale constitutional reform in order to guarantee civil liberties.

So would I. Unfortunately it would be unlikely to pass a referendum. Though a statutory bill of rights could be done.

 

[roosters93]

I guess this is really a question more about Federalism than equality.

Certainly seems that way.

Rank and file members are just dudes, dude. There's at least one in this thread.

WHO

(he called John Howard a "lying rodent" during the children overboard scandal) .

Awesome. Less awesome that it seems he was in advocacy mode publicly though.

 

[Omikron]

My commiserations.

I was going to post (before I saw your post);

As a fan and follower of soccer in Australia, his behaviour while he owned GCU showed me everything I needed to know to convince me that he should never be allowed anywhere near the government.

edit: And that picture is (IMO) more accurate and less of a p*ss-take than people probably realise.

Hmm, pretty sure I recognise your username from old twgf days.

 

[Fredescu]

WHO

Pretty sure CrazedProfessional is a member.

 

[hidys]

Pretty sure CrazedProfessional is a member.

There was definitely another GAFer a few pages back who confessed to being a member. He said he'd vote for Albo.

 

[CrankyKong]

Why is Shorten less electable than Albanese?

 

[Fredescu]

Why is Shorten less electable than Albanese?

Personality mostly. I think his delivery has a much better chance of cutting through to swinging voters. Shorten is dull and wooden. No one can relate to someone like that. There is also his involvement with the Rudd/Gillard depositions, but I honestly doubt that would make too much difference.

On the other hand, Albo can be more combative. If the Libs play their cards right they could turn the public against him more easily than they could with Shorten.

 

[Fredescu]

Thought this was pretty interesting. I'd always heard that coalition do better at postal votes than the ALP. This table shows just by how much: http://www.mumble.com.au/fedelect13/wall/others/postvotesadvCoal/OZ1.HTM

There are only two seats in Australia where postal votes favour the ALP, and even then it's by less than 1%. The biggest coalition postal vote advantage is by almost 20%.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Thought this was pretty interesting. I'd always heard that coalition do better at postal votes than the ALP. This table shows just by how much: http://www.mumble.com.au/fedelect13/wall/others/postvotesadvCoal/OZ1.HTM

There are only two seats in Australia where postal votes favour the ALP, and even then it's by less than 1%. The biggest coalition postal vote advantage is by almost 20%.

My only surprise is that there's any seats where Postal votes favor the ALP since Postal Votes are mainly from regional areas which tend to strongly favor the Nationals. If you're in an urban area you can pre-poll instead of postal voting.

 

[Arksy]

I'm just going to leave this here...

*flees*

 

[bobnowhere]

All over, Shorten wins. 63% of caucus and only 40% of the membership. The bully-boy right wins again.

 

[Shaneus]

So it looks like Albo could well have a shot. For the sake of Labor, I hope so.

Edit: Fuck, really? Fuck fuck. I thought it was going to be too close to call as of an hour ago

 

[Jintor]

It's gonna be a loooong 3 years

 

[Shaneus]

Man, I was really fucking rooting for Albo. Now we basically have this:

Be prepared for another few years where all the opposition literally does is oppose everything the government's doing just for the fuck of it. ARGH.

 

[Yagharek]

Only 34.5 months to go.

Can I just remark here on my disgust at the hypocrisy over the way Peter Slipper was treated versus everyone else.

The fact that it was so apparently politically motivated really makes me mad. The sense of entitlement of some people to feel like they could/should do anything and everything necessary to get in government was on display for all to see.

 

[CrazedProfessional]

Wellp, insiders on ABC are talking about whispers that Shorten will agree to scrap the Carbon Tax.

 

[Shaneus]

Wellp, insiders on ABC are talking about whispers that Shorten will agree to scrap the Carbon Tax.

There you fuckin' go. $10 says he's against gay marriage and the NBN.

 

[CrazedProfessional]

Bill Shorten before being elected: The Carbon Tax and the NBN are now Labor DNA
Afterwards: Tony has a mandate *eats shit*

 

[jey_16]

Wellp, insiders on ABC are talking about whispers that Shorten will agree to scrap the Carbon Tax.

Seriously...wtf?? Unbelievable

 

[Ruthless_Barbarian]

Shorten 55 votes to Albo's 31.

 

[shanshan310]

Bill Shorten before being elected: The Carbon Tax and the NBN are now Labor DNA
Afterwards: Tony has a mandate *eats shit*

:|

 

[Mondy]

Sooooo, same old shit, different smell. That should be the official subheading for Australian politics.

The trend of right wing vs. further right wing continues. I guess when you keep tolerating shit for so long, that's exactly what you'll keep on getting.

 

[seanoff]

I'm just going to leave this here...

*flees*

don't know why you are fleeing. that's absolutely spot on.

politicians are hypocrits - who knew??

 

[CrazedProfessional]

Bill Shorten is a weird fellow, in his QnA session with Journalists, he said he supports the carbon tax, avoided the question of whether or not he's repeal it with the Coalition then says he'll "Have a discussion with his collogues" when asked if he supports direct action.

"The only way to beat The Coalition is BE the Coalition!"?

 

[Arksy]

60% of grassroots support? God damn. That's a pretty strong backing from the rank and file.

I'm upset that Shorten won, despite being a true blue lib, I would've preferred a strong capable opposition that could hold the Abbott ministry to account for when they inevitably get something wrong.

In saying that though, from what I hear Labor has had a substantial jump in memberships from this process. Pretty awesome for the party.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Only 34.5 months to go.

Can I just remark here on my disgust at the hypocrisy over the way Peter Slipper was treated versus everyone else.

The fact that it was so apparently politically motivated really makes me mad. The sense of entitlement of some people to feel like they could/should do anything and everything necessary to get in government was on display for all to see.

So many things around the cases of both Slipper and Thomson stink to high heaven. Personally I have little doubt that both are guilty of some level of impropriety but the adage "no smoke without fire" cuts both ways.

 

[Mondy]

Bill Shorten is a weird fellow, in his QnA session with Journalists, he said he supports the carbon tax, avoided the question of whether or not he's repeal it with the Coalition then says he'll "Have a discussion with his collogues" when asked if he supports direct action.

"The only way to beat The Coalition is BE the Coalition!"?

That sounds like pretty much the perfect political party for white middle class Australia": Left wing on industrial relations and right wing on everything else.

We truly are a very backwards country. Not quite as bad as America but not far behind.

 

[hidys]

Bill Shorten before being elected: The Carbon Tax and the NBN are now Labor DNA
Afterwards: Tony has a mandate *eats shit*

But what about the mandate given to you by the memb... *gets shot.*

 

[Jintor]

Wellp, insiders on ABC are talking about whispers that Shorten will agree to scrap the Carbon Tax.

Holy christ.

Why even bother with any of the two major parties then if you're even slightly left. Fuck everything if he's just going to roll over and play dead for Tony.

Hopefully this is just initial overeaction, but jesus fucking christ.

/edit Here's the Guardian's take

 

[Arksy]

I dislike the use of the word mandate (mainly because it's thrown around too often these days), but that's technically how the system of representative government works. The act of voting for someone gives them your consent to do everything they promise they'll do, even if you disagree with half of it.

 

[markot]

I dislike the use of the word mandate (mainly because it's thrown around too often these days), but that's technically how the system of representative government works. The act of voting for someone gives them your consent to do everything they promise they'll do, even if you disagree with half of it.

Then why have a senate?

 

[Arksy]

Then why have a senate?

That's a very good question. It was designed to be a house dedicated for protecting the interests of the individual states.

Fat lot of good that's been.

But to answer your question directly you're voting for the same principle in the Senate, only difference is you're given consent for a whole party to act in the interests for your state rather than a single representative.

 

[roosters93]

Are you seriously discounting the entire existence of the Federal Senate? House of review schmouse scmo scheview

 

[A More Normal Bird]

I dislike the use of the word mandate (mainly because it's thrown around too often these days), but that's technically how the system of representative government works. The act of voting for someone gives them your consent to do everything they promise they'll do, even if you disagree with half of it.

Yes, but most of the current talk about mandates isn't so much about individual voters as it is the government of the day invoking their "mandate" in trying to force the opposition to support their policies; in this instance, Labour should dump the Carbon Tax/ETS because the Coalition has a "mandate" to do so, even though Labour could claim that they have a mandate from almost half of the country to keep it (pretty sure they have said this).

Funnily enough, after losing government Abbott called this sort of talk intellectual bullying. I'm inclined to agree with him, as unless you're talking about something like Workchoices (which I think he actually may have been...lol) it's hard to claim that any one policy reflects 'the will of the people'. If you have the numbers, use them, if not, wait or negotiate. Of course, I'm just talking about big-ticket items here, I don't think oppositions should be obstructionist by default, e.g. voting against tax cuts you later adopt as policy.

 

[Arksy]

Yes, but most of the current talk about mandates isn't so much about individual voters as it is the government of the day invoking their "mandate" in trying to force the opposition to support their policies; in this instance, Labour should dump the Carbon Tax/ETS because the Coalition has a "mandate" to do so, even though Labour could claim that they have a mandate from almost half of the country to keep it (pretty sure they have said this).

Funnily enough, after losing government Abbott called this sort of talk intellectual bullying. I'm inclined to agree with him, as unless you're talking about something like Workchoices (which I think he actually may have been...lol) it's hard to claim that any one policy reflects 'the will of the people'. If you have the numbers, use them, if not, wait or negotiate. Of course, I'm just talking about big-ticket items here, I don't think oppositions should be obstructionist by default, e.g. voting against tax cuts you later adopt as policy.

Mostly agree. This is why I want votes on discrete issues.

Are you seriously discounting the entire existence of the Federal Senate? House of review schmouse scmo scheview

Neither Canada nor the UK has a real senate. They have "chambers of review" and amendment but they wield incredibly little power and they loathe to use it because they're unelected and they know they'd face a lot of heat. The Senate as it's currently construed is basically just a second house of representatives which is susceptible to lending the balance of power to fringe/pressure groups. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a purely political question. That being said, I don't think it's invalid to criticise the constitution of the Senate.

 

[Mondy]

Workchoices proved without a shadow of a doubt that we can't trust the major political parties enough to live without the Senate. They're too susceptible to falling back on the very worst of their ideological tendencies.

 

[Arksy]

Workchoices proved without a shadow of a doubt that we can't trust the major political parties enough to live without the Senate. They're too susceptible to falling back on the very worst of their ideological tendencies.

I dislike unfettered legislative power as much as you do, I just want the wider population to hold the balance of power in a more proactive way.

We should have the right of repeal. For example the government passes a law, citizens could form a petition, audited by the AEC and handed into Parliament once 10% of the electorate is accounted for.

Once that occurs if the bill isn't repealed it is stayed until it goes to a referendum at the next general election.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Mostly agree. This is why I want votes on discrete issues.



Neither Canada nor the UK has a real senate. They have "chambers of review" and amendment but they wield incredibly little power and they loathe to use it because they're unelected and they know they'd face a lot of heat. The Senate as it's currently construed is basically just a second house of representatives which is susceptible to lending the balance of power to fringe/pressure groups. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a purely political question. That being said, I don't think it's invalid to criticise the constitution of the Senate.

I don't think that's precisely true of our senate since it represents something different to the house of Reps.

The house of Reps isn't particularly representative of the will of the general population. , It's more FPTP in reverse (last to leave the starting line). So it ends up being representative of that which the majority finds least distasteful. It's possible in our house of Reps system to have 49.999% of the population supporting you and to have 0 Seats. It leads to a stable government but claims of popular mandate based on control of it is likely misleading at best.

The Senate on the other hand is representative of the general population (if you end up with Labor/Greens holding the balance of power then it follows the general population is actually feeling slightly leftward of Labor at the time*). Though it has its flaws, like preference harvesting (of which the problems are obvious), and the sharp partisan line that is taken on issues likely to get public discussion. which tends to lead to fringe group dominance, since if things were less about political posturing then fringe groups would be marginalized by the alignment of the center groups where it mattered, and even with the partisan politics we have, this still happens to some extent.

*You could argue that the 20 point difference between the membership and the caucus vote show something similar among those who generally vote for the ALP, a feeling that Labor has become overly caution in its policy.

 

[Fredescu]

Plibersek has been voted in as deputy OL. Wong retains her spot as senate leader.

 

[hidys]

I dislike unfettered legislative power as much as you do, I just want the wider population to hold the balance of power in a more proactive way.

We should have the right of repeal. For example the government passes a law, citizens could form a petition, audited by the AEC and handed into Parliament once 10% of the electorate is accounted for.

Once that occurs if the bill isn't repealed it is stayed until it goes to a referendum at the next general election.

I would be willing to see the end of the senate only under the condition of national proportional representation.

 

[roosters93]

Getting rid of the Senate wouldn't do us any good. It just needs a few tweaks and a bit o tinkering and she'll be right!

 

[bomma_man]

Not like this, not like this

Optional preferential voting - where electors do not need to allocate preferences, or only allocate as many preferences as they want - was originally introduced by Labor in NSW 40 years ago in a bid to play on tensions between Liberals and Nationals and adopted in Queensland the following decade.

Now, with the Liberals and Nationals merged in Queensland, three-cornered contests rare and Labor increasingly dependent on preferences for support, senior Coalition figures are pushing for its introduction nationally. Senior government sources say the move is actively under consideration.

However, nothing will happen until after the parliament's powerful joint standing committee on electoral matters completes its standard inquiry into the election.

NSW backbencher Alex Hawke, a skilled veteran of bruising internal battles in the state's Liberals, is expected to be appointed to chair the committee.

Government sources say expected criticism of electoral laws that allowed people to hold office in multiple micro parties simultaneously and confusion caused by massive candidate numbers will open the way to optional preferential voting, exposing Labor to a loss of Greens preferences it currently wins under the compulsory preferential system.

- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-fn59niix-1226739243303#sthash.9329Xi1v.dpuf

 

[markot]

>_<

I would think greens voters would still prefer Labor over the coalition...

 

[hidys]

>_<

I would think greens voters would still prefer Labor over the coalition...

But green voters could preference no one and hence optional preferential voting.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

"People are upset about some of the election results, particularly in the Senate! They hated those massive ballot papers and think it's ludicrous that a party with only a handful of votes could win a Senate seat, and there's rumblings that many of these minor parties are just shells set up by a few people to game the system! People who thought they were voting for us elected a libertarian instead and Arthur almost lost his seat! We need to take advantage of the public sentiment and act on this right now! We may not get another chance! Come on people, we need ideas! No-one is leaving this room until we've identified the reform that would do the most damage to Labor!"

 

[hidys]

If they really do OPV which I suspect they will the only way Labor and The greens could overcome is if they formed a joint ticket or STRONGLY recommended preferenceing the other.

"People are upset about some of the election results, particularly in the Senate! They hated those massive ballot papers and think it's ludicrous that a party with only a handful of votes could win a Senate seat, and there's rumblings that many of these minor parties are just shells set up by a few people to game the system! People who thought they were voting for us elected a libertarian instead and Arthur almost lost his seat! We need to take advantage of the public sentiment and act on this right now! We may not get another chance! Come on people, we need ideas! No-one is leaving this room until we've identified the reform that would do the most damage to Labor!"

OPV has been suggested as a senate voting reform by virtually everyone except Labor. Unless this post refers to something else...

 

[Fredescu]

Optional preferential would be good for reducing informal votes. It's the less confusing option. So what if Labor have to work a little harder and maybe chase votes left? If they can't win under optional preferential they don't deserve to.

 

[hidys]

Optional preferential would be good for reducing informal votes. It's the less confusing option. So what if Labor have to work a little harder and maybe chase votes left? If they can't win under optional preferential they don't deserve to.

Labor will definitely loose some votes under OPV regardless of how hard they work.

 

[Jintor]

Huh, Shorten on 7:30 - didn't challenge Crabbe saying she'd heard the he'd stand by the Carbon Tax, and said something about being unsatisfied with the previous asylum seeker policy and not liking the trend of demonising refugees.

They're words I want to hear, but I don't know if he can back 'em up...