OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Bandwagon]

If the Voice comes up No, we will end up with nothing but division, hate and arguing ... job well done

Rubbish.

The sky will not fall in, and for the average Aussie literally nothing will change, the same dumb scare mongering tropes were pulled out over Mabo, the Apology and even the SSM plebiscite.

The worst thing that'll happen is indigenous folk will get a say in shit that affects their lives, scary shit that.

 

[Gronk]

I’m keen to here motivations for people to vote no. I was watching interviews in western sydney a few days ago and a lady in her 70’s, most adamantly said that she would be voting NO because “they would be taking her land”.

This was the scare campaign around the Native Titles Act 1993 after Eddie Mabo won his case in the High Court.

If the Voice comes up No, we will end up with nothing but division, hate and arguing ... job well done

This is also a scare campaign of sorts. Seemingly coming from a place that prefers to leave it as it is. Sorry but strong countries grow based on bold decisions.

If the NO vote prevails, then those people will be sending a message to the world - and it will be world wide news - that we don’t give a f**k.

 

[Gronk]

 

[strider]

Rubbish.

The sky will not fall in, and for the average Aussie literally nothing will change, the same dumb scare mongering tropes were pulled out over Mabo, the Apology and even the SSM plebiscite.

The worst thing that'll happen is indigenous folk will get a say in shit that affects their lives, scary shit that.

Cool .... but thats got literally nothing to do with what i just posted about the shitfight that will ensue IF the result is no

 

[strider]

...

If the NO vote prevails, then those people will be sending a message to the world - and it will be world wide news - that we don’t give a f**k.

Ok ... so we agree ... shit fight to ensue, aussies are scum of the earth

 

[Gronk]

Ok ... so we agree ... shit fight to ensue, aussies are scum of the earth

Well it doesn't have to be like that. Unfortunately the LNP are using this to try and force a historic political loss on Albanese. It's not about the constitutional recognition or the Uluru Statement from the Heart, it's just about getting a win and unfortunately the subject matter is mere collateral damage.

 

[Chipmunk]

I’m keen to here motivations for people to vote no. I was watching interviews in western sydney a few days ago and a lady in her 70’s, most adamantly said that she would be voting NO because “they would be taking her land”.

This was the scare campaign around the Native Titles Act 1993 after Eddie Mabo won his case in the High Court.




This is also a scare campaign of sorts. Seemingly coming from a place that prefers to leave it as it is. Sorry but strong countries grow based on bold decisions.

If the NO vote prevails, then those people will be sending a message to the world - and it will be world wide news - that we don’t give a f**k.

The high level of No opinions at present is intriguing, but probably not surprising when there isn't bipartisan support.

I'd say the reality is that the Yes side hasn't really sold the argument very well on what people are actually voting on and why is it needed.

To be honest I'm not sure they could ever come up with a consistent believable argument on why it is needed. They could create a "Voice" body right now without puting it in the Constitution. The reality is that the current Government will likely setup the "Voice" body irrespective of the result, so what exactly is the point?

On the other side the No people have done well selling their reasons to vote No.

 

[Chipmunk]

Well it doesn't have to be like that. Unfortunately the LNP are using this to try and force a historic political loss on Albanese. It's not about the constitutional recognition or the Uluru Statement from the Heart, it's just about getting a win and unfortunately the subject matter is mere collateral damage.

The same could be said about Labor on the LNP when they were in opposition. That is the entire setup of our democracy and parliamentary system. The party not in government is not known as the Opposition for nothing.

 

[Bandwagon]

Cool .... but thats got literally nothing to do with what i just posted about the shitfight that will ensue IF the result is no

Who's gonna drive this "shitfight", like sure there'll be some venom in social media from those that supported the voice, and the right will do their best to leverage it as a failure of the government, but beyond that the same will apply, for most folks nothing really changes.

Plenty of referendums have failed to pass, in fact a majority of them, the world didn't end. Won't end this time either.

 

[Bandwagon]

The reality is that the current Government will likely setup the "Voice" body irrespective of the result, so what exactly is the point?

They've pointedly ruled this out, under the pretext of it would be ignoring the will of the people, they still might of course but I doubt it very much in this term. I think they'd have to go to an election with a legislated voice as a policy in order to at least claim some kind of mandate to do it.

 

[hindy111]

At least you end up with a bike path for your $400m at the end of it

If the Voice comes up No, we will end up with nothing but division, hate and arguing ... job well done

Ha they put them all thru the inner west. Barely get used

 

[Chipmunk]

They've pointedly ruled this out, under the pretext of it would be ignoring the will of the people, they still might of course but I doubt it very much in this term. I think they'd have to go to an election with a legislated voice as a policy in order to at least claim some kind of mandate to do it.

Which is exactly what they will do, and then you get it through with your 'omnibus' of "mandates".

Surely not everyone who votes a certain way at an election agrees with every thing that a parties say. I think mandates to do most of what a party wants to do if elected are bullshit, as in reality that don't have a mandate to do f**k all. It is nothing more than an assumed mandate from an ambivalent and disengaged population. Australians in the most would primarily choose who they vote for as either voting for the specific party or voting for one of the candidates (either the local member of the leader of the party), and realistically don't really give too much thought on the plans the party has if they get elected. They might choose to vote for though on one or two specific policies around their self-interests.

The reality for Labor is that more people in the country wanted LNP to be the Government at the last election than them, and less than 1/3rd of the voting public believed that Labor was the best option, but the voting system in Australia meant that a small majority of the country decided they would prefer to have Labor over the LNP. What Labor is now finding out is that when only less than 1/3rd of the public thinks you're the best option, doesn't neccessarily mean that they're interested in your actual policies, which is where Labor has come unstuck federally many times. The only reason Labor has been elected to Government from opposition federally since the second World War is that the population no longer wanted the other mob, not because they wanted all of the Labors policies instead.

It is the same reason that they will bring themselves unstuck again.

 

[Gronk]

The same could be said about Labor on the LNP when they were in opposition. That is the entire setup of our democracy and parliamentary system. The party not in government is not known as the Opposition for nothing.

Many will use the "they all do it" argument no doubt.

So in the interests of balance, what similar critical legislation did labor block for political LOLs that in hindsight was detrimental for the country ? I am sure there are some.

BTW be careful not to get caught by those cheeky omnibus bills like a $80/w new start allowance hike bundled up with a we're going to build eleventy coal power stations and all kittens must be drowned next monday bills, just so it can be said that labor voted against the unemployed.

 

[Chipmunk]

Many will use the "they all do it" argument no doubt.

So in the interests of balance, what similar critical legislation did labor block for political LOLs that in hindsight was detrimental for the country ? I am sure there are some.

BTW be careful not to get caught by those cheeky omnibus bills like a $80/w new start allowance hike bundled up with a we're going to build eleventy coal power stations and all kittens must be drowned next monday bills, just so it can be said that labor voted against the unemployed.

Every piece of legislation put to the parliament from 2013 to 2022 that the LNP needed the cross bench to vote for the legislation for it to pass.

I'm not going to get the full list, but it is extensive.

 

[Chipmunk]

Many will use the "they all do it" argument no doubt.

So in the interests of balance, what similar critical legislation did labor block for political LOLs that in hindsight was detrimental for the country ? I am sure there are some.

BTW be careful not to get caught by those cheeky omnibus bills like a $80/w new start allowance hike bundled up with a we're going to build eleventy coal power stations and all kittens must be drowned next monday bills, just so it can be said that labor voted against the unemployed.

The reality for Australia is that the mainstream media won't let the LNP go too far with the policies they want for the country, because they will propagate Labor's opposition to them.

On the other side, the everyday Australian won't let Labor go too far with their policies either, as ultimately the Australian population in general prefers to have the LNP running the country and not really doing too much when they're doing it. Outside of Hawke as PM (who had more about him than just being a PM as head of Labor), Labor will be in government for only 14 years in the 80 years since the end of the second World War at the time of the next election.

I suspect mainstream Australians prefer a federal government to just stick to its job of keeping the country safe and the economy strong, rather than push their idealogy down their throat.

 

[the phantom menace]

The popular mainstream media is largely right leaning (News Corp, commercial TV news channels), and will propagate whatever their corporate/paying masters want them to - which is also usually right-leaning.

The everyday Australian (lol) is influenced by the popular mainstream media, so is also inherantly biased toward right-wing conservative positions. Not necessarily extreme right (Hanson-esque) positions, but definitely not central.

The federal Labor government is being remarkably central (rather than left-leaning), and in the classic political wedge tactic is being portrayed as not progressive enough by the Greens and Lydia Thorpe, while simultaneously being accused of being too left wing by the right-wing (non-centrist) Dutton LNP forces.

Agree that mainstream Australia prefer governments to stick to their job without pushing ideology - which the current government is doing - but would be great if mainstream/corporate media did the same...

 

[the phantom menace]

The reality for Labor is that more people in the country wanted LNP to be the Government at the last election than them, and less than 1/3rd of the voting public believed that Labor was the best option, but the voting system in Australia meant that a small majority of the country decided they would prefer to have Labor over the LNP.

Labor had the biggest vote for a single party in the elections.

Just because the fractious LNP coalition votes as a block despite their rabidly differing viewpoints to each other, do you think it's fair to count them as one party while excluding from your count votes that went to parties that tend to (usually, though not formally) vote as a block with Labor?

 

[the phantom menace]

I'd say the reality is that the Yes side hasn't really sold the argument very well on what people are actually voting on and why is it needed.

This is true so far.

To be honest I'm not sure they could ever come up with a consistent believable argument on why it is needed. They could create a "Voice" body right now without puting it in the Constitution. The reality is that the current Government will likely setup the "Voice" body irrespective of the result, so what exactly is the point?

The choice of the Yes side (which isn't to be confused with Labor, as they are different organisations/people) to engage with the topic through a slow-moving batch of local town hall "conversations" will rightly be questioned after the referendum is done.

The No side (which doesn't include all of the LNP) are just doing classic what ifs... but the Yes side would have benefited from better clarity about what this change to wording in the Constitution is, and what it isn't. It's been put across by those responsible quite poorly to date imo.

 

[Chipmunk]

Labor had the biggest vote for a single party in the elections.

Just because the fractious LNP coalition votes as a block despite their rabidly differing viewpoints to each other, do you think it's fair to count them as one party while excluding from your count votes that went to parties that tend to (usually, though not formally) vote as a block with Labor?

I think you can only include the LNP Coalition (whoever the candidate is - Liberal, National, Country Liberal, or Queensland LNP) as one party, as in 98 per cent of cases you only have the choice to vote for the single option of the parties of the Coalition. In essence they're one party who represent different parts of the country, Liberal in metro, National in rural, LNP in Queensland, CLP in NT. I think there was actually only two seats where you could vote for either a Liberal or National candidate at the last election, Gilmour and Indi. In the Senate there is only the one option to vote for the one coalition option.

Surely you're not suggesting that someone who previously voted Labor, who decided to vote say Green at the last election, is voting for the same party? They had a choice to vote Labor or Green (along with the other options). That is like saying someone who voted Liberal all their life, who voted Teal at the last election, still voted Liberal.

With the Coalition, there isn't really the option to vote either Liberal or National except for in a handful of circumstances. It's essentially the one party.

 

[the phantom menace]

Agree with what you've said there... but I think that means you have to rethink your wording of "The reality for Labor is that more people in the country wanted LNP to be the Government at the last election than them".

It doesn't follow from your (correct) statement that "less than 1/3rd of the voting public believed that Labor was the best option" which then is/always will indeed be true for any one party (even if you extend the definition to count LNP as "one" party).

In short, you'd have to add and then average the voting percentages for Libs and Nats (given you've said they generally don't contest seats against each other), rather than add them together, before comparing to Labor percentage.