Jump to content

Aussies LXV - what choices have we?!


sh_wulff

Recommended Posts

On 7/27/2017 at 4:28 PM, brook said:

As I said to Nat earlier, this is entirely consistent with his views on climate change.

I'd like you to provide one shred of empirical evidence that the honourable Mr Roberts has British citizenship which isn't fabricated by global banks or the UN looking to stamp down free-thinking climate sceptics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Invalid Date at 10:13 AM, Yukle said:

Our Constitution is mostly rubbish, and badly in need of an overhaul, and this latest chaos is proof. For one thing, until the 1960s, all Australians were British citizens and discrete Australian citizenship didn't exist.

Agreed. I have always thought that one of the better arguments for converting to a republic was the opportunity for serious constitutional reform. Electoral laws, individual rights and freedoms and Indigenous recognition could be dealt with simultaneously.

On an unrelated note: RIP Les Murray, the voice of Australian football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like the Libs are going to have another party-room discussion on same-sex marriage next week. It might result in another (presumably doomed) attempt to get the plebiscite bill through the Senate, perhaps followed by an attempt to have a postal vote (Dutton keeps going on about that terrible idea). Buuuut I don't see the Senate going for that either. Which leaves the 2018/19 election as (once again) the only hope for those of us looking for a change to the Marriage Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The leaked Trump/Turnbull transcript contains probably one of the funniest lines ever uttered on a distinctly unfunny topic:

Quote

Prime Minister Turnbull: So we said if you try to come to Australia by boat, even if we think you are the best person in the world, even if you are a Noble [sic] Prize winning genius, we will not let you in. Because the problem with the people –

The President: That is a good idea. We should do that too. You are worse than I am.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2017 at 0:37 PM, Paxter said:

 I have always thought that one of the better arguments for converting to a republic was the opportunity for serious constitutional reform. Electoral laws, individual rights and freedoms and Indigenous recognition could be dealt with simultaneously.

For all of our faults, an executive without a President is better than an executive with one. Our Governor-General is entirely symbolic. Except for that one time...

I'm all for removing the office altogether and not replacing it with anything. It's too much power for one person, especially if that one person turns out to be a molesting reality-TV loser who lies more often than he upgrades his wives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2017 at 6:13 PM, Paxter said:

It looks like the Libs are going to have another party-room discussion on same-sex marriage next week. It might result in another (presumably doomed) attempt to get the plebiscite bill through the Senate, perhaps followed by an attempt to have a postal vote (Dutton keeps going on about that terrible idea). Buuuut I don't see the Senate going for that either. Which leaves the 2018/19 election as (once again) the only hope for those of us looking for a change to the Marriage Act.

 

 

Well thanks to a group of gutless wonders who were, predictably, all too weak to follow-through on their threats (I'll possibly give Entsch the benefit of the doubt for acting in good faith but he's the only one) we've been left with the worst possible option.

Really glad I'm not an ABS employee right now, I imagine there is going to be some serious drinking going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/08/2017 at 0:17 PM, Yukle said:

For all of our faults, an executive without a President is better than an executive with one. Our Governor-General is entirely symbolic. Except for that one time...

I'm all for removing the office altogether and not replacing it with anything. It's too much power for one person, especially if that one person turns out to be a molesting reality-TV loser who lies more often than he upgrades his wives.

Pretty much agree with all of that. I'm not a fan of the monarchy, but will always vote against a Republic with a directly elected head of state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

"It is impossible to determine whether a parliamentarian should adhere to their electorate, their state or to the national vote and in those circumstances, all parliamentarians should be given a degree of leeway to adhere to how they can best represent those who elected them. If electors feel that their representative has not represented their views well, they can then take action at the next election."

- Eric Abetz

i.e. please vote with the group that says no and not the ones that will say yes.

This is a complete waste of time, the ALP is eventually going to win one day and when they do there'll be a free vote, so delaying and delaying doesn't solve anything, it just wastes money and attracts attention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The Drunkard said:

This is a complete waste of time... it just wastes money and attracts attention. 

It's hard to determine Turnbull's motives here. The vote will be extremely unpopular for its cost and its non-binding nature and he doesn't have much political capital to spend as it is.

Given he is perceived as lacking the convictions needed to truly express his beliefs, you'd think that a more prudent move would be to call for a vote in parliament even though it'd fail in his Coalition, or to simply make it an election issue, thereby kicking the can. There are risks with those choices to, but I'm not sure why he has gone with this option.

 

Meanwhile, in Victoria, the Herald Sun's campaign of returning the Coalition to power hit a speed bump with this latest story:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/lobster-plot-alleged-mafia-boss-promised-postdinner-donation-of-swag-of-money-20170808-gxrz7i.html

Somehow I get the feeling that they won't print off bumper stickers, as they did for the MFB/CFA dispute. It is naive to think that had the government backed the CFA, then the Sun wouldn't have made a "SAVE OUR FIREYS!" campaign. Really, they knew that they'd have clout no matter which way the government fell on the issue to milk it to their agenda.

I hate the Herald Sun. It's our country's Fox News. They're run a front page story about the opposition leader meeting with organised crime figures, but there's no way they're going to have the same campaigning and electioneering they'd have done if it was Daniel Andrews in the meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/08/2017 at 10:39 AM, Yukle said:

The vote will be extremely unpopular for its cost and its non-binding nature and he doesn't have much political capital to spend as it is.

The political capital will be determined by the results- not that I in any way like Turnbull, I have always thought the man was a self preening snake - yet by determining public opinion on this issue, he can easily turn it into political capital.

On 09/08/2017 at 10:39 AM, Yukle said:

Given he is perceived as lacking the convictions needed to truly express his beliefs, you'd think that a more prudent move would be to call for a vote in parliament even though it'd fail in his Coalition, or to simply make it an election issue, thereby kicking the can. There are risks with those choices to, but I'm not sure why he has gone with this option.

The plebiscite was an election issue last election and was (barely) voted in favour of.

There is a cheaper, simpler option for all of this which is only really made difficult by the unreliability of the IT groups the Australian Public Service has contracted - have a binding electronic plebiscite with no funding for either side to have a campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plebiscites by definition under Australian law are non-binding. A binding plebiscite is a referendum, which can only be used to settle constitutional matters, which marriage is not one of.

This whole thing is an exercise in hand balling internal liberal party politics on to the Australian people, at a cost of $120 million. It's pure stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Impmk2 said:

Plebiscites by definition under Australian law are non-binding. A binding plebiscite is a referendum, which can only be used to settle constitutional matters, which marriage is not one of.

Section 51, xxi: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: marriage.

;)

But even if it wasn't, a referendum could be used to add it in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen the wording of the question? I do hope it is not exclusionary of the polyamorous, objectum sexuality and otherkin communities by restricting marriage to just two people. However its worded, I would be surprised if SSM/Marriage equality didn't get up, even if todays youth don't know how to post a letter. I agree with the waste of money, governments don't treat it as someone else's money like they should.

In other news about governments and religion working together for great results, keep the synagogues away as someone apparently likes blowing them up so the council and the court now stops them being built. I look forward to the day we can follow in Indonesia's footsteps and really stop anyone being offended for any reason and hence improve safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Impmk2 said:

Plebiscites by definition under Australian law are non-binding. A binding plebiscite is a referendum, which can only be used to settle constitutional matters, which marriage is not one of.

This whole thing is an exercise in hand balling internal liberal party politics on to the Australian people, at a cost of $120 million. It's pure stupidity.

So how does the government accurately gauge Australia's stance on changes to the marriage act? And the flip-side, surely there must be something in place to stop the government from changing a social act in any way that opposes the will of the people? Criminal acts require case law to cause changes, which often end up in higher courts.

My personal stance is that I accept the decision of the Australian people on this matter and other similar matters.

I do not trust private or media polls - we saw how accurate they are with the US election. And, I do not trust our politicians to act in line with what the populace wants, rather they act according to their funding, lobbyists, media pressure and the pressure of political correctness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard a suggestion at lunch that might work, someone needs to tweet (the new method of negotiating internationally apparently) a map of Australia highlighting that Canberra has gone it alone by personally and repeatedly insulting both Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump and is refusing to back down. I do not think it will be hard to find leaders in Canberra publically doing so on the record. We just need to time it with a lawyers conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Squab said:

I heard a suggestion at lunch that might work, someone needs to tweet (the new method of negotiating internationally apparently) a map of Australia highlighting that Canberra has gone it alone by personally and repeatedly insulting both Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump and is refusing to back down. I do not think it will be hard to find leaders in Canberra publically doing so on the record. We just need to time it with a lawyers conference.

We are like the anti Sweden - instead of graciously not picking a side, we take the piss out of all sides. That's a fairly Ozzie thing to do, actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, ummester said:

So how does the government accurately gauge Australia's stance on constitutional changes? And the flip-side, surely there must be something in place to stop the government from changing the constitution in any way that opposes the will of the people?

My personal stance is that I accept the decision of the Australian people on this matter and other similar matters.

I do not trust private or media polls - we saw how accurate they are with the US election. And, I do not trust our politicians to act in line with what the populace wants, rather they act according to their funding, lobbyists, media pressure and the pressure of political correctness.

The pollies cannot change the constitution through act of parliament. That can only be done through referendum. But marriage isn't an issue that needs to have anything to do with the constitution at all, they can simply change the law that Howard put in place in 2004 (with no plebiscite) defining marriage as man and woman at any time they choose. But the Libs won't allow the issue to come up for a vote until they have their glorified opinion poll.

As Yukle points out, and I hadn't even considered, I guess you could use a referendum to put an entirely new section into the constitution about marriage. That'd be politically even more fraught as you'd get push back from both sides of the debate. I seriously doubt the right would allow a vote to potentially enshrine gay marriage in the constitution.

Election polling in the US and the rest of the world is far harder than in Australia because of voluntary voting, so the pollsters have to guess at who is actually going to turn up and bother to vote. That's unlike here where at the last federal election the polls were off by less than 1% for the major parties. 

There'd have to be something really really weird going on to have a 40% polling error, which is roughly the lead gay marriage enjoys according to the polls (roughly 70%-30% for / against). Hell, even the recent French election, which had a huge polling error (far larger than the US & Trump - Macron got about 10% more of the vote than the polls predicted) wouldn't come close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...