Aussies LXV - what choices have we?!

[Yukle]

2 hours ago, Stubby said:

That means they think the Plaintiffs have not proved their case, or that it is obvious that the govt has blatantly done wrong. I note that the main reason the govt argued that it was "urgent" was that "urgency is relative".

That was a rapid case, eh? From outside looking in, it seems that the government's defence was appalling, so fingers crossed that's what the court has ruled.

Maybe the only reason they're waiting until tomorrow afternoon is because they're discussing:

"Hey, I'm still stuck on the second draft. How do we say, 'Cormoran is full of shit, and so is this postal survey' but make it sound all official and stuff?"

[Stubby]

40 minutes to decision time...

[karaddin]

Aaaaaaaaand feeling resigned and depressed. Just not at all confident that the way the justices received the governments arguments reflects that they are going to strike it down. And half convinced they'll just push ahead without additional funding for the ABS if the funding is struck down, but not the ABS/statistics part of the argument.

[Yukle]

13 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Aaaaaaaaand feeling resigned and depressed. Just not at all confident that the way the justices received the governments arguments reflects that they are going to strike it down. And half convinced they'll just push ahead without additional funding for the ABS if the funding is struck down, but not the ABS/statistics part of the argument.

Yeah... and when raised with this:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/turnbull-government-discussing-ways-to-hold-postal-survey-even-if-it-is-rejected-by-high-court-20170907-gycjh3.html

It doesn't seem right. The judges don't seem bothered and really seemed sharp with the arguments. The case seemed so open and shut.

[Yukle]

Noooooooooooo!

The challenges to the postal survey have failed. That's really disturbing, especially the idea that it was allowed to be funded in this way, and the idea that the ABS may use the AEC electoral rolls.

[Stubby]

It has failed.  I don't know what their reasons are yet.

[Yukle]

12 minutes ago, Stubby said:

It has failed.  I don't know what their reasons are yet.

The High Court sucks.

It was their strange esoteric interpretation of citizenship law that led to the present predicament in Parliament - despite Australian citizenship not even existing when the Constitution was written.

Not good form, in some ways, at the moment.

How does this meet "unforeseen and urgent" need for funding?!

[karaddin]

Honestly my sense of doom started basically with the very start of the case. It felt like they had already made up their mind that this was an issue where the court needed to not get involved in the politics of government and were going to be doing their best to rule with the government for that reason, and that it would take a stunning and unforeseen argument coming up in court to change their minds.

 

[mormont]

[mod] People, if posts have been deleted, they are gone for a reason. Take a hint and don't respond to them, directly or obliquely. [/mod]

[karaddin]

Thanks Mormont, nuked my post.

 

[Squab]

I, for one, am glad for the result. I hate the cost and the fascists but I much prefer to have a say in what affects me rather than let politicians stuff it up again. I just wish it was binding.

[Stubby]

1 hour ago, Squab said:

I, for one, am glad for the result. I hate the cost and the fascists but I much prefer to have a say in what affects me rather than let politicians stuff it up again. I just wish it was binding.

Can't agree with that I'm afraid.  By that logic, we need a postal survey on every issue, which would obviate the need for a parliament in the first place.

[Robin Of House Hill]

12 hours ago, Squab said:

I, for one, am glad for the result. I hate the cost and the fascists but I much prefer to have a say in what affects me rather than let politicians stuff it up again. I just wish it was binding.

That removes a protection people have.  If a politician votes for something shitty, they can be voted out of office.  If people vote for something shitty, can they be voted out of the country?  No one should have the right to vote on what rights, people other than themselves, are permitted to have.  that results in tyranny.

[Yukle]

13 hours ago, Stubby said:

Can't agree with that I'm afraid.  By that logic, we need a postal survey on every issue, which would obviate the need for a parliament in the first place.

Agreed, this is the purpose of representatives: to remove the need to "survey" people.

It's a bullshit effort that Turnbull is crossing his fingers fails because he doesn't have the courage to stand up to the right-wing horrors in his Coalition that he sold his soul to when he became PM.

[Squab]

14 hours ago, Stubby said:

Can't agree with that I'm afraid.  By that logic, we need a postal survey on every issue, which would obviate the need for a parliament in the first place.

Flux - Now that's something I could get behind if it wasn't fraught with so many dangers. Also, wasn't a plebiscite taken to the last election as a policy of the party that won government? I am all for it just being sorted but that is obviously not happening easily as politicians suddenly now have integrity? I'm not buying that as the reason but they have a point regardless. They need to at least try to stick to the promises they made before they were elected otherwise they lose what little trust they have with the people that voted for them, probably not you nor anyone else on this left leaning board.

2 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

That removes a protection people have.  If a politician votes for something shitty, they can be voted out of office.  If people vote for something shitty, can they be voted out of the country?  No one should have the right to vote on what rights, people other than themselves, are permitted to have.  that results in tyranny.

If the parliament votes for something shitty that most people support, they are not going to get voted out, its a democracy. Tyranny would be when people don't get a say or vote and the government does whatever it wants. Agreed regarding rights as I would hope these rights apply to all people, not just a select few.

31 minutes ago, Yukle said:

It's a bullshit effort that Turnbull is crossing his fingers fails because he doesn't have the courage to stand up to the right-wing horrors in his Coalition that he sold his soul to when he became PM.

I think Turnbull wants it to get up. He has said publicly that he is voting yes and 1. The people will give him a mandate to pull the conservative side of the liberals into line and 2. he wants the fame of bringing it in. He seems somewhat narcissistic to me.

[Yukle]

21 minutes ago, Squab said:

I think Turnbull wants it to get up. He has said publicly that he is voting yes and 1. The people will give him a mandate to pull the conservative side of the liberals into line and 2. he wants the fame of bringing it in. He seems somewhat narcissistic to me.

If he did, he'd just call for a vote in Parliament. No matter what the Coalition caucus says, he needs literally only 2 to cross the floor one of whom is himself!

[Squab]

26 minutes ago, Yukle said:

If he did, he'd just call for a vote in Parliament. No matter what the Coalition caucus says, he needs literally only 2 to cross the floor one of whom is himself!

Next liberal party meeting they would throw him out and either Abbott or Dutton from the conservative side would be PM. It would mirror the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd mess. I think he needs the will of the people to let him do what he wants in the hopes of keeping the party together and stopping more people from going to Cory or Pauline. Something about the mountain you choose to die on. He still has a way of getting it through, hopefully asap. Still might be his mountain if no wins and he crosses the floor anyway.

Is it called a caucus on the coalition side? I thought it was something else but maybe I just never hear it.

[Robin Of House Hill]

1 hour ago, Squab said:

 

If the parliament votes for something shitty that most people support, they are not going to get voted out, its a democracy. Tyranny would be when people don't get a say or vote and the government does whatever it wants. Agreed regarding rights as I would hope these rights apply to all people, not just a select few.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

[Stubby]

1 hour ago, Squab said:

Flux - Now that's something I could get behind if it wasn't fraught with so many dangers. Also, wasn't a plebiscite taken to the last election as a policy of the party that won government? I am all for it just being sorted but that is obviously not happening easily as politicians suddenly now have integrity? I'm not buying that as the reason but they have a point regardless. They need to at least try to stick to the promises they made before they were elected otherwise they lose what little trust they have with the people that voted for them, probably not you nor anyone else on this left leaning board.

The Flux philosophy would lead to nothing ever being achieved.

I agree that the LNP took a plebiscite took to the last election.  There are a number of issues with the remainder of your comment:

1. The postal survey is not a plebiscite.
2. The LNP won government by just 1 seat - hardly what I would call a ringing endorsement of their policies.
3. The election also produced the senate, with all of the senators elected to keep their promises as well.  The very simplistic idea that the LNP promised it so the rest of Australia should tow the line ignores the role of the Senate.
4. The LNP also promised a bunch of other things, which it has reneged on.  This link contains a list both major parties' policies.  Are we to have plebiscites on all of these things?  Have the LNP made an attempt to make all of these promises law?

In short, the argument that the LNP govt is simply doing as it promised is not well thought out.

As for this being a "left leaning" board, I say that this is an "evidence leaning" board.

[Stubby]

39 minutes ago, Squab said:

Is it called a caucus on the coalition side? I thought it was something else but maybe I just never hear it.

The conservatives call it the "Party Room".

Which sounds like a nightclub, but probably is not.