-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Giardiasis said:
yep, which is sad considering how bad this government has been. Shorten has to go for mine.
IanG said:
his speech epitomised the 'born to rule' mentality in a nutshell.
and the hypocrisy of them criticising the 'Mediscare' campaign is as astounding as it gets. disgusting actually.
Ian4 said:
this. Linton Crosby was the scare campaign maestro. Hides like rhinos, OR a complete inability to reflect and self assess
tigersnake said:
Many Liberal voters are disenchanted with how Turnbull has positioned the party. Better to stand for what you believe and lose rather than trying to pinch Labor votes with pseudo-Lefty policies.
Actually believe the right side of politics is in danger of becoming irrelevant in this country and support will splinter towards nationalist groups. People are being conditioned towards socialism by mass media, despite knowing full well that Labor couldn't balance the books at a crooked raffle.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
It would be a stretch to assume the Tea Party types of the LNP would vote for the ALP just because Malcolm wasn't right enough for their liking.
I'd like to a stalemated parliment where they send us back to vote again. It would be interesting to see how people change their vote if at all. Also if the parties would change leader before the next vote.
Would it have to be a double dissolution or not ?
But it won't happen. The independents would be fearful that the protest votes that got them in wouldn't come their way second time around so they'll strike a deal.
I don't have much of an interest in politics but here is some food for thought.
I have lived in Denmark since 1991.
Here there are about eight or nine "major" political parties depending on what day of the week it is.
When I first got here, with my Australian background, I kept thinking how ridiculous this was.
Surely in an election, you need someone with a majority so it makes sense for there to be two major parties, left and right, as is the case in Australia, UK and the USA.
Over time I have come to see the sense in the system here, and as it is in many smaller European countries.
Here there is one extreme left-wing party, an extreme right-wing party, a mainstream (centre-)left, two mainstream (centre-)rights, and an assortment of fence-sitters.
The parties tend to align themselves in a particular "wing" from an economic perspective and also from a social perspective. They may not be the same wing.
For example, the extreme right wingers are really only right-wing from a social point of view - anti-immigration, etc. Their economic policies tend to be very much in the middle.
If nothing else, it allows the voter to position his/her vote more specifically. You don't have to compromise your politics by voting for who most matches your own politics.
On election day, the parties get together and sort out who is going to form a governing coalition.
It led to the ridiculous situation at the last election where the following happened:-
* The party which won the most seats was the mainstream left-wing party (equivalent of Labor).
* Nevertheless, the conservative block was able to form a majority coalition.
* Within that coalition, the party with the most seats was the ultra-right wingers (frightening).
* But even they did not have a majority of members in the governing coalition (the three other more moderate right-wingers had more seats in total).
* The guy they elected PM was the leader of one of those three parties, the sitting PM at the time, but that party actually had a significant reduction in the number of seats they won.
Bit of a farce really but in a sense I think at least the individual voter gets more of a feeling that they were able to vote more specifically in line with what they want on more issues.
I have lived in Denmark since 1991.
Here there are about eight or nine "major" political parties depending on what day of the week it is.
When I first got here, with my Australian background, I kept thinking how ridiculous this was.
Surely in an election, you need someone with a majority so it makes sense for there to be two major parties, left and right, as is the case in Australia, UK and the USA.
Over time I have come to see the sense in the system here, and as it is in many smaller European countries.
Here there is one extreme left-wing party, an extreme right-wing party, a mainstream (centre-)left, two mainstream (centre-)rights, and an assortment of fence-sitters.
The parties tend to align themselves in a particular "wing" from an economic perspective and also from a social perspective. They may not be the same wing.
For example, the extreme right wingers are really only right-wing from a social point of view - anti-immigration, etc. Their economic policies tend to be very much in the middle.
If nothing else, it allows the voter to position his/her vote more specifically. You don't have to compromise your politics by voting for who most matches your own politics.
On election day, the parties get together and sort out who is going to form a governing coalition.
It led to the ridiculous situation at the last election where the following happened:-
* The party which won the most seats was the mainstream left-wing party (equivalent of Labor).
* Nevertheless, the conservative block was able to form a majority coalition.
* Within that coalition, the party with the most seats was the ultra-right wingers (frightening).
* But even they did not have a majority of members in the governing coalition (the three other more moderate right-wingers had more seats in total).
* The guy they elected PM was the leader of one of those three parties, the sitting PM at the time, but that party actually had a significant reduction in the number of seats they won.
Bit of a farce really but in a sense I think at least the individual voter gets more of a feeling that they were able to vote more specifically in line with what they want on more issues.
23.21.159 said:
That would be a proportional representation system right? The 2 party system effectively locks out new parties. The greens get 10% of the primary vote but get 0.75% of the seats in parliament. It would create its own problems and I can't see it happening, but people are disillusioned with the 2 parties, but the system we have entrenches the 2 parties. There are a lot of problems, but a big one is toxic political culture on both sides.
23.21.159 said:
This is pretty much what I was describing. As a voter you are less compromised. There is more likely to be a party with a nuanced position that gets much closer to your own thinking. The challenge is to get them to hold to their positions once they start having to make deals to form government. But in general I prefer it to the current state of play in Aus.
I lament the turn our political discourse has taken. It is no comfort that most English speaking nations seem to have a similar problem. Our politicians only speak so as to increase confusion and blur the issues under consideration. They aim to keep the populace in the dark as much as possible and then promise to be the only ones with a light to lead the way out of the confused jungle of nonsense that they themselves created. It is a recipe for the continuation of the status quo. It is now so absurd that a "gotcha moment" is actually when journalist gets a politician to tell an unfettered truth.
tigersnake said:
Not sure I agree with that. Look at supermarkets. For years, all we had was Coles and Woolworths. IGA being the equivalent of The Greens. What Australian politics needs is an Aldi. There's no reason why it can't be done given enough resources. Convincing the sheep like electorate to vote for them is another matter. Convincing people to abandon their loyalty to a great great grandfather who always voted for whoever because that's the way a unicorn voted in a dream is a tough ask. And then there's those like Derryn Hinch who knows too much to vote. I symbolically voted for him, by not voting for him.
1eyedtiger said:
Your analogy doesn't really have legs. If 10% of people shop at IGA or Aldi, they have 10% market share. 10% of people vote Greens for a 0.75% representation, or market share, thats my point, the system is stacked against new parties. Its not cheating, its just how the system we have works. But I agree that just because its hard and it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it can't or won't happen.
Not necessarily. The 10% of shoppers who go to IGA might only buy one or two items each and therefore their total spend might only be 0.75% of the total household grocery budget of Australia. ;D
You're right though. 10% of the primary vote equating to 0.75% of the seats doesn't seem fair.
You're right though. 10% of the primary vote equating to 0.75% of the seats doesn't seem fair.
Might be time for a new Conservative party?
I never thought that the Liberal Party was a Conservative party of the reactionary type that Barnadi And Bolt want.
Those attitudes if present were more likely in the Country Party ...(ie the Nationals before they went to a marketing agency)
Liberals were small l liberals ... Free enterprise, personal responsibility and freedom of thought.
Recall that the Democrats had some success for a while as centrist party... Pre Green without the political correctness and they had some economic ideas.
As the ALp moved from being a workers party to a progressive party Gough onwards, and the democrats morphed into greens the liberals were squeezed out of the middle ground.
I would love to see both main parties split. Labour is virtually a coalition of Socilasts (Dan Andrews) and the Labour Unity anyway. Have two on the right Conservative and Liberal Then we can vote in a more targeted way.
Yes would end up with no single party with a majority but sometimes a coalition of left, sometimes centre, sometimes right according to the needs of the times.
I never thought that the Liberal Party was a Conservative party of the reactionary type that Barnadi And Bolt want.
Those attitudes if present were more likely in the Country Party ...(ie the Nationals before they went to a marketing agency)
Liberals were small l liberals ... Free enterprise, personal responsibility and freedom of thought.
Recall that the Democrats had some success for a while as centrist party... Pre Green without the political correctness and they had some economic ideas.
As the ALp moved from being a workers party to a progressive party Gough onwards, and the democrats morphed into greens the liberals were squeezed out of the middle ground.
I would love to see both main parties split. Labour is virtually a coalition of Socilasts (Dan Andrews) and the Labour Unity anyway. Have two on the right Conservative and Liberal Then we can vote in a more targeted way.
Yes would end up with no single party with a majority but sometimes a coalition of left, sometimes centre, sometimes right according to the needs of the times.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
interesting perspective from a right winger. i'm a left winger and I look at it totally differently. I've mentioned this a few times in this thread, but I believe the LNP has always been a centre-right party, more along the lines of Turnbull's ideology... But Howard moved them further to the right and they have stayed that way since. They are now run by the conservative factions.
22nd Man said:
has been in the wings for a while now. didn't Geoff Shaw and Bernie Finn register the name a couple of years ago? I know they definitely made moves to start the party.
22nd Man said:
This has legs. I reckon a more applicable set up for today would be 3 parties, a hard right (one nation, hard right of LNP), a centre (wets/ moderates of LNP and right wing of ALP) and the left/ progressive (left wing of ALP/ Greens).
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Hi Lee
Turnbull would make an excellent Labor leader and I think it is a shame for him personally that he is a square peg trying to fit into a round hole, by staying with the Coalition.
I think we are always about 10-20 years behind the UK and I see in the future more and more extreme parties having success as people are stifled and frustrated by a political correct society.
Look at Brexit. This is a perfect example of the silent majority speaking up. Whether people see it as right or wrong the UK leaving the EU, it was a protest by 17 million odd people wanting the Government they have elected in to serve the British people.
And didn't the left-wing Remain-voters like it? Protesting still with petitions demanding another referendum.
Pleease! If Remain had won, it would have been a victory for democracy. Because they lost it was the old farts fault.
Facts showed that only 36% of 18-24 year olds bothered voting compared to 83% of people 65+ years of age.
Who's fault was it again that Remain lost?
Their own.
As for Australia, we have seen One Nation rise from the ashes. We see more left-wing/right-wing riots and rallies in our cities.
This is again the frustrations of a society being thrust into the extreme and into the public light. People are tired of being labelled a racist because they want tighter border security, or a homophobe purely because they look at marriage as that of a man and a woman, or condoning domestic violence because they didn't agree with Richmond boycotting Triple-M. People are tired of reading every day in newspapers about the rape of a woman or an old person beaten up by someone who has been bailed on a similar crime or walked out of a low-security prison.
With the two major parties here very similar regarding whatever policies they do have and resorting to personal barbs and personal attacks to get one-up in the media, then I can see more and more people aligning themselves and voting for extreme parties to try and push change.
That's my two cents worth on politics.