Politics aside, within a group, people get away with picking on the "goose" of the group, but when an outsider has a go, the group steps up and defends them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
Printable View
Politics aside, within a group, people get away with picking on the "goose" of the group, but when an outsider has a go, the group steps up and defends them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
Well I think it probably might change some people's minds, particularly those who are considering voting that way for the first time. It wouldn't change a die-hard's mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
Given that bad publicity is sometimes better than none, I reckon it might also convince a few macho/butchy type doubters who might have vote informal or donkey or for someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Their rationale might be they think most pollies are too PC and should harden up a bit.
It will be interesting to see the how many first preference votes he gets.
So -ve! But apparently on the contrary according to tonight's news.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-...labor/11064150
"Both sides see WA as a major battleground"
"the west is regarded as being "in play" at this election campaign on a scale not seen for some years"
Nothing to do with which side of the fence you are on........I am certainly not on his side. I was more just intrigued that so much money and effort was put into discrediting a minority party like they did, the timing of releasing the information was not a coincidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
As far as politicians behaving badly, I think we would have few members left in parliament if all of their dirty washing was aired. Some just get caught
Yeah saw that but I don't think it will happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Well yeah, that's what any well planned operation does. Timing is everything. Planned for maximum impact. You never know, they may have one more little titbit before May 18.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
I can't recall reading the following interpretation, but I hardly think it is my original thought: The media organisation concerned comes from an Arabic Islamic country. Maybe they are sheet off with a certain party's well known and well documented xenophobic views particularly towards Arabic Islamic countries, possibly since 1996, and decided to do whatever they could about it. It would seem they played a "long" game which (as I understand things) is characteristic of Arabic diplomacy (and I'm in no way being critical of it there).Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
When it comes to budgetary concerns, the cost would have been a mere drop in the oil well. :;
Yup. Good, innit? They usually squeal like stuck pigs, so it's not really any different now. The shrillness of the squeal might vary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
They're dropping like flies at the moment. Isn't the Casualty List for the last few days something like:
2 K.I.A.
1 D.O.A
1 D.O.W
1 P.O.W. (sorry, couldn't resist :D)
2 mortally wounded, expected to be D.O.W.
1 critically injured
20+ Superficial Wounds
I must say that since half time this match has picked up considerably from the yawn of a first half which was just the forwards battering each other, softening up for the second half when the speedsters run around the exhausted forwards, scoring at will. We are seeing new plays, like in ~1975 AMCO Cup when Greg Brentnall kicked a penalty across the field for some dude to score a try untouched (that's a NSW memory).
It's a bit like the plethora of S44 casualties (was it 20 all up? More?). Suddenly they've all realised that scouring social media might be interesting. I think that's good - another check and balance measure that might clean up at least some people's acts, and may also give cause for "pause & think" for others in the future.
Hope so, anyway.
Yes FF you might be right about the media organisation involved but I just didn’t think they would be interested enough in such a small fish which is why I think someone else is behind it. I am sure it will be revealed in time.
i don’t mind that they get caught out when they do. Makes them all lift their game
You say that like it's a bad thing.:DQuote:
I think we would have few members left in parliament if all of their dirty washing was aired.
So one of the Mortally Wounded is now D.O.W. this morning.
This is extraordinary and unprecedented! I don't know if it makes it the worst election or the best election yet, but it's gotta be one of the two. It's certainly flushing out a few racists and religionists.
I think we can probably be assured that in future elections the parties will be doing a lot more due diligence on their potential candidates. They may even ask for a cash surety.
I doubt it's that different to the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
In previous elections fewer people (especially older pharts - I can say that I'm one) would have had social media accounts and there would have been far less trawling for dirt. These days parties have teams of trawlers searching media for he/she said/wrote/posted. It's a bit like the so called increase in cancer rates which is really due to improved detection and greater life expectancy.
Interesting discussion on ABC radio about the doubling of pre-pollers since the 2016 election The consensus was an increasing numbers of voters have had a gut full and know what they want and just want to move on. Apart from those with a valid reason the other pre-pollers are most likely rusted on or don't like crowds/queues. This leaves an increasing number of undecided, uninformed, and "in denial" voters to have their vote further affected by their personal "peak and edge" experience. As Amanda Vanstone put it - these are the people who decided elections.
The body count is actually 5 down just for this week, and more likely to come. Annabel Crabb has a summary of the carnage. Even though that was posted only 3 hours ago at 6.30am EST it is already well out of date (one dead since, and another revelation in Qld looking very ill). I can't think of any election where there were more than one or two dropouts for the entire race let alone at least 5 for the week (coz today ain't over yet).
Yes, and I think it is the same for Mental Health diagnoses.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
:roflmao2: What's funny about that typo is that I always read "a number of uniformed Police attended" as "uninformed Police" :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BobL
And it won't make a difference. The candidates are still on the ballot papers, still have all the How to vote cards for their supporters to hand out and can still be elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
And, if elected, in no time all will be forgiven for the party would want their support in parliament.
Peter.
It's all explained here:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-...igned/11072830
There is one part that isn't explained, and that I'm not quite certain of: if a candidate resigns/is disendorsed, we know that they are still on the ballot paper for the party and can still be elected as presumably an independent. So just looking at the Lower House, surely that must mean that the party concerned is no longer contesting that seat because any substitute candidate isn't on the ballot paper. I can't see any way out of that bind.
That would be deeply troubling for the blue party who have lost candidates for Isaacs, Wills and Lyons - three seats out of their potential count just this week. They don't hold any of them currently, and probably had no hope in Isaacs, definitely no hope in Wills where red and green primary votes in 2016 were 68%, but they certainly thought they were in with a show in Lyons.
There is one electoral change that I think must definitely be made: if you resign from a party then you resign from the Parliament as well. For the Lower House this would mean they could stand at the subsequent by-election however they wish, but it would at least be a fair dinkum vote. What's been going on for the last few years is a joke. People getting elected with as little as 19 primary votes, and the rest by virtue of people voting for the party, then quitting the party before they are even sitting for the first time. That's morally corrupt.
I have seen it reported that the algazeera "investigation" if you want to call it that was actually aimed at the NRA, but after years of trying to sting them to no effect they stumbled upon our trusty aussie pollies and managed to set them up. So it was a side show/accident. It's also interesting to note there seems to be a coalition of middle eastern governments who have been actively working against quatar for years. I don't understand why, I don't understand a lot about middle eastern politics, but quatar seem to be somewhat isolated, and algazeera has been shown to be just a propaganda machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
I used to watch PNG politics closely because they were into all teh same corruption criminality nepotism etc as our mob but were far worse at covering it up. If you wanted to know what was happening in canberra look to port moresby. I don't bother anymore because our politicians have become so incompetent they can't even cover the dirt anymore. They have even lost their survival instincts getting so carried away with internal struggles they endanger the prime objective, get re-elected. So I guess the question is: is it better to have politicians so hopeless we have scandals on telly every night, or so sneaky they succeed in hiding it from us ? because that's the only difference between the major and minor parties...
I watched you can't ask that the other day, not very interesting. AV had her numbers a bit wrong. There are about 30% each of rusted on voters for the majors, about 7% green and about the same alt right, about 4% labor voters do a protest vote occasionally and vote green although that has been declining since BB retired. So there are about say 30% swing voters. The problem is only about 25% of seats are in play so it's only swing voters in marginals who's vote counts for the house of reps, which is where she gets 4%, although it can be as high as 6%. They elect our governments and if you profile them they are mortgage belt families and all they really care about is personal pork, interest rates, fuel costs. They tune in the week before the election, checks who is promising the sweetest deal, vote accordingly then go right back to driving the kids to sport in the prado. Politics isn't complicated...
2c...
Officially they won't be supporting that candidate but it would be unofficially.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Some do good-er from that party would help with money and resources and the party won't complain about their signs etc being used until they become aware after the polling booths have closed.
So if they win they will be an independent whatever for a while and then quietly rejoin after having been in the sin bin for a while.
May be I'm cynical but that is the probable scenario.
Peter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Perhaps, but there is something more immediate than that. It's common these days for the Govt to often be 1 or -1 majority. If it was the case this time that they missed forming govt (without the need for extra support in the house) by one seat I think they'd be somewhat entitled to call "we was robbed". Especially if that candidate got up or only just missed out (so lost enough votes to lose because of the scandal).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
There are lots of cases where I disagree that a sitting member should be required to stand down if they resign from a party.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
For example
If they are elected on a substantial party policy but after the election that policy is dropped or substantially altered.
The other is leadership change - electors largely vote for directions, policies and leaders - eg if the leadership changes and especially if they take the party in a substantially different direction
Another example would be if the party or certain party members maltreat a specific community group which is a significant component of her/his electorate. Your electorate should usually come before your party.
In these cases I would have no hesitation in supporting a sitting member to stay on as an independent supporting the original policy/electorate.
In practice it's just too hard to disentangle all these thing so I would say leave it as is.
I don't agree with the domino effect used in the senate. If a member resigns from the senate their place should not automatically go to the next joe/josephine on the ballot. I would rather that position be left vacant until the next senate half election.
Yep, make that 6. Red jellybean this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
You are both forgetting one thing, political parties are not mentioned in the constitution. When you vote for your house of reps rep you are voting for an individual. Yes the parliaments have introduced legislation to accommodate the reality of party affiliation, mentioning them on the paper and allocating party funds and resources, but the parties are not actually part of our democratic system.
Same deal with PM. You don't elect a PM, you don't elect a party. You elect members. A group of members "pledge" to work as a government and they appoint a head to petition the Governor.
So for example after the election any random group in the parliament could form a government regardless of party affiliations and there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional in that. It is the EXPECTATION of the electorate that the party with the most members will form government and that they will be lead by the person proclaimed as leader before the election.
Also the Governor does not have to accept the petition and can rescind their charter at any time. Witness '75.
Yes, that's a very good and concise explanation of the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by damian
Rules and reality aren't always the same thing. If you don't believe me take a short drive on Melbourne's roads sticking rigidly to the rules and see how long you last.
As you say the Party system is not in the constitution but there is an expectation that governments will be formed and run along party lines.
The parties create an expectation of who will support potential PM's in the newly elected parliament. Where things go astray is situations like Malcolm Turnbull, who was originally an ALP member but could not get preselection for a seat so he quit and joined the Liberal Party, eventually becoming PM. How would anyone know what to expect form someone whose affiliations can change like that?
The two major parties both learnt a lesson from the public when they ousted the elected leaders mid term. Regardless of the rules the public’s mindset is that they voted for an individual to be leader
For the first time in my life, I am considering an informal vote. I have a choice of six candidates. 4 fringe/lunatic parties and the 2 mainstream. Ultimately, it will come down to one of the 2 mainstream parties, so the fringe/lunatic candidates are really out of the question. Not that I would vote for them anyway.
The sitting member belongs to the party that, in my mind is very marginally the lesser of two very bad choices. However, the member himself is nothing more than an antagonistic, loud mouthed twit that is full of hot air and vague promises that don't eventuate. I couldn't bring myself to vote for him, even if it was my single vote that decided the outcome of the entire election.
The other mainstream candidate is a first time runner, so I don't know a lot about him, and he doesn't have a track record. Also, he belongs to the party that I believe is least capable of running this country. Not that I really believe that any of the current bunch of nincompoops could do it anyway.
What's a bloke supposed to do?
I want to cast a vote and make it count, but have less than zero faith in any of the candidates.
Edit: I am going to vote early.
True, but the vast majority of people only vote for that person because of the party colour. If that wasn't the case then it would be impossible/pretty hard for a no name like Luke what'shisface to get elected. Furthermore, that is why the majors spend such unbelievable money on a campaign - brand awareness, followed by individual awareness (whomever that individual happens to be). Really what they are doing when they go out to electorates with previously unelected people standing for them is saying "if you want to vote for our party then you need to vote for this particular d!ckhead that we've chosen this time". The Party has absolutely no interest in the electorate whatsoever - they just want numbers to form Govt. Perhaps I'm stating the bleeding obvious there.Quote:
Originally Posted by damian
It will be interesting to see what the blowflies at the school gates do in the electorates where they have disendorsed someone or that person has resigned. It sounds like the Bigot of Lyons is still going to run as an Inde. Presumably the party machine has to either reprint their how to vote propaganda or just destroy it. Actually they can't really reprint it because they can't nominate someone else now. Do they even bother showing up? What can they do if they do show up? They can't champion (even verbally) the resigned person, but nor can they say to vote against them. OTOH if they don't show up they are giving free kicks all round to the other parties in that electorate race. Fascinating stuff!
double post
I guess there are a few things for you to consider. There are local issues and federal issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by cjbfisher
Is the current guy doing anything about local issues? From what you have said, apparently not so that would suggest voting for some change.
OTOH, you have indicated your (very slight) preference for his side to run the country, so that would suggest voting for Andrew. (you're in Bowman right?)
You could vote informal, and that is a legitimate vote, IMO. It sends a msg to all, but you have to make sure it looks like a deliberately informal vote, such as numbering each square with 6 (or even 7) and/or writing some message (which may or may not penetrate).
However, if I was in your position, and felt as you do, I'd be tempted to vote 1 Red, and 2 Blue, and then whatever else. The vote in 2016 was 50% Blue, 32% Red, so apparently pretty safe. I think that sends a fairly strong msg to the incumbent, actually. "I voted against you, but only up to the point where the loonies might get my vote". I think it would be interpreted as "I think you are crap, but not as crap as the other crap". Certainly I think it would say more than voting 1 Blue, and then whatever. So you'd have voted for his oppostion, but they probably won't get up, and his majority will be reduced - they don't like that much. It's probably quite humbling to lose a safe margin, and certainly means they know they have to work harder locally.
Preferential voting can be a powerful tool if used properly.
Here's a couple of links that may provide some more info for you.
Link 1
Link 2
I usually did the pre-poll thing and now get a postal vote. I don't listen to the rubbish they spout and have made up my mind and once the poll is declared I wait for my envelope, mark it as I wish, get it witnessed and sent off. Pity the ads don't stop then also.
There was a story on abc radio a yesterday on early voting. The bloke they interviewed from the EC was cagey about those who vote early without a "valid reason" but said every vote cast before election day took significant pressure of EC staff during the big day.
I prefer to vote on the day at the local school, get my democracy sausage and a cake to support the P&C.
At the rate people are pre-polling by the time the actual election day comes along, Alex, you can have all the sausages and all the cakes. :oo:Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
I voted on Friday and had to queue for 45 minutes. There was nowhere to sit while in line and by the time I got there my back was aching something fierce. It undid all my Chiropractor's good work and I had to lie down for a couple of hours when I got home.
There are two pre-poll venues near me and they are both open two days per week - yes you guessed it - the same two days. If you can't get to the pre-poll on a Monday or a Friday you miss out. You would think they could be clever enough to stagger them to make it more available at more times.
As it's on the way to the hardware I might drop by the local booth on the day and get a sausage or two,Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
Same as the Bunnings sausages, I don't actually eat them but the dogs like them and the buns as well.
The dogs salivate and drool if I pull up too close to the BBQ tents.
I must live in a totally safe seat as I have never even smelt a sausage in all of my years having to choose which offering is the least representative of my desires.
At the 2013 election instead of the local primary school polling booth I went to one at a local child care centre. Now they had the right idea with a full on foodie thing happeneing; Gourmet sausages, wholemeal as well as the usual white sponge rubber buns, pies, other savouries, heaps of cakes, biscuits, preserves, pickles etc, All for a price of course, I think I spent about $40 all up. Not quite as good at the 2016 election - must drop by again this timeQuote:
Originally Posted by Bohdan
It's terrifying when I'm accused of doing something right. You are clearly not my wife...Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
I wasn't commenting on reality, just addressing the previous few posts that seemed to imply there was something illegal/immoral/unconstitutional about disendorsed candidates continuing on the ballot.
BobL has the right idea. I think I might pop down for a sausage on the day as unlike Bob I quite like them. I have the very great pleasure of living in an area where everyone half knows each other and I have the best neighbours imaginable. I am very happy to support local community groups.
For what little it's worth:
My political opinions have not changed an ounce since I was young. I have alway believed with great certainty that whichever party forms government we get mightily shafted. Since we can't stop the flow of sewage our way our only hope is to slow it, and our only method is the hung parliament. The more time they spend doing deals and knifing each other the less they have to interfere in our lives. Cynical ? Yes. Tell me I'm wrong...
So since I was 18 I've always voted independent or minor party. Doesn't really matter who you pick as none will ever get any real power, except the greens who are genuinely dangerous. Because I've alway lived in safe seats I have sometimes had no one but lib/lab/grn in thee reps and then with a tear in my eye and clenched teeth I have wasted my vote. It hurts because I want to believe in our democracy, but I can not bring myself to put a number above 0 in any of those boxes. I love optional preferential voting and wish we could number fewer squares than we do. I do love the new senate voting options. I spent a few hours prior choosing which raisins I'd pick out of the fruit cake. Quite amusing reading the policies and mission statements of some of them.
Remember while life is not perfect ours is pretty good. Most people in the world would love to have our problems as would most of the humans who have lived throughout our species existence. That we eat every day, have some small say in who governs us and are unlikely to get blown up or shot today make us very lucky indeed.
That was too much optimism. I need a nap...
An election story that might amuse some here. Back in 1973?? when Whitlam got the sand shoe out of government I was wandering through Caringbah shopping centre with my mate on the eve of the election and lo and behold who should pull us up but Tom Uren. For those who are not aware of him he was a minister in the Whitlam government and thought that the Liberals were a scourge put on this earth but he could never figure out what the reason was that they existed, to put it in a few words he hated them. Anyway he starts his spiel and it soon became obvious that we were not really happy with the Labor Party due to their performance in government so he started to literally abuse us and it stopped most of the pedestrians walking by in their tracks because they could not believe what they were seeing. Tom was the salt of the earth but I think he had had enough by then in an election Labor was never going to win.
it was 1975 when the "great man" got booted by the then GG -- the one that was characterised by "Well may he say 'God save the Queen', because nothing will save the Governor General."Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Parks
They seem to have rewritten history on Whitlam as a great leader of this country. I can only remember the time as the hardships and despair he brought to us.
I always understood that the "great man" attestation referred more to Whitlam's height and intellect than his ability to run the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
Then again, his predecessor (Billy (big ears) MacMahon) wasn't great shakes as an economic manager either.
Whitlam got elected, then spent the accumulated budget surplus of 30+ years of responsible financial management of the economy.
Not satisfied with that they then tried to borrow more money to squander in what became known as the Khemlani Affair.