10
   

Oz Election Thread #6 - Abbott's LNP

 
 
hingehead
 
  0  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2014 03:54 am
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhRnJjKCYAAh9Ha.png
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2014 04:16 am
I have a question for the Strines about something i read in a novel recently. It was stated that you have ranked ballots, and that therefore candidates are well advised to attempt to appeal to more voters than just their core constituency. Is that so? How does that work?
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2014 04:40 am
Not sure about the term "ranked ballots". Are you talking about preferential voting?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2014 04:58 am
@Wilso,
I am not conversant with the terminology. The reference was to voting for your number one choice, number two choice and your number three choice. I can see why the author called that ranked voting, and why one would call it preferential voting. Is that the case, and in your experience, does it mean that politicians are moved to attempt a wider appeal?
hingehead
 
  0  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2014 05:17 am
@Setanta,
Hmmm. It's hard to compare because I haven't experienced your system to compare.

It gets odd because you can direct your choices (preferences) but it means numbering every square 'below the line' on the ballot paper (last Queensland Federal Senate ballot had 137 boxes to number without screwing up). Or you can be lazy and tick one box 'above the line' - and if your electee doesn't get in s/he can direct your preference however they see fit. Often preference deals are kept secret and in the recent federal election some candidates got in (Sports Party, Automobile Lovers Party) because of a complicated network of preference deals.

In the lower house, it is not uncommon for the person with the most 'first preferences' to lose the election because of preferences directed by other candidates to the person who had the second (or even third) most 'first preferences'. So left leaning minor parties will often direct their prefs to the ALP, right leaning to the LNP.

Does this mean candidates try and appeal more broadly? It seems likely but I have no proof, and can't even guess how much.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2014 05:34 am
@hingehead,
Thanks for taking the time to give me coherent answer, Boss.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2014 05:13 pm
I think a lot of us are feeling like this:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1897795_290954361056025_1483440418_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2014 10:59 pm
Can't comment on the senate - too complicated. Preferential voting refers to the "most preferred" candidate being elected. As opposed to "first past the post". EG. Let's say 4 candidates are vying for 100 total votes. Candidate A gets 30 votes. Candidates B and C get 25 votes each. Candidate D gets 20 votes. In first past the post voting, candidate A wins. But 70 % of the electorate didn't vote for that candidate.
In the preferential voting system a candidate requires an "absolute majority", equivalent to 50% + 1 vote, which in our hypothetical election means 51 votes.
After the initial counting, no candidate has an absolute majority. The candidate with the lowest number of "primary" votes is eliminated (D). That candidates second preferences are then distributed to the remaining 3 candidates. If any of the remaining 3 candidates now has 51 votes, the election is over. If no candidate yet has an absolute majority, then the process is again repeated, with the lowest ranking candidate being eliminated, and preferences being distributed. Obviously with an electorate with 8 or more candidates, it can get complicated, that said, it's very rare for the election of any one seat to go fiurther than the first distribution of prefernces.
My personal opinion is that the most preferred candidate is more democratic than any election where someone can win despite 70% of the voters voting against the candidate in question.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2014 11:17 pm
Seriously you need to watch the video of Scott Ludlam smacking down Tony Abbott in the Senate

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/mar/05/ludlam-slams-abbott-government?CMP=ema_632

Loved it.
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2014 12:24 am
@hingehead,
I pray for wind beneath his wings and that his words are true.

If I prayed. I can visualise, I suppose?
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 09:06 pm
This story has Mrs Hinge in tears
Of course we want kids who are missing out on education to also suffer overcrowding or homelessness because their parents are dysfunctional. That's entitlement.

Housing hopes to hinge on schooling
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/housing-hopes-to-hinge-on-schooling/story-fn9hm1pm-1226848407280#

The Abbott government is proposing the most radical and far-reaching changes to Aboriginal housing, with a plan to move indigenous people who send their children to school forward in waiting lists.

The changes would also enable Aboriginal people who get jobs away from remote communities to transfer their social housing and home ownership entitlements.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion signalled that preference for new public housing would be given to areas where land tenure provided for home ownership, such as 99-year leases or freehold title.

This will enrage some indigenous leaders and traditional owners, but the minister told The Weekend Australian that without land tenure economic development and the chance for home ownership down the track would be impossible.

Senator Scullion warned that if a state or territory was not up to the task the federal government reserved the right to take over delivery of social housing.

He said the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, which was initiated by Labor in 2008 and expires in June, had not delivered on the promise of being a “long-term fix to the emergency”.

While more than $2.5 billion had been spent through the national agreement, overcrowding remained chronic in remote Australia and a “radical rethink” was overdue.

He said state and Northern Territory governments must manage remote indigenous housing as they did other public housing and vowed to begin bilateral agreements with each state and the Territory after June - rather than a national agreement.

“Why are we building houses in places where land tenure arrangements prevent people from ever buying the house?” he said.

“One aspect that I will be focusing on is how we can offer housing in a way that encourages mobility for those who want to move to areas with better employment opportunities.”

Mining magnate Andrew Forrest has called on the Abbott government to overhaul the rules that mean Aborigines lose their subsidised housing in remote communities if they take jobs.

Mr Forrest, who was recruited by Tony Abbott to chair the review and find better linkages to jobs for indigenous people, has said the national welfare and housing system is skewed towards ensuring Aborigines stayed unemployed.

Senator Scullion would be working with the states and the Northern Territory to reform a regime that was “clearly failing” and move towards building public housing only where there were land tenure arrangements in place for home ownership.

The minister said the government wanted new mobility packages for remote residents, with “portability of special housing and home ownership eligibility for those who want to move to areas with stronger labour markets”.

He wanted to impose a priority for the allocation of public housing to families in jobs or where children are regularly attending school.

“We also need to ensure that people in social housing are not adversely affected when taking up employment opportunities,” he said.

Public housing tenants should be able to purchase the homes they lived in, he said.

“A 99-year lease is the only bankable lease. Let me tell you there has been no money lent from a 40-year lease,” he said.

“I want social housing to be genuinely available to people to purchase.

“They will never purchase it if the underlining lease arrangements are so short-term.”

0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2014 03:09 pm
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/p480x480/1911782_686939784677504_1581172337_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2014 12:03 am
From the tail end of this piece http://theconversation.com/the-ultimate-conservationist-the-looming-crisis-for-the-abbott-government-24243 in the Conversation.

Quote:
The international pressure for climate change action will be exquisite in Brisbane. It would be difficult to invent a more awkward contrast between Australia’s domestic myopia and the international momentum on climate action.

A Globe International assessment of the climate mitigation strategies of 66 countries rated Australia as the bottom of the barrel. Headed by former Thatcher government minister Lord Deben, the Abbott government’s climate policies are described as:

Quote:
…so unintellectual as to be unacceptable; I mean it is just amazing.


Australia is identified as the only country on earth to be winding back national climate legislation.

How Australia is going to chair a meeting that is starring climate change as a priority item will be excruciating to watch. And if Greg Hunt or Tony Abbott have to give a speech, that would be amazing.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2014 01:46 am
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1/q71/s720x720/1920536_235425059977054_2140194487_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2014 05:46 pm
I too am very interested the outcome of the WA senate ballot replay.

Scott Ludlam's speech worth paying attention to
Elizabeth Farrelly

Sydney Morning Herald columnist, author, architecture critic and essayist

Greens Senator Scott Ludlam invites Tony Abbott to visit Western Australia - and then unloads on the Prime Minister in a Senate speech earlier this week that has since gone viral.

Australian politics measures itself in landmark speeches. Menzies' ''forgotten people'' speech, 1942. Keating's ''Redfern'' speech, 1992. Gillard's misogyny speech, Hockey's entitlement speech. And now, Scott Ludlam's ''Welcome to WA, Tony Abbott'' speech.

I like such speeches, if only for their comforting illusion that there's more to our political life than the mundane squabble over money and resources. Not exactly ''I have a dream'' territory, perhaps, but they do at least imply core principle.

And apparently I'm not the only one hungry for it. Sorry to say I don't mean our political leaders, whose indifference to the parlay for which we pay them is so profound that Ludlam found himself delivering his adjournment speech to a near-empty Senate, occupied by just one of his 75 elected colleagues.

But it was the populace came thundering through on horseback. Ten days on YouTube garnered Ludlam's speech 700,000 views; more than Cate Blanchett's Oscar win. This kind of response makes Australian politicians' disdain for principle the more surprising. Take, for example, Tony Abbott's recent address to the ForestWorks dinner. It was a classic crowd-pleaser, a cynical exercise in wrongful and duplicitous nonsense.

Abbott told the logging industry lobby group that ''too much'' of our pristine forest is protected, that loggers are the ''true conservationists'' and that the Greens - which he characterised as ''the devil'' - are to blame for Tasmania's high unemployment, low life-expectancy and low school retention rates. It was dumb. It was embarrassing. But it worked.

The subtext was appeasement; a placatory sop to an angry state for Abbott's shameless downgrade of his national broadband network optic fibre promise to slow old copper.

Against such background blather, statements of principle stand in stark contrast. True, even principled speeches can have destructive consequences. Menzies' ''forgotten people'' speech, in validating the middle classes, helped justify a century of bloat and sprawl. Helped feed the entitlement from which we are now forced painfully to resile.

Far more dangerous, however, are those speeches that appear principled and are not. A comparison of Ludlam's ''Abbott'' speech with Joe Hockey's ''entitlement'' speech is edifying here. The first, marked by a kind of reckless candour (driven, no doubt, by Labor's threat to redirect preferences on April 5) is a lucid, point-by-point explication of principle. The other merely deploys principle to cloak economic expedience.

As opponents, the Liberals and the Greens could hardly be more adamant. Yet the weird thing is, if Hockey were serious about ending entitlement he would adopt just about every principle Ludlam so eloquently voiced.

When Hockey first started talking entitlement, in his 2011 speech to London's Institute of Economic Affairs, my ears pricked up. Ending entitlement is an idea with which I have some sympathy, since universal ''me-now''-ism has brought us to the teetering edge of economic and environmental ruin.

I even wrote a book about this (Blubberland: The Dangers of Happiness), fascinated as I was, and am, by how desire-based social structures can take us somewhere we emphatically do not want to go.

It's plain that eco-conscious living involves a reining-in of personal entitlement in the interests of the collective good. This is not socialism. It's just commonsense.

But that is a long way from Hockey's point. Hockey, like Margaret Thatcher before him, used the ''entitlement'' idea to engage our much baser instincts: cutting welfare and Medicare. He just wanted a reason to bash those who are already least entitled, the poor and voiceless.

Sure, there are dole bludgers. There's Medicare fraud. (Although I suspect a royal commission would discover more rorting by wealthy eastern suburbs plastic surgeons than families of 10 from Engadine.)

But by far the bigger and more urgent picture is how entitlement on all our parts, and most especially the parts of wealthy hyper-consumers, drives our wanton planetary destruction.

Ludlam's speech showed where Hockey's reasoning should have taken him, if he'd only had the courage and imagination to go there.

Ludlam begged Abbott to see Western Australia as ''a place where the drought never ended, where climate change from land clearing and fossil fuel combustion is a lived reality that is already costing jobs, property and lives''. He sketched a moving vision of ''Australia as it could be - an economy running on infinite flows of renewable energy; a society that never forgets it lives on country occupied by the planet's oldest continuing civilisation; and a country that values education, innovation and equality''.

He went on to log some of the ways in which Abbott's government has allowed its agenda to be driven by expectations of entitlement. Entitlement to what? Well, broadly, to exploit natural resources for immediate financial gain, entitlement to predator capitalism, whatever the long-term cost.

Ludlam cited Abbott's ''blank cheque'' for West Australian Premier Colin Barnett's ''bloody and unnecessary'' shark cull (over which an unprecedented 12,000 public submissions were received), and his summary cancellation of half a billion dollars' worth of funding for Perth light rail.

He also cited Abbott's support for gas-fracking and uranium mining, despite the known dangers and evident toxicity. And Abbott's determination to log Tasmania's old-growth forests, pretending that they're already ''degraded'' when in fact only a fraction of the world's-tallest flowering forest has ever been logged.

And Abbott's support for Monsanto and other global biotechs, in proposing the so-called Investor State Dispute Resolution clauses for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. ISDRs will effectively allow these massive biotechs, their clanking war-chests bigger than many state budgets, to sue Australian states that try to legislate against coal-seam gas or GM crops or for consumer labelling.

The writer Tim Winton says WA's ground-wealth has bred a ''smugness that has paralysed parts of the communal brain''. Ludlam insists otherwise. This is his gamble, that we're wrong to act ''as though the western third of our ancient continent is just Gina Rinehart's inheritance, to be chopped, benched and blasted''.

Ludlam finished by thanking the PM because ''every time you open your mouth the Green vote goes up''. In three weeks, we'll know whether he was right.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/scott-ludlams-speech--worth-paying-attention-to-20140312-34ml1.html#ixzz2vnLfbVQO
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2014 10:06 pm
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2014 10:11 pm
From before the election....
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2014 02:19 am
http://i57.tinypic.com/ibvsja.jpg
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  0  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2014 06:42 am
I'm not a huge fan of these (having been in the crowd the day the CFMEU stormed Parliament house after Howard's election) - mainly because they don't seem to change anything. But it was nice to see no-one doing anything like 'ditch the witch' or 'Bob Brown's bitch' a la the alan jones sponsored wankfest of 2010.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jennaguillaume/march-in-march-photos-that-will-give-you-goosebumps

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BizZIqfCUAA-623.jpg
hingehead
 
  0  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2014 06:45 am
@hingehead,
I should have scrolled down further, they do get to abuse, but at least it's not sexist ;-0
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Beached As Bro - Discussion by dadpad
Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour - Discussion by msolga
Australian music - Discussion by Wilso
AUstralian Philosophers - Discussion by dadpad
Australia voting system - Discussion by fbaezer
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2019 at 07:18:20