Jump to content
ilyria109

Vote Liberal

Recommended Posts

Thats a poor attempt. You're using the global financial crisis to discredit a publication?

A global financial crisis caused in large part in the years prior by the very same companies?

 

You bet I am.

 

On top of that the liberals have massive budget holes leads me to believe that they simply cant do accounting properly.

What you call holes are unfilled policies. They haven't said where they'll get the savings from.

 

How can you run a country if you cant do multiplication and subtraction?

Ask Swannie. He announced a wafer-thin budget surplus in this budget, yet his leader just committed more money to asylum seekers, gonski, ndis, dental, etc.

 

Currently they're not explaining how they'll achieve budget surplus with these not-in-budget requirements.

 

The good news is that with Labors education reforms a whole new generation of liberals will stand a better chance. Checks and measures I guess..

Pity there's no guarantee of outcomes since it's not an outcome-based reform, eh?

 

Swan delivers a slim budget surplus in the most trying global economical times since the great depression and you say he's not a great treasurer by discrediting a publication that gave him that award.

 

Because

 

That publication recommended three companies that went bust two years later when the GFC hit?

 

Then in the same reply criticise a government who wants to return the surplus to the people by providing better education,dental care and managing our borders better.

 

Gah... this is frustrating...

 

I'm going to try explain this to you simply, it'll also clear up my own thoughts.

 

When you look at most countries in the OECD, the 2008 recession, hit all of them. And they all followed largely the same trajectories, same gradient and all. Obviously I discount basket cases like Iceland, Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc.

 

Swannie had the benefit of standing on the shoulders of giants who guaranteed him a soft landing. Remember, Swannie didn't do a damned thing that wasn't done by any other treasurer in the world. He simply had the benefit of an awesome financial position before the recession, and he managed not to fuck it up too badly, or not as badly as everyone else. That alone, given his performance as Shadow Treasurer, should be enough to give him that award.

 

Now, look at it from Euromoney's point of view: which other countries' treasurers look good at the moment? No-one's - he got it by being the cleanest looking pile of shit in a sea of diarrhea.

 

Euromeny too, has fucked up before, many times. Their 2007 piece waxing lyrical about AIG was pure comedy with the benefit of hindsight :)

 

---

 

The second bit has to do with holes. The coalition has a $70b hole that in unfunded. They've announced $70b of spending measures but not told us where that money's coming from except that they'll release the policies before the election.

 

That seems fair, if they deliver.

 

Swannie rolled out a budget a few months ago with a wafer-slim budget surplus. He promised us a surplus.

 

Since that time, the government has had to deal with the perfectly predictable increase in funding for illegal immigrants because of their own policy incompetence, and announced new immediate funding for projects not hinted at, in the budget.

 

In other words - not only are they not showing us where the savings are coming from to maintain budget surplus, but they're also not telling us why they delivered a surplus budget in the first place if their intent was to break it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also he has single handedly dragged political debate in this country into the sewer

Honestly I don't think Australian Politics has been this bad since... Ever.

While I am not a fan of Abbot myself I think you may be giving him too much credit there.

 

Honestly I don't think Australian Politics has been this bad since... Ever.

Although you're right about that.

 

The scam where if you don't number each candidate below the line in order of your preference your vote just gets passed up the line until either the labour or liberal candidate gets in.

Director,

 

I know what you’re getting at with the preferential system, but there’s nothing stopping you preferencing the major parties last, is there?

 

The reason why we have a two party system in Australia, and pretty much every democracy to a greater or lesser extent, is that both parties cover quite a broad band of the political spectrum from right to left. If I could use the analogy of a 30cm ruler, with the political “centre” being at 15cm, the Labor Party would cover from about 5cm to 15cm, and the Liberal/Nationals from 15cm to 25cm. In the Labor Party there are well the well-established factions of the Labor Left and Right. Within the Coalition you have the “small L” liberals towards the centre, and “Big L” Liberals and the Nationals on the Conservative Right.

 

Please bear with the analogy….

 

This leaves the Greens to cover points from about 5cm to 1cm, the Communists and Socialists on 0-1cm on the left.

 

On the far right of our ruler you have One Nation, the Citizen’s Electoral Council and the Christian Democrats. Bob Katter’s Australia Party flaps on the extreme right and left wings simultaneously, thereby providing a bit of light-hearted entertainment to all of us.

 

Here’s the thing. The Coalition and the Labor Party dominate not because of some evil conspiracy or dodgyness within the preferential voting system, but because they represent the majority of the population from a political perspective. Believe it or not, most people don’t have extreme right or left wing political views. Those parties that sit at the extremes tend poll well at an election or two when campaigning on a particular issue, and then fizzle out once that issue is no longer seen as being important to the majority of the electorate. One Nation is an example of this, and the Greens are heading that way themselves. Once you live under the silliness that extreme parties (like the Greens) bring to the system, most of the time people will vote accordingly and send them back to where they belong – the fringe.

 

Australia has a good democracy. Unfortunately for you, people like yourself (and I’m not having a go at you, just calling it how I see it) who have political views that are quite extreme, are in the minority and are represented accordingly.

 

That may change one day.

 

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scam where if you don't number each candidate below the line in order of your preference your vote just gets passed up the line until either the labour or liberal candidate gets in.

Director,

 

I know what you’re getting at with the preferential system, but there’s nothing stopping you preferencing the major parties last, is there?

 

The reason why we have a two party system in Australia, and pretty much every democracy to a greater or lesser extent, is that both parties cover quite a broad band of the political spectrum from right to left. If I could use the analogy of a 30cm ruler, with the political “centre” being at 15cm, the Labor Party would cover from about 5cm to 15cm, and the Liberal/Nationals from 15cm to 25cm. In the Labor Party there are well the well-established factions of the Labor Left and Right. Within the Coalition you have the “small L” liberals towards the centre, and “Big L” Liberals and the Nationals on the Conservative Right.

 

Please bear with the analogy….

 

This leaves the Greens to cover points from about 5cm to 1cm, the Communists and Socialists on 0-1cm on the left.

 

On the far right of our ruler you have One Nation, the Citizen’s Electoral Council and the Christian Democrats. Bob Katter’s Australia Party flaps on the extreme right and left wings simultaneously, thereby providing a bit of light-hearted entertainment to all of us.

 

Here’s the thing. The Coalition and the Labor Party dominate not because of some evil conspiracy or dodgyness within the preferential voting system, but because they represent the majority of the population from a political perspective. Believe it or not, most people don’t have extreme right or left wing political views. Those parties that sit at the extremes tend poll well at an election or two when campaigning on a particular issue, and then fizzle out once that issue is no longer seen as being important to the majority of the electorate. One Nation is an example of this, and the Greens are heading that way themselves. Once you live under the silliness that extreme parties (like the Greens) bring to the system, most of the time people will vote accordingly and send them back to where they belong – the fringe.

 

Australia has a good democracy. Unfortunately for you, people like yourself (and I’m not having a go at you, just calling it how I see it) who have political views that are quite extreme, are in the minority and are represented accordingly.

 

That may change one day.

 

 

I understand t your 'theory' but like all theories it doesn't really relate to what's going on in the real world. The 2-party preferred system was brought in in 1918 to stop the Country party from winning the election. Yes that's right, our current voting system was designed to stop democracy. And sure, we can (and I do) preference the major parties last but most people don't seem to understand that the voting system works that way and/or CBA making the effort because they fell that nothing will change anyway. As for representing the middle ground, talk is cheap and my general approach to people and organisations is to focus more on what they do than what they say. Regardless of stated party polices and pre-election rhetoric (marketing) both parties have been driving us off the cliff edge for decades now. They are merely 2 heads on the same snake and when a potential contender for the throne comes along, like One Nation for e.g. (like them or not is not the point ) then they are shut down pretty fast by the media, after all, maintaining the status quo seems to be part of its mandate too. And besides, have a few representatives in the mix with some fringe policies might be a good thing, they wouldn't have the power to push their ideas through and the might just bring some good ones up for discussion. Anything's gotta be better than the unbridled fabain socialism embraced by the current duopoly?

 

So my comment stands, until the system is changed democracy will ne'er be seen, we started out as a colony of prisoners lorded over by our masters and nothing has changed....except for the aqueduct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it the major parties dominate because they have more advertising funds and the media gives them more attention. Reducing politics to left-right wing is nonsensical; it is far from being that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - I had forgotten that.

 

Within Telstra's operating budget and in a public-private partnership from memory?.

 

Not as an extra.

Still. Taxpayer money used to fund infrastructure enhancement. It's not a new idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - I had forgotten that.

 

Within Telstra's operating budget and in a public-private partnership from memory?.

 

Not as an extra.

Still. Taxpayer money used to fund infrastructure enhancement. It's not a new idea.

 

True. The rejoinder is that HFC covers 2.5 million homes, none in market-irrelevant areas.

 

I would be happy for the NBN to cover metro areas and areas where it will provide a measurable economic/technological/research benefit. Everyone else can pleb along on copper.

 

(Oh and the RIM situation fixed)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. The rejoinder is that HFC covers 2.5 million homes, none in market-irrelevant areas.

That's 2.5 million that NBN Co doesn't need to worry about. Or even better, NBN Co could take ownership of those CAN's, and allow every ISP to access those customers.

 

I'd buy a 50/20 HFC connection from iiNet in a heartbeat. Especially if they threw in a HD TV episode/Movie rental service, which they could realistically do, by having some level of control over the speed to the customer.

 

I would be happy for the NBN to cover metro areas and areas where it will provide a measurable economic/technological/research benefit. Everyone else can pleb along on copper.

 

(Oh and the RIM situation fixed)

So people on copper can get fucked (but not too badly, do you get to pick the level of fuckedness?).

 

I don't know whether to admire, or be sickened by your attitude. :)

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see 'the two party preferred voting scam'. I'm interested to know how opponents of the voting system would change it and why.

Edited by fajw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been 'shakeups' in the past. And I *think* we are at the beginning of another such shakeup.

 

The greens gaining as much power as they have is a good indicator.

 

But do you remember "Keeping the bastards honest"? That was quite big.

 

For a while, Canberra had a strong "Democrat" section. Labor was in charge, but Democrats were always guaranteed a seat.

 

Then things went downhill.

 

Truly, I'd rather Democrats sort their shit out and become a viable alternative to the Greens. THAT would sort out the playing field a little.

 

AD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see 'the two party preferred voting scam'. I'm interested to know how opponents of the voting system would change it and why.

 

What is it that you're having problems with?

 

In a democracy, is you get 51% of the vote then you have won. In the system we have, if you don't get 51% of the 'primary' vote you can still win when votes get sent your way from people who didn't vote for you as these shuffled votes may push you past the real winner. In a real democracy the votes should stay where they are cast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a poor attempt. You're using the global financial crisis to discredit a publication?

A global financial crisis caused in large part in the years prior by the very same companies?

 

You bet I am.

 

On top of that the liberals have massive budget holes leads me to believe that they simply cant do accounting properly.

What you call holes are unfilled policies. They haven't said where they'll get the savings from.

 

How can you run a country if you cant do multiplication and subtraction?

Ask Swannie. He announced a wafer-thin budget surplus in this budget, yet his leader just committed more money to asylum seekers, gonski, ndis, dental, etc.

 

Currently they're not explaining how they'll achieve budget surplus with these not-in-budget requirements.

 

The good news is that with Labors education reforms a whole new generation of liberals will stand a better chance. Checks and measures I guess..

Pity there's no guarantee of outcomes since it's not an outcome-based reform, eh?

 

Swan delivers a slim budget surplus in the most trying global economical times since the great depression and you say he's not a great treasurer by discrediting a publication that gave him that award.

 

Because

 

That publication recommended three companies that went bust two years later when the GFC hit?

 

Then in the same reply criticise a government who wants to return the surplus to the people by providing better education,dental care and managing our borders better.

 

Gah... this is frustrating...

 

I'm going to try explain this to you simply, it'll also clear up my own thoughts.

 

When you look at most countries in the OECD, the 2008 recession, hit all of them. And they all followed largely the same trajectories, same gradient and all. Obviously I discount basket cases like Iceland, Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc.

 

Swannie had the benefit of standing on the shoulders of giants who guaranteed him a soft landing. Remember, Swannie didn't do a damned thing that wasn't done by any other treasurer in the world. He simply had the benefit of an awesome financial position before the recession, and he managed not to fuck it up too badly, or not as badly as everyone else. That alone, given his performance as Shadow Treasurer, should be enough to give him that award.

 

Now, look at it from Euromoney's point of view: which other countries' treasurers look good at the moment? No-one's - he got it by being the cleanest looking pile of shit in a sea of diarrhea.

 

Euromeny too, has fucked up before, many times. Their 2007 piece waxing lyrical about AIG was pure comedy with the benefit of hindsight :)

 

---

 

The second bit has to do with holes. The coalition has a $70b hole that in unfunded. They've announced $70b of spending measures but not told us where that money's coming from except that they'll release the policies before the election.

 

That seems fair, if they deliver.

 

Swannie rolled out a budget a few months ago with a wafer-slim budget surplus. He promised us a surplus.

 

Since that time, the government has had to deal with the perfectly predictable increase in funding for illegal immigrants because of their own policy incompetence, and announced new immediate funding for projects not hinted at, in the budget.

 

In other words - not only are they not showing us where the savings are coming from to maintain budget surplus, but they're also not telling us why they delivered a surplus budget in the first place if their intent was to break it.

 

Cool, that post makes way more sense and makes you seem less extreme in your viewpoints.

 

The differences in our views, seems to be this

 

I think you are leaning towards giving Swan less credit and I lean towards giving him more.

 

I think that the mining boom gave him help, you seem to insinuate that the previous government did.

 

 

 

Also Euromoney has been around since 1969, Im sure they have a few mistakes on their books, I dont think that discredits every decision they have made, least of all

what amounts to bestowing a reasonable award on Wayne Swan, even if he was the only person who could have got it in the circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. The rejoinder is that HFC covers 2.5 million homes, none in market-irrelevant areas.

That's 2.5 million that NBN Co doesn't need to worry about. Or even better, NBN Co could take ownership of those CAN's, and allow every ISP to access those customers.

 

I'd buy a 50/20 HFC connection from iiNet in a heartbeat. Especially if they threw in a HD TV episode/Movie rental service, which they could realistically do, by having some level of control over the speed to the customer.

 

I would be happy for the NBN to cover metro areas and areas where it will provide a measurable economic/technological/research benefit. Everyone else can pleb along on copper.

 

(Oh and the RIM situation fixed)

So people on copper can get fucked (but not too badly, do you get to pick the level of fuckedness?).

 

I don't know whether to admire, or be sickened by your attitude. :)

 

See, just by suggesting the NBN use the good parts of existing infrastructure, you've already proven yourself to be thinking like the coalition, and a lot smarter than Labor.

 

Secondly, I don't really care how you see it - fact o the matter is copper is perfectly fine for the vast majority of users in the foreseeable future. We can't have everything we want because money does not grow on trees, at least not if you're in the 10-30 segment of xyzzy's ruler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

I understand t your 'theory' but like all theories it doesn't really relate to what's going on in the real world. The 2-party preferred system was brought in in 1918 to stop the Country party from winning the election. Yes that's right, our current voting system was designed to stop democracy.

That’s totally incorrect.

The preferential system was brought in not to stop the Country Party from winning power, but because, as a result of the Country Party splitting the conservative vote, the Labor Party won a seat by winning a minority of votes. By introducing the preferential system, voters were allowed to vote for the party that they wanted, and vote for a preference second. The law was brought in by Billy Hughes, a conservative Nationalist Prime Minister so, although a nice conspiracy theory, it doesn’t stand up to historical scrutiny. It’s the total opposite of what actually happened, and the total opposite of why preferential voting was introduced.

And sure, we can (and I do) preference the major parties last but most people don't seem to understand that the voting system works that way and/or CBA making the effort because they fell that nothing will change anyway.

So your vote is more important than everyone else’s because you think you have some special insight into the system that few others have?

As for representing the middle ground, talk is cheap and my general approach to people and organisations is to focus more on what they do than what they say. Regardless of stated party polices and pre-election rhetoric (marketing) both parties have been driving us off the cliff edge for decades now. They are merely 2 heads on the same snake and when a potential contender for the throne comes along, like One Nation for e.g. (like them or not is not the point ) then they are shut down pretty fast by the media, after all, maintaining the status quo seems to be part of its mandate too. And besides, have a few representatives in the mix with some fringe policies might be a good thing, they wouldn't have the power to push their ideas through and the might just bring some good ones up for discussion. Anything's gotta be better than the unbridled fabain socialism embraced by the current duopoly?

That’s fine Director, those are your opinions. Unfortunately those opinions aren’t shared by the majority come election time.

So my comment stands, until the system is changed democracy will ne'er be seen, we started out as a colony of prisoners lorded over by our masters and nothing has changed....except for the aqueduct.

You know what Director, as you said before, talk is cheap. It’s very easy to sit and be cynical and do nothing about it except whinge on internet forums. Go and do something about it! That’s the beauty of democracy; you can go and participate in it, from casting a vote, to standing for election. There’s nothing stopping you. Personally I have a great deal more respect for people who try to enact change they see as being necessary, even if I totally disagree with them.

 

An opposing viewpoint is just as valuable in democracy as the one you agree with.

 

 

I still don't see 'the two party preferred voting scam'. I'm interested to know how opponents of the voting system would change it and why.

 

What is it that you're having problems with?

 

In a democracy, is you get 51% of the vote then you have won.

Wrong!!!!!

 

The whole reason that the preferential system was brought in was because parties were winning seats with a minority of the vote. So even though (as was the case) the two major conservative parties had won a majority of the vote, the Labor Party won office becase they one more votes than either of the two conservative parties. In other words, even though most people wanted a conservative government, they ended up with a progressive government.....

 

Do you really think that's a better system????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, that post makes way more sense and makes you seem less extreme in your viewpoints.

 

The differences in our views, seems to be this

 

I think you are leaning towards giving Swan less credit and I lean towards giving him more.

 

I think that the mining boom gave him help, you seem to insinuate that the previous government did.

The mining boom saved his bacon. The previous government made sure he didn't have as far to fall.

 

Swan did absolutely nothing special. At all. His achievement was that he didn't damage what he inherited worse than the other treasurers of the world.

 

Also Euromoney has been around since 1969, Im sure they have a few mistakes on their books, I dont think that discredits every decision they have made, least of all

what amounts to bestowing a reasonable award on Wayne Swan, even if he was the only person who could have got it in the circumstances.

It wasn't a reasonable award. They should have bestowed it on Costello (to be fair, they did mention him indirectly when they pointed out it wasn't Swan's doing entirely).

 

Swan won the award by stinking the least. Or in "Director-speak" he's the mildest form of cancer at the time. He is not, and never was any good at being treasurer.

 

You've only to see his performance in parliament when Costello made him look like a petulant child. Hockey, too (who has much more financial gravitas) makes Swan sweat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH been there, done that, I did run for office once, many moons ago so I know how the thing works. :)

 

 

The whole reason that the preferential system was brought in was because parties were winning seats with a minority of the vote.

So explain how that works then? How can someone win a seat if they have LESS votes than someone else?

Edited by Director

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

OH been there, done that, I did run for office once, many moons ago so I know how the thing works. :)

So you only didn't win because of preferential voting?

 

;-)

 

There's nothing wrong with the preferential system. It isn't perfect but what system is? What's your alternative? Because if it's the 51% system you've mentioned above, then, neccessarily, we'll have a true two party system.... otherwise how would you win 51%?

Edited by xyzzy frobozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see 'the two party preferred voting scam'. I'm interested to know how opponents of the voting system would change it and why.

 

What is it that you're having problems with?

 

In a democracy, is you get 51% of the vote then you have won. In the system we have, if you don't get 51% of the 'primary' vote you can still win when votes get sent your way from people who didn't vote for you as these shuffled votes may push you past the real winner. In a real democracy the votes should stay where they are cast.

 

Often no party gets 51% of the primary vote (and in any system a party that gets 51% of the primary vote would govern). Are you suggesting then that everyone who didn't vote for one of the two most popular parties for their primary vote doesn't have a say and going by the primary vote if the most popular party gets 25% of the primary vote and the next most popular party gets 24% of the primary vote then the former gets to govern? Edited by fajw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH been there, done that, I did run for office once, many moons ago so I know how the thing works. :)

So you only didn't win because of preferential voting?

 

;-)

Not quite. :)

 

There's nothing wrong with the preferential system. It isn't perfect but what system is? What's your alternative? Because if it's the 51% system you've mentioned above, then, neccessarily, we'll have a true two party system.... otherwise how would you win 51%?

How did it work before 1918? If a candidate doesn't get 51% the the one with the highest number of votes wins. BTW I'm still not convinced that having 51% of the people tell the other 49% how they can live their lives is a good idea but I'm working with what we've already got. (Not that politics is representative anyway....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like their defence policy:

 

Invincible Australia

The Natural Law Party offers an invincible-defence strategy, proven to eliminate crime and other destructive influences whter they arise from Australia or abroad.

 

A group of 7,000 Yogi Flyers will generate an indominateble influence of coherence, positivity, and harmony in Australian national consciousness. This will protect the nation against destructive influences from beyond our borders.

 

 

--------------

 

Well. I'm sold. How about you?

 

AD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like their defence policy:

 

Invincible Australia

The Natural Law Party offers an invincible-defence strategy, proven to eliminate crime and other destructive influences whter they arise from Australia or abroad.

 

A group of 7,000 Yogi Flyers will generate an indominateble influence of coherence, positivity, and harmony in Australian national consciousness. This will protect the nation against destructive influences from beyond our borders.

 

 

--------------

 

Well. I'm sold. How about you?

 

AD

Exactly!

 

Hey it's a lot sexier than anything I've heard from politicians for a LONG time, and think of how much you'd save on petrol?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see 'the two party preferred voting scam'. I'm interested to know how opponents of the voting system would change it and why.

 

What is it that you're having problems with?

 

In a democracy, is you get 51% of the vote then you have won. In the system we have, if you don't get 51% of the 'primary' vote you can still win when votes get sent your way from people who didn't vote for you as these shuffled votes may push you past the real winner. In a real democracy the votes should stay where they are cast.

 

Often no party gets 51% of the primary vote (and in any system a party that gets 51% of the primary vote would govern). Are you suggesting then that everyone who didn't vote for one of the two most popular parties for their primary vote doesn't have a say and going by the primary vote if the most popular party gets 25% of the primary vote and the next most popular party gets 24% of the primary vote then the former gets to govern?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

...

...
...
Interesting technique you have there: quote three levels deep; quote yourself as the last comment; and don't add anything. Did you have something to say and forget to type?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×