The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: xasop on March 08, 2015, 10:35:39 AM
-
Here in New South Wales, we're facing another state election in three weeks. Personally, I don't have high hopes; I suspect we're going to end up with another Coalition government, although the polls are pretty close so it could be a hung parliament. In an attempt to influence the result in that direction, since I live in a safe Liberal electorate and thus my vote won't count for very much, I donated $250 to the Greens today.
I'm not in full agreement with all of the Greens' policies, but they're the only party with vaguely sensible views that has even the slightest chance of gathering enough votes to get seats in the Legislative Assembly (lower house). The best realistic outcome we can hope for is a hung Parliament with the Greens and some Independents making up the crossbench; the most likely government would then be a Labor/Greens coalition.
Election day is in 20 days. Here's hoping.
-
The only thing I disagree with the Greens on is their total opposition to further road infrastructure, namely the Westconnex. The only reason they're opposed to that is because it will impact Newtown, where a big portion of their base is (and they may even take that seat for the first time given the disillusionment with the 2 big boys). NIMBYism is fucking annoying, especially when it's stopping much needed infrastructure. I wish everyone recognized the need for significant infrastructure improvements in both rail and roads, instead of one or the other.
The state LNP don't seem so bad. The power sell off has people divided, and I've seen evidence both for it and against. It seems in the long run it would be more intelligent to retain it, given a ~$1.5 billion profit every year as opposed to a $20 billion profit from leasing it. But, NSW desperately needs infrastructure, and that's not going to be cheap. The LNP are not going to put us into debt to pay for it, regardless of the fact that we could pay it off given our assets.
In any case, at least it's more of a competition than federal politics, which is a complete joke right now.
-
http://greens.org.au/policies/nuclear-uranium
Why do you hate scientific progress? >o<
-
http://greens.org.au/policies/nuclear-uranium
Why do you hate scientific progress? >o<
From my discussion with Parsifal earlier today, it appears that Australia doesn't really have a significant pro-nuclear-power party, so that particular point can be largely ignored.
-
http://greens.org.au/policies/nuclear-uranium
Why do you hate scientific progress? >o<
They are a bit reactionary in both this area and GMO crops, which is disappointing. While it doesn't appear to be impossible to use renewables to sustain society, it would be much easier if we incorporated nuclear power as well. Unfortunately, Australia suffers from the idea that nuclear power ends up going the way of Chernobyl or Fukushima, which just isn't true.
I still prefer them over the major parties, especially the federal Liberal party, which is so beholden to the coal mining sector that they will never move away from coal power generation. Given the huge contribution of coal power to the overall CO2, it's important we start scaling it back as much as possible. The ALP/Greens are our only hope in this regard.
-
It's not that I support the Greens so much as that I think they're less bad than the alternatives. Given that they have no hope of gaining a majority, any seats they win will simply help to serve as a counterpoint in debate and (in the case of a hung parliament) a deciding vote, keeping the government's decisions in check. And the authoritarian right-wing major parties we have definitely need to be kept in check.
My donation was a strategic move, not a mark of loyalty. My own views are much more closely aligned with the Sex Party and the Pirate Party, but neither is running in this election.
-
http://www.futureparty.org.au/
These guys actually look fairly sane, and are running a group ticket (Group M) for the Legislative Council. They have few policies, but the ones they do have are all on issues that we desperately need improvement on.
At the moment, I'm thinking of preferencing Future Party first, then Socialist Alliance, then Greens, then various other libertarian-leaning parties (Outdoor Recreation and Democrats, while not closely aligned with my own views, would both be tremendously preferable to the two major parties). Speaking of which, I really like the optional preferential proportional representation voting system we have in NSW; it's much better than the Federal Senate ballot.
As far as my own electorate goes for the Legislative Assembly, we have sucky options as usual. The Greens are the only halfway-sane option, so they'll definitely be getting my first preference, followed by Labor, No Land Tax, Liberal and CDP, probably in that order.
-
I just made a donation to the Future Party. Nothing left but to hope their campaigning makes a difference and put in my vote on election day.
-
7 days to go until polling day. There's been a surprising lack of campaigning material around this week; I'm guessing it'll ramp up quickly starting this weekend.
-
This time tomorrow, we'll know who the new Premier of New South Wales is. Not that it will make much of a difference; they're both filthy liars (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-27/nsw-election-wrap/6353682).
-
I am sure that everybody here is on the seat of their chairs awaiting the results.
-
This time tomorrow, we'll know who the new Premier of New South Wales is. Not that it will make much of a difference; they're both filthy liars (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-27/nsw-election-wrap/6353682).
Based on that small snip, Foley seems to be the lesser of two evils in regards to honesty.
-
This time tomorrow, we'll know who the new Premier of New South Wales is. Not that it will make much of a difference; they're both filthy liars (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-27/nsw-election-wrap/6353682).
Based on that small snip, Foley seems to be the lesser of two evils in regards to honesty.
Labor is usually the lesser of two evils, which is why I'll be preferencing them before Liberal. They're both going to do nothing much for the state, though.
-
This time tomorrow, we'll know who the new Premier of New South Wales is. Not that it will make much of a difference; they're both filthy liars (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-27/nsw-election-wrap/6353682).
Based on that small snip, Foley seems to be the lesser of two evils in regards to honesty.
Labor is usually the lesser of two evils, which is why I'll be preferencing them before Liberal. They're both going to do nothing much for the state, though.
They're gonna build the roads™, buddy.
-
They're gonna build the roads™, buddy.
Are they going to replace the Spit Bridge yet?
-
I have now voted. Aside from the boring lower house ballot which isn't going to count for anything, I decided to be badass this year and preference nine (mostly) libertarian-leaning parties in the upper house. In order, I put:
Future Party (Group M; not grouped using the name Future Party)
Outdoor Recreation
Australian Cyclists
Socialist Alliance
Voluntary Euthanasia
Animal Justice
Greens
Democrats
Labor
I predict all of my first six preferences will be quickly eliminated and I'll end up electing a Greens candidate. The only other outcome that seems likely is for Outdoor Recreation to snag my vote.
Now to spend the afternoon watching my vote bounce around and seeing if my predictions come true.
Edit: Also, while it may seem odd having the right-wing Outdoor Recreation, the far-left Socialist Alliance and the centre-left Greens on the same ballot, the thing these three parties have in common is that they all support civil liberties. I agree to some extent, but not entirely, with their economic policies; the Future Party has much better economic policies, in my opinion.
-
I still have to vote.. and most importantly, get a sausage sizzle.
-
I still have to vote.. and most importantly, get a sausage sizzle.
With the way the media has been going on about this election, they might as well just have privately- and publicly-owned sausage sizzles and count votes as the number of sales for each.
-
Voting has closed, and counting has begun. I'll be keeping one tab open on the ABC's election blog (http://livenews.abc.net.au/Event/New_South_Wales_election_night_2015) as the story unfolds.
-
Vote NSW (http://votensw.info/), the informational website for this election, has now been turned into a report of the count as it progresses.
Count information for my electoral district:
http://votensw.info/la-home.htm#la/pittwater/fp
http://votensw.info/la-home.htm#la/pittwater/tcp
http://votensw.info/lc-home.htm#lc/pittwater/fp
For anyone who wants to stalk me, my vote was cast at Ted Blackwood Community Centre.
And the overall state count for the Legislative Council:
http://votensw.info/lc-home.htm#lc/nsw/fp
-
It's looking like a victory for Liberal at the moment. I find it disappointing that there are clear signs of one party taking the lead so early in the counting; Parliament tends to work best when parties need to work together, not when one party dominates both houses.
There are also as yet no votes in the state (of more than 3000 counted) for the Future Party in the upper house. Apparently I'm in a very small minority of people who appreciate sane, reasonable policies.
-
Well, this just got more exciting. The Greens have overtaken Labor in my division. They're still way behind Liberal, but this is very interesting nevertheless.
-
Well, Labor aren't doing so bad for a party whose leader was so far behind Baird in approval polls. I'd like to have seen a slim Labor victory, if just to upset the federal LNP a bit, possibly even enough to get Tony kicked out. They're about on parity in the primary vote.
Looks like my seat has gone to Labor in a 17% swing. Good old fucking dumb ass swing voters out here.
-
My seat is clearly a safe Liberal seat; that's something I never expected to change.
What I do find troublesome is that, even though Greens are clearly the second party (http://votensw.info/la-home.htm#la/pittwater/fp) (even assuming all CDP and NLT voters gave their second preferences to Labor), the two-party preferred (http://votensw.info/la-home.htm#la/pittwater/tcp) page still shows Labor as the second party. The guys running the election should be reporting the two-party balance as between the two most popular parties, not the two parties they expect to be most popular.
-
Parsifal: did your vote count?
-
Despite the Liberal victory, numerous seats (http://www.abc.net.au/news/nsw-election-2015/results/changing-seats/) have changed hands to Labor, and two to Greens. This will at least give us a more balanced Parliament than the last term.
Meanwhile, I can't find any reports on number of seats won for the Legislative Council, although (due to the more complex voting method used there) there may not be any until the vote is finished being counted.
Edit: I just read this (http://votensw.info/lc-home.htm#info/lc-count), which says that the Legislative Council result won't be announced for another couple of weeks. That's the one I'm really interested in, so I'll just hold my breath.
-
The Legislative Council result is due to be announced tomorrow. Looking at the initial count, we can expect at least 9 Coalition, 6 Labor and 2 Greens councillors, of 21 seats up for election. That leaves 4 seats unaccounted for.
With Labor being very close to getting 7 seats, I predict redistribution of preferences will give us a 7th Labor councillor and 3 minor party reps. There are numerous minor parties with 0.1-0.2 of a quota, which makes it difficult to predict which minor parties those will be. I guess we'll find out tomorrow.
Edit: I've just looked over the results again, and both Shooters and Fishers and CDP look to have over 0.5 of a quota, so we'll most likely get one from each of them. The remaining minor party with the highest number of votes is No Land Tax. I suppose they can't possibly be worse than CDP, but I'm hoping for an Outdoor Recreation win. My first preference, the Future Party, has no chance.
-
It turns out that all my predictions were correct, except that the minor party that got the last seat was Animal Justice. Since I preferenced them before Greens, that'll be where my vote went to. I wasn't expecting that, but I am pleased with the result, and I feel like I made a difference this election (given how close many other minor parties were to that seat).
-
So PARSIFAL and other Australians, out of sheer curiosity (since I don't understand Australian politics at all; I am more familiar with American National, Iowa and California State, British National, and Israeli National elections), what is your opinion in general of the current National Government of Australia and that of your home State? (New South Wales, I gather)? Any other Australian is welcome to answer as well. I'd like to learn more about that country's politics. What are the National Parties, what are the State Parties where you live, and what do you personally prefer?
Of course, since this is all new to me, you'll have to treat me as a total "Newbie", I think the slang word is. But I am honestly curious. So fire ahead!
-
The federal government is shit. The NSW state government is a bit less shit. I elaborated more on this a while ago here (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=648.msg53713#msg53713).
-
The federal government is shit. The NSW state government is a bit less shit. I elaborated more on this a while ago here (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=648.msg53713#msg53713).
Ok, having just read that post that you directed me to, what does "LNP" stand for? Liberal National Party? Obviously, you and I don't see eye to eye on Israel, I never expected we would. So Abbott sounds like he'd be more my kind of guy on that particular subject alone. As far as the other matters, doing the 180 degree turns, I can imagine that is frustrating. We see a lot of that in our politics from both parties, albeit a bit more from the Democrats. I also understand voting for a Party because its less bad than the other. That's how most Americans vote, and frankly, I can't blame them. I'm not so much a strong Republican (I only changed my affiliation a few weeks ago) as I am a Conservative in the English Tory tradition.
Hell, if it were up to me, England would still run the fucking world. They did a far better job of it than the United States and the USSR managed to do. I wouldn't mind Victoria still being alive and being able to point a third of the world and say, "that, is mine!". As for Australia supporting Israel more than the USA, well, Obama is a fuck-tard, so that doesn't surprise me at all. I mean, he is a fuck-tard for many reasons, that is just one, but there you are.
-
Ok, having just read that post that you directed me to, what does "LNP" stand for? Liberal National Party?
Yep.
Obviously, you and I don't see eye to eye on Israel, I never expected we would.
My views on Israel are much more nuanced than "there bad". My main criticism of the LNP here is that they're hilariously pro-Israel. I contrasted this with the US in that the US is typically pro-Israel, but even official US sources offered some criticism during the 2014 conflict in Gaza. No one is beyond criticism, especially when their actions result in the deaths of civilians.
As far as the other matters, doing the 180 degree turns, I can imagine that is frustrating. We see a lot of that in our politics from both parties, albeit a bit more from the Democrats. I also understand voting for a Party because its less bad than the other. That's how most Americans vote, and frankly, I can't blame them. I'm not so much a strong Republican (I only changed my affiliation a few weeks ago) as I am a Conservative in the English Tory tradition.
Their biggest policy problem isn't that they've been doing backflips all over the place, rather that they centered their election campaign around changing very little but then drafted sweeping reforms in various areas after gaining power. There's also a fairly large difference between the US and Australia's voting in that we have preferential voting and not first past the post, this essentially gives you more power to elect smaller parties, even though no one does this because they don't understand it.
Hell, if it were up to me, England would still run the fucking world. They did a far better job of it than the United States and the USSR managed to do. I wouldn't mind Victoria still being alive and being able to point a third of the world and say, "that, is mine!". As for Australia supporting Israel more than the USA, well, Obama is a fuck-tard, so that doesn't surprise me at all. I mean, he is a fuck-tard for many reasons, that is just one, but there you are.
This is a topic for another thread, but colonial rule was not a particularly good time for anyone except the colonial masters. It's easy to run the world when you execute anyone that wants independence.
-
So PARSIFAL and other Australians, out of sheer curiosity (since I don't understand Australian politics at all; I am more familiar with American National, Iowa and California State, British National, and Israeli National elections), what is your opinion in general of the current National Government of Australia and that of your home State? (New South Wales, I gather)? Any other Australian is welcome to answer as well. I'd like to learn more about that country's politics. What are the National Parties, what are the State Parties where you live, and what do you personally prefer?
Of course, since this is all new to me, you'll have to treat me as a total "Newbie", I think the slang word is. But I am honestly curious. So fire ahead!
We have had two major parties (at both state and federal levels) for the past 60 years or so; the socially conservative and economically right-wing Liberal (http://www.liberal.org.au/)/National (http://www.nationals.org.au/) Coalition (abbreviated LNP, for Liberal National Party) and the historically progressive but increasingly conservative in recent years Australian Labor Party (http://www.alp.org.au/) (ALP).
The drift of the ALP towards conservatism has resulted in many Labor voters jumping ship and voting for the Australian Greens (http://greens.org.au/) (GRN), who occupy the centre-left, socially progressive position that Labor did many years ago. They're gathering enough support in recent years that they're poised to become our third major party. The major advantage we have over the US in this regard is our preferential voting system, where candidates are ranked rather than a single one selected; this makes it very easy to preference a minor party first without throwing a vote away.
Those three parties tend to dominate Parliament both at federal and state level, especially in the lower house (the House of Representatives at federal level, and the Legislative Assembly in NSW state), where the practice of each division electing a single representative makes it difficult for minorities to get representation. However, other minor parties have an easier time getting elected to the upper house (the Senate at federal level, and the Legislative Council in NSW state) because they are elected by proportional representation for the entire state.
It's complicated to go into the details of upper house voting in Australia, not least because each state seems to have its own way of doing it (and the federal way is different from that in NSW), but the basic idea that's common to all of them is that you have a huge list of candidates that get ranked in one way or another. As candidates with the least votes are eliminated and preferences redistributed, a candidate needs a "quota" of votes to get elected. The way this works out, in theory, is that each representative gets elected by the same proportion of the state (e.g., if 21 seats are up for grabs, you need 1/21 of the votes to get elected).
In practice, what this means is that a majority of seats go to the major parties, and there are usually a few that go to the most popular minor parties (in the case of NSW state, where preferences are selected directly by voters) or a somewhat unpredictable selection of minor parties (in the case of federal parliament, where preferences are selected by group voting ticket). Because of the unpredictable nature of the federal voting system (which is hopefully due for reform soon (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-15/inquiry-suggests-changes-to-federal-election-voting-process/6395508), among other reforms), I'll focus on the NSW Legislative Council here.
The minor parties that have enough support to always get a seat in NSW are the Christian Democratic Party (http://cdp.org.au/) (CDP), and the Shooters and Fishers (http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/) party (S&F). The CDP's stated goal is to see "all legislation being brought into conformity with the revealed will of God in the Holy Bible" (reference (http://www.christiandemocraticparty.com.au/about-the-cdp/cdp-national-charter/)), which I think speaks for itself. Shooters and Fishers have few policies, their primary goal being to protect the rights of individuals to pursue outdoor activities (including hunting and fishing); the main value I see in their representation is as a counterpoint to the Greens' socialist-leaning approach to conservation.
At the federal level, a representative we currently have in office who I'm keeping an eye on is David Leyonhjelm of the Liberal Democratic Party (http://ldp.org.au/) (LDP), a right-wing, socially progressive party. His views are somewhat too free-market-ish for me to see eye-to-eye with him on everything, but he's raising a lot of what I consider to be important issues, including marriage equality and the right to keep Australian native animals as pets. The fact is that these things wouldn't be getting talked about if he wasn't elected, which is a pity, because his election was something of a fluke and unlikely to happen again.
It might have become evident from my focus on minor parties, but I believe that keeping as many minor party candidates in office as possible is the best way to ensure progress gets made (and in the right direction). The major party candidates know their party is going to get back into power eventually when the other side fucks up, so they don't actually endeavour to serve the people, instead passing laws that simply put the country back where it was when they were last in power (a good example is the recent repeal of Labor's carbon tax by the incumbent LNP administration).
On the other hand, having minor party representation helps to stem the flow of the government's legislation, both by having more viewpoints be heard and by reducing the likelihood of the government controlling a majority of seats in both houses of parliament. At the moment, for example, the federal LNP has a majority of seats in the House of Representatives but not in the Senate, which has enabled Labor and Greens to block their education reforms (which would deregulate university tuition fees and put us into an America-like debt-for-life situation) on more than one occasion.
In short, I think our preferential voting system is what sets us apart from American politics, by enabling minorities to more easily get representation through minor party candidates without throwing a vote away. Whether the LNP or the ALP is in power at the time doesn't make much difference, particularly in recent years as Labor has become more conservative, but having additional parties helps to avoid one of them controlling parliament altogether.
I will say, though, that I think the Abbott administration is a complete joke. He may well be the worst PM we've ever had, and the only reason his government gets anything done is thanks to his ministers, not himself. He's capable of functioning as little more than a figurehead, which is immediately evident whenever he gets asked a question (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShxmO4C6m0M#t=208). Next year's election can't come soon enough.
As for my personal preferences, I usually try to consider how to vote based on what I think will have the most positive impact on the functioning of parliament. I live in one of the safest LNP electorates in NSW, which means that my lower house vote never makes a difference, so I focus on the minor parties I agree most with in the upper house (usually, Pirate Party (http://pirateparty.org.au/), Future Party (http://www.futureparty.org.au/), Sex Party (http://www.sexparty.org.au/), LDP (http://ldp.org.au/), Socialist Alliance (http://www.socialist-alliance.org/) and Greens (http://greens.org.au/), roughly in that order).
-
Ok, having just read that post that you directed me to, what does "LNP" stand for? Liberal National Party?
Yep.
Obviously, you and I don't see eye to eye on Israel, I never expected we would.
My views on Israel are much more nuanced than "there bad". My main criticism of the LNP here is that they're hilariously pro-Israel. I contrasted this with the US in that the US is typically pro-Israel, but even official US sources offered some criticism during the 2014 conflict in Gaza. No one is beyond criticism, especially when their actions result in the deaths of civilians.
Welcome to war. That is how real war is fought. Anybody who suggests otherwise is a fool. The "Palestinians" started said war, so they are responsible for all deaths on both sides of the conflict.
As far as the other matters, doing the 180 degree turns, I can imagine that is frustrating. We see a lot of that in our politics from both parties, albeit a bit more from the Democrats. I also understand voting for a Party because its less bad than the other. That's how most Americans vote, and frankly, I can't blame them. I'm not so much a strong Republican (I only changed my affiliation a few weeks ago) as I am a Conservative in the English Tory tradition.
Their biggest policy problem isn't that they've been doing backflips all over the place, rather that they centered their election campaign around changing very little but then drafted sweeping reforms in various areas after gaining power. There's also a fairly large difference between the US and Australia's voting in that we have preferential voting and not first past the post, this essentially gives you more power to elect smaller parties, even though no one does this because they don't understand it.
Hell, if it were up to me, England would still run the fucking world. They did a far better job of it than the United States and the USSR managed to do. I wouldn't mind Victoria still being alive and being able to point a third of the world and say, "that, is mine!". As for Australia supporting Israel more than the USA, well, Obama is a fuck-tard, so that doesn't surprise me at all. I mean, he is a fuck-tard for many reasons, that is just one, but there you are.
This is a topic for another thread, but colonial rule was not a particularly good time for anyone except the colonial masters. It's easy to run the world when you execute anyone that wants independence.
Really, the British weren't too hard on the Colonies. Think what Gandhi got away with. If he had been living under Russian, or German, or possibly even French rule, he'd have been taken out and shot, end of story. He did what he did and got away with it BECAUSE British Law gave him certain inalienable rights.
So PARSIFAL and other Australians, out of sheer curiosity (since I don't understand Australian politics at all; I am more familiar with American National, Iowa and California State, British National, and Israeli National elections), what is your opinion in general of the current National Government of Australia and that of your home State? (New South Wales, I gather)? Any other Australian is welcome to answer as well. I'd like to learn more about that country's politics. What are the National Parties, what are the State Parties where you live, and what do you personally prefer?
Of course, since this is all new to me, you'll have to treat me as a total "Newbie", I think the slang word is. But I am honestly curious. So fire ahead!
We have had two major parties (at both state and federal levels) for the past 60 years or so; the socially conservative and economically right-wing Liberal (http://www.liberal.org.au/)/National (http://www.nationals.org.au/) Coalition (abbreviated LNP, for Liberal National Party) and the historically progressive but increasingly conservative in recent years Australian Labor Party (http://www.alp.org.au/) (ALP).
The drift of the ALP towards conservatism has resulted in many Labor voters jumping ship and voting for the Australian Greens (http://greens.org.au/) (GRN), who occupy the centre-left, socially progressive position that Labor did many years ago. They're gathering enough support in recent years that they're poised to become our third major party. The major advantage we have over the US in this regard is our preferential voting system, where candidates are ranked rather than a single one selected; this makes it very easy to preference a minor party first without throwing a vote away.
Those three parties tend to dominate Parliament both at federal and state level, especially in the lower house (the House of Representatives at federal level, and the Legislative Assembly in NSW state), where the practice of each division electing a single representative makes it difficult for minorities to get representation. However, other minor parties have an easier time getting elected to the upper house (the Senate at federal level, and the Legislative Council in NSW state) because they are elected by proportional representation for the entire state.
It's complicated to go into the details of upper house voting in Australia, not least because each state seems to have its own way of doing it (and the federal way is different from that in NSW), but the basic idea that's common to all of them is that you have a huge list of candidates that get ranked in one way or another. As candidates with the least votes are eliminated and preferences redistributed, a candidate needs a "quota" of votes to get elected. The way this works out, in theory, is that each representative gets elected by the same proportion of the state (e.g., if 21 seats are up for grabs, you need 1/21 of the votes to get elected).
In practice, what this means is that a majority of seats go to the major parties, and there are usually a few that go to the most popular minor parties (in the case of NSW state, where preferences are selected directly by voters) or a somewhat unpredictable selection of minor parties (in the case of federal parliament, where preferences are selected by group voting ticket). Because of the unpredictable nature of the federal voting system (which is hopefully due for reform soon (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-15/inquiry-suggests-changes-to-federal-election-voting-process/6395508), among other reforms), I'll focus on the NSW Legislative Council here.
The minor parties that have enough support to always get a seat in NSW are the Christian Democratic Party (http://cdp.org.au/) (CDP), and the Shooters and Fishers (http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/) party (S&F). The CDP's stated goal is to see "all legislation being brought into conformity with the revealed will of God in the Holy Bible" (reference (http://www.christiandemocraticparty.com.au/about-the-cdp/cdp-national-charter/)), which I think speaks for itself. Shooters and Fishers have few policies, their primary goal being to protect the rights of individuals to pursue outdoor activities (including hunting and fishing); the main value I see in their representation is as a counterpoint to the Greens' socialist-leaning approach to conservation.
At the federal level, a representative we currently have in office who I'm keeping an eye on is David Leyonhjelm of the Liberal Democratic Party (http://ldp.org.au/) (LDP), a right-wing, socially progressive party. His views are somewhat too free-market-ish for me to see eye-to-eye with him on everything, but he's raising a lot of what I consider to be important issues, including marriage equality and the right to keep Australian native animals as pets. The fact is that these things wouldn't be getting talked about if he wasn't elected, which is a pity, because his election was something of a fluke and unlikely to happen again.
It might have become evident from my focus on minor parties, but I believe that keeping as many minor party candidates in office as possible is the best way to ensure progress gets made (and in the right direction). The major party candidates know their party is going to get back into power eventually when the other side fucks up, so they don't actually endeavour to serve the people, instead passing laws that simply put the country back where it was when they were last in power (a good example is the recent repeal of Labor's carbon tax by the incumbent LNP administration).
On the other hand, having minor party representation helps to stem the flow of the government's legislation, both by having more viewpoints be heard and by reducing the likelihood of the government controlling a majority of seats in both houses of parliament. At the moment, for example, the federal LNP has a majority of seats in the House of Representatives but not in the Senate, which has enabled Labor and Greens to block their education reforms (which would deregulate university tuition fees and put us into an America-like debt-for-life situation) on more than one occasion.
In short, I think our preferential voting system is what sets us apart from American politics, by enabling minorities to more easily get representation through minor party candidates without throwing a vote away. Whether the LNP or the ALP is in power at the time doesn't make much difference, particularly in recent years as Labor has become more conservative, but having additional parties helps to avoid one of them controlling parliament altogether.
I will say, though, that I think the Abbott administration is a complete joke. He may well be the worst PM we've ever had, and the only reason his government gets anything done is thanks to his ministers, not himself. He's capable of functioning as little more than a figurehead, which is immediately evident whenever he gets asked a question (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShxmO4C6m0M#t=208). Next year's election can't come soon enough.
As for my personal preferences, I usually try to consider how to vote based on what I think will have the most positive impact on the functioning of parliament. I live in one of the safest LNP electorates in NSW, which means that my lower house vote never makes a difference, so I focus on the minor parties I agree most with in the upper house (usually, Pirate Party (http://pirateparty.org.au/), Future Party (http://www.futureparty.org.au/), Sex Party (http://www.sexparty.org.au/), LDP (http://ldp.org.au/), Socialist Alliance (http://www.socialist-alliance.org/) and Greens (http://greens.org.au/), roughly in that order).
PARSIFAL, this is all very good and helpful. Thank you. I appreciate the information. VINDICTUS, thank you also for your perspective, though I do not agree with your political views, I certianly value your point of view.
-
Welcome to war. That is how real war is fought. Anybody who suggests otherwise is a fool. The "Palestinians" started said war, so they are responsible for all deaths on both sides of the conflict.
Not in the age of PGMs. Israel has an extremely capable and well equipped military, they have no excuse to be killing civilians. A few rockets from Hamas, which are mostly intercepted by the Iron Dome system, are not an excuse to target civilian areas. I'm not pro Palestinian or anything like that either, I just find it sad that a small insurgency of extremists can antagonize a large and well equipped military to attack them, resulting mostly in civilian losses.
Really, the British weren't too hard on the Colonies. Think what Gandhi got away with. If he had been living under Russian, or German, or possibly even French rule, he'd have been taken out and shot, end of story. He did what he did and got away with it BECAUSE British Law gave him certain inalienable rights.
All of the colonial empires of the time were pretty big cunts whenever their authority was challenged, Britain included. They just did it more as they owned more colonies.
-
I am surprised at two things. One, that a party that calls itself the "Liberal National Party" is so conservative. Two, that an Australian party IS so pro-Israel. In America, you expect it of the Republican Party, because a lot of Evangelical Protestants (ie, many Baptists, Assemblies of G-d, other Pentecostals, and the like), who gravitate toward that Party, are very pro-Israel, usually from a perspective of getting Jews back to Israel in order to expedite the return of Jesus. But Australia doesn't have a lot of those, so it surprises me that a political party there would be so pro-Israel. I mean, I'm glad for it, but surprised nonetheless.
-
I am surprised at two things. One, that a party that calls itself the "Liberal National Party" is so conservative.
The Liberal Party was once (70 years or so ago) liberal. They've since radically changed their policies without changing their name.
Two, that an Australian party IS so pro-Israel. In America, you expect it of the Republican Party, because a lot of Evangelical Protestants (ie, many Baptists, Assemblies of G-d, other Pentecostals, and the like), who gravitate toward that Party, are very pro-Israel, usually from a perspective of getting Jews back to Israel in order to expedite the return of Jesus. But Australia doesn't have a lot of those, so it surprises me that a political party there would be so pro-Israel. I mean, I'm glad for it, but surprised nonetheless.
I don't know very much about their policy in that regard, so I can't provide any meaningful comment.
-
Na, they were always pretty conservative. They were founded by Menzies, who loved the Monarch and oversaw the most stagnant portion of our modern history. They're only liberal in the neo-liberal sense.
-
Welcome to war. That is how real war is fought. Anybody who suggests otherwise is a fool. The "Palestinians" started said war, so they are responsible for all deaths on both sides of the conflict.
Not in the age of PGMs. Israel has an extremely capable and well equipped military, they have no excuse to be killing civilians. A few rockets from Hamas, which are mostly intercepted by the Iron Dome system, are not an excuse to target civilian areas. I'm not pro Palestinian or anything like that either, I just find it sad that a small insurgency of extremists can antagonize a large and well equipped military to attack them, resulting mostly in civilian losses.
My perspective on it is very simple. If you are stupid enough to attack a nation that is that much more powerful than you, then you deserve whatever that nation chooses to throw at you. As far as I am concerned, that would apply anywhere in the world. And let's be honest with ourselves. "Palestinians" are stupid. They don't understand war when it is fought according to modern-day standards. That is why they attack civilian Israelis. Therefore, the only solution is to go Dresden on the bastards.
Frankly, I think the IDF is far too nice. They drop leaflets, in Arabic, they make phone calls, and they roof knock, all of which are attempts to get civilians to leave the area before they destroy buildings. If it were me, I would simply destroy it and everything in it that was alive and larger than a rabbit. And I am far less kind that Israel is. ONE rocket would fly, and I would publicly announce to the world, that if Hamas did not unconditionally surrender within 24 hours, I would completely destroy every single living thing in the Gaza Strip. EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING. And I would carry out that promise in 24 hours and one minute. It would be that fucking simple if I were in charge over there. There would BE no more Hamas to worry about. They would either surrender or be eliminated. Totally.
-
Why are you still talking about Israel?
-
Why are you still talking about Israel?
Yeah, I'm not taking it any further. Things have already veered pretty off topic.
Here's a picture of our leader downing a beer, like a true aussie:
(http://i.imgur.com/9wZdywd.jpg)
-
Well, credit for that. At least he can drink. I'd consider voting for him for that reason alone. ;D ;D
-
Welcome to war. That is how real war is fought. Anybody who suggests otherwise is a fool. The "Palestinians" started said war, so they are responsible for all deaths on both sides of the conflict.
Not in the age of PGMs. Israel has an extremely capable and well equipped military, they have no excuse to be killing civilians. A few rockets from Hamas, which are mostly intercepted by the Iron Dome system, are not an excuse to target civilian areas. I'm not pro Palestinian or anything like that either, I just find it sad that a small insurgency of extremists can antagonize a large and well equipped military to attack them, resulting mostly in civilian losses.
My perspective on it is very simple. If you are stupid enough to attack a nation that is that much more powerful than you, then you deserve whatever that nation chooses to throw at you. As far as I am concerned, that would apply anywhere in the world. And let's be honest with ourselves. "Palestinians" are stupid. They don't understand war when it is fought according to modern-day standards. That is why they attack civilian Israelis. Therefore, the only solution is to go Dresden on the bastards.
Frankly, I think the IDF is far too nice. They drop leaflets, in Arabic, they make phone calls, and they roof knock, all of which are attempts to get civilians to leave the area before they destroy buildings. If it were me, I would simply destroy it and everything in it that was alive and larger than a rabbit. And I am far less kind that Israel is. ONE rocket would fly, and I would publicly announce to the world, that if Hamas did not unconditionally surrender within 24 hours, I would completely destroy every single living thing in the Gaza Strip. EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING. And I would carry out that promise in 24 hours and one minute. It would be that fucking simple if I were in charge over there. There would BE no more Hamas to worry about. They would either surrender or be eliminated. Totally.
And then the rest of the Middle East would attack you in retaliation, the US and Europe would abandon you for political reasons, and you'd have used most of your resources destroying Palestine. This wouldn't be like the 6 Day War, it would be more like Hitler invading France. Israel wouldn't stand a chance.
Besides, Palestinian children aren't bombing Israel. They're kids. That said, if you lived in Palestine and were muslim, you would be a terrorist and a member of Hamas. There's absolutely no doubt about it. In a slightly different circumstance, you'd be the exact person you hate, because you are the person you hate. The only differences are your professed religion and your socio-economic circumstances.
Anyway, this is off-topic. Can a mod split this section off or something? The point of this thread is that Tony Abbott is literally thork, not that Yaakov is liteally Hitler.
-
I thought the subject had been changed to PM Abbott drinking beer.
-
Can a mod split this section off or something? The point of this thread is that Tony Abbott is literally thork, not that Yaakov is liteally Hitler.
>mfw extremist Jews literally became as bad as the Nazi's
(http://i.imgur.com/gYoffkQ.jpg)
-
Can a mod split this section off or something? The point of this thread is that Tony Abbott is literally thork, not that Yaakov is liteally Hitler.
>mfw extremist Jews literally became as bad as the Nazi's
Its not extremist at all. If they stop throwing rockets, you stop killing them. Simple math. Anyway, why is this subject still going? I thought we were talking about Mr. Abbott's ability to drink beer.