Gorgritch_Umie_Killa @ Gorgritch_umie_killa @aussie.zone

Posts

20

Comments

354

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well, not necessarily only from the left. I wonder, as Labor settles as a known quantity and the inevitable disillusionment occurs, whether people will be arrested by the self gratifying arguments the Liberals constantly deploy. I see Australia as less tied to a single organisation than ever before but just as self interested as we've always been.

Ooh cool, i'll have to check these other youtubers out!

I hold out hope a part of the party will see the electoral risk for Labor if they aren't seen to actually be fixing the situation. Their voter base is younger, they have less party allegiance and will switch to a perceived better option. I think shanks could be a good avenue to deliver this message to Labor leadership as well as the voters.

On his defense of the HAFF it is totally over-cooked. I liked Swollen Pickles take down of Jordies, he delivered a lot of salient points that have been lost to more media than just shanks. For instance, the shaky eveidentiary basis for the claim rent controls are always and in every case lead to the poorer of outcomes.

HAFF won't be ineffective for the very few people it will help. The problem Labor has is its a fire extinguisher in a bush fire.

Its actually a great line of attack for Jordies , because theres lots the Labor government could do, lots of information out there, and the only people running the conversation at the moment are industry hacks pushing the government to give them an easy pay day. Jordies could be a voice in opposition to the property development industry. He doesn't attack his beloved Labor directly, but he gets the message across that theres other options not currently being considered. And there'd be months of content for him on this subject, and new subscribers. Its a win-win!

Noted

Stands to reason, for sure.

Don't forget these remote sites will still include non-indigenous Australians who were in the area too. So it may be still a little imprecise, but highly indicative nonetheless.

Yeah, theres certainly some commonality, between the two. Its a general needs problem with the Republic idea getting up in Australia though:

• We are to all intents and purposes an independent nation. I would cite the fact that we are far more dependent on the US than the UK as a sign of our independence from our notional parent state (the UK). So there is no improvement, perceived or real, in driving further separation.
• Unlike other countries who approach the question of independence we have peaceful and extremely friendly relations with the UK. Not to mention close family ties between the country's.
• The idea of Republics around the world are sufferring from a reputation problem. The abuse of the concept by all manner of abhorrent 'leaders' over the 20th century and continuing in this century has diminished the idea of freedom through the creation of a Republic. A key issue is Presidents have seemed to be able to gain and retain too much power, then if they're able to get the military on side, well, at what point do we stop calling it a Republic? Again i only mean it has a reputational problem, not that, that would happen in Australia.

Your right about the City/Country divide.

I think this referendum was also a reiteration of the importance of having regard to people's self interest. The Yes camp didn't connect the Voice to how it will benefit everyone in the nation. While the No camp had no qualms about heaping theoretical loss at the doors of all self interested Australians. (I do not mean greedy btw, i only mean self interested).

I wouldn't call the constitution a relic, it is, albeit imperfectly, a functioning document, that maintains a certain cohesion in this country. Calling it a relic somewhat undermines that important use to the nation. I don't argue with the characterisation of Colonialist. It very much was set in these terms.

Colossal centralisation of power is an odd thing to claim, and possibly ill-informed.

• The primacy of Parliaments, made up of many people, over Governors, single people, is very much established in this country but even the Governors retain some power away from Parliament in limited circumstances, think of GG's power of dismissal,
• The system of exclusive powers to the federals with the states retaining all other powers is an extremely important partition of power,
• Each state retained their own Courts, Parliaments, and Governors and much of the public service supporting those remits separately from the Federal government, who also gained the full set of those positions to represent the country as one.

The country took lots of opportunities to ensure the dilution of power. And much of that is contained within the Constitution. So i would say it protects the devolvement of powers from any one body.

'Inalienable rights' has been considered by many in Australia. I think the closer you get to the detail the less atractive that proposition becomes. People have a responsibilty when they speak, 'inalienable rights' has proven to lead to a reduction in peoples calculation of their own responsibilties when speaking. The provisions for this in the US have been an example where such a rigid code can lead to poorer outcomes. The calculation here is, our system gets protection of speech about the same as places with the explicit right, but without some of the adverse consequences, because the protection remains somewhat fungible. Fungibilty is important to courts where they may wish to distinguish from precedent for legitimate reasons.

'Modern' should be left as a concept of the Post WW2 period. We are, as a whole, more like our ancestors than the word 'modern' allows. Modern has become a hopeful term that things are 'better today than yesterday', and thats not always true. Modern clouds the nuance. This isn't a bad or good thing, only an observation that the term 'modern' or 'life today', etc, is a mental separation from history that has proven unhelpful.

I never said the constitution or the nation is progressive, nor should it be assumed that is the goal. There are people who aren't progressive in this nation, just as there are progressive people. A well functioning founding document should seek to balance the views of the many without trampling the rights of the few. Thats not a progressive sentiment, thats a utilitarian sentiment. This is a strategy to stop endless cycles of violence/repression, allowing people to live in reasonable liberty. A strength of the Constitution is that it isn't particularly prescriptive.

I think as long as Chuck or his sons don't come over here expecting some big royal event, there is no real impulse for change our system of government.

A key difference in the campaigns would be the fact that the Voice referendum didn't include the element 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Everybody agrees theres a gap between First Nations people and the rest of Aus, (We don't agree on the cause). A Rebublican proposal is trying to change a system that, when comparing to other systems around the world, is working quite well.

Your zeal with the aussie-enviro community has been a source of inspiration to find new sources and up the rate of posting for me over at the Perth community. You should be feeling zero embarrassment.

Was she? Regardless of the reasons she claims in the article, interesting and engaging though they might be. At its heart it'll be 'ma fat stacks ain't so fat' or some derivation of that.

I think he meant Electoral College. Unless 2016 saw the release of the 'Tesla-Force 1'

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt!

Alright, alright! I'll let you borrow my emu for the week.

Age limits could be tricky and unnecessarily easy to use in a divisive political campaign though. But contract term limits should be introduced into lots of positions. It not only gives the employers an easy and expected out, but it also gives a natural contract renegotiation point for workers with smaller bargaining power.

Sounds more interesting than the hundredth uniform washing claim walking through the door.

Murdochs a hack, always has been. The games they play have been played by others for centuries. Look up Yellow Journalism and Hearst

I'm not sure same sex marriage will be much more than a fringe issue in Australia, for a long time at least. That plebiscite was a pretty strong indication of sentiment, and i think it'll only have grown stronger in favour, in the years since.

A few years back i heard a polling researcher say one of the strengths of the same sex marriage question was there's a high proprtion of family's who have a personal connection with someone who is non-binary, (is that the universal term in this context?). They thought that personal connection had a large effect on the type of response.

Connecting that, though, to the Voice question. Considering a population of ~3% and less interspersed throughout the population, and it seems that could be a weakness for the Yes side.

Ah, good news! I'd forgotten about that Liberal-National fudging, until the National's party member on QandA this week referred to them in defence of their terrible inaction.