Domestic Politics

[NewConvert]

12 hours ago, jw1739 said:

I have never before felt so completely disconnected from the process or the outcome as I have this time around.

There's an article by Stan Grant somewhere about the decline, or indeed death, of liberal democracy. Perhaps he's right.

Personally I feel that the Clive Palmer advertising became intolerable and there was no way to shut it off. The text messages were intolerable.

[jw1739]

11 hours ago, NewConvert said:

Personally I feel that the Clive Palmer advertising became intolerable and there was no way to shut it off. The text messages were intolerable.

I paid no attention whatsoever to those minor parties, and I'm astonished at the % of the primary vote that they received. It is bad enough trying to find something of substance from the major parties in the rhetorical vomit that they produce without venturing any further.

[MHFC-FAN]

On 19/05/2022 at 3:07 PM, NewConvert said:

Voting postal and it is so hard whether to put the anti-vaxxers last or Clive last...

I don't recall seeing a party called anti-vaxxers? Who are you referring to?

[NewConvert]

6 hours ago, MHFC-FAN said:

I don't recall seeing a party called anti-vaxxers? Who are you referring to?

The Federation Party for starters - you needed to go to their website to see that all their policies were about stopping all public health initiatives. Then there were a few independents and the UAP.

[jw1739]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-26/australian-election-voters-rage-despair-major-parties-on-notice/101095010

[bt50]

16 hours ago, NewConvert said:

The Federation Party for starters - you needed to go to their website to see that all their policies were about stopping all public health initiatives. Then there were a few independents and the UAP.

Most of them were anti-mandate rather than anti-vaxx, fwiw.

[MHFC-FAN]

18 hours ago, NewConvert said:

The Federation Party for starters - you needed to go to their website to see that all their policies were about stopping all public health initiatives. Then there were a few independents and the UAP.

Policies on stopping all public health? Like closing hospitals and discontinuing emergency services? Or do you mean they were against mandatory vaccination? 

[jw1739]

5 hours ago, MHFC-FAN said:

Policies on stopping all public health? Like closing hospitals and discontinuing emergency services? Or do you mean they were against mandatory vaccination? 

https://ausfedparty.com.au/policy/covid-policy/

[NewConvert]

5 hours ago, MHFC-FAN said:

Policies on stopping all public health? Like closing hospitals and discontinuing emergency services? Or do you mean they were against mandatory vaccination? 

 

17 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

https://ausfedparty.com.au/policy/covid-policy/

Thanks for the link JW. The wording is quite broad and of course the question with people like that is where do you stop? Where are the limits?

The problem with ideologues is that they are always after purity. And for those that don't have to live with the consequences purity overrides everything and there is always someone more pure.

[jw1739]

3 hours ago, NewConvert said:

 

Thanks for the link JW. The wording is quite broad and of course the question with people like that is where do you stop? Where are the limits?

The problem with ideologues is that they are always after purity. And for those that don't have to live with the consequences purity overrides everything and there is always someone more pure.

I'm right with you, don't get me wrong on this. In some electorates, as much as 15% of the first preferences went, in total, to the various fringe party candidates. My question is whether they had any idea of what they were voting for? Who reads this stuff - honestly? Much of it is just a tirade against the measures that were used against a  pathogen with unknown longer-term effects. As you say, where are the limits? Do they have the same policies for all the other diseases as well - measles, chicken pox, tuberculosis, HIV, poliomyelitis, monkeypox, malaria, etc. etc.? 

It's this sort of stuff that makes me object to having to give any sort of "vote" to any candidate that I don't want to see in parliament under any circumstances.

[jw1739]

Anyway, Albanese seems to have had a sound first week, and I sincerely hope that he can grow into the statesman role and become a real leader for the country. I feel it's something we desperately need.

[NewConvert]

23 hours ago, jw1739 said:

Anyway, Albanese seems to have had a sound first week, and I sincerely hope that he can grow into the statesman role and become a real leader for the country. I feel it's something we desperately need.

Most people I have spoken to express relief rather than warmth for Albanese or the ALP. And the relief is that the Morrison government were incompetent and that is something that Australian's are not used to. Can Albanese grow? I remain optimistic but as long as he shows that he is not incompetent then I will be satisfied.

[jw1739]

1 hour ago, NewConvert said:

Most people I have spoken to express relief rather than warmth for Albanese or the ALP. And the relief is that the Morrison government were incompetent and that is something that Australian's are not used to. Can Albanese grow? I remain optimistic but as long as he shows that he is not incompetent then I will be satisfied.

I want more than that I'm afraid. I think that we need to define some new directions for the country and a challenging vision for what we are going to be, and visible action rather than just rhetoric and then excuses. He has to walk the talk.

Every government gets a honeymoon period. Can he control the factions in his party, and can he control parliament? Albanese has to avoid getting tripped up on minor "issues" and throwaway lines and then having to extricate himself. He needs to keep a cool head and focus on the big picture.

We'll know fairly soon I think.

[bt50]

On 28/05/2022 at 9:51 AM, NewConvert said:

 that is something that Australian's are not used to.

Not sure i can agree with that. The last 15 years has been chock full of the worst, most self interested politicians this country has ever seen.

[NewConvert]

4 hours ago, bt50 said:

Not sure i can agree with that. The last 15 years has been chock full of the worst, most self interested politicians this country has ever seen.

They may have been self-interested but not necessarily incompetent. Example, not sending the health minister or the PM to negotiate with Pfizer, not organising the roll out and then blaming companies (Woolies retorted that they call it planning). In my lifetime I have often disagreed with policies (and semi-corrupt behaviour) but incompetence was a new low.

[jw1739]

In terms of the pandemic, I'm not sure what is the correct word to describe Australia's response. I'm no expert, but my impression at the time was that none of our leaders were quite sure where the responsibilities lay or how much power they actually had and where they could exercise it. I recall at one stage thinking that the PM didn't understand what powers he actually had, and didn't have, under the constitution. One result of this was that the usual point-scoring continued unabated  - "my response is better than your response" and "who's got the toughest lockdown?" - kindergarten sandpit stuff. Another was the arguing over quarantine facilities (did they ever get built by the way?) - "I want it here. Shan't, I want it over here."

One of the outcomes I hoped for was that the pandemic would cause us to revisit these seemingly continual arguments over the division of authorities between the States and the Feds, and sort it out once and for all. As it is now, with the current infections, serious illnesses, hospitalizations, deaths and long COVID seemingly being swept under the carpet, and everything "back to normal" (although it isn't) it doesn't look as though we will look at anything, and therefore that we won't be better organised and prepared when the next public health crises comes - or  perhaps any crisis

[NewConvert]

14 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

In terms of the pandemic, I'm not sure what is the correct word to describe Australia's response. I'm no expert, but my impression at the time was that none of our leaders were quite sure where the responsibilities lay or how much power they actually had and where they could exercise it. I recall at one stage thinking that the PM didn't understand what powers he actually had, and didn't have, under the constitution. One result of this was that the usual point-scoring continued unabated  - "my response is better than your response" and "who's got the toughest lockdown?" - kindergarten sandpit stuff. Another was the arguing over quarantine facilities (did they ever get built by the way?) - "I want it here. Shan't, I want it over here."

One of the outcomes I hoped for was that the pandemic would cause us to revisit these seemingly continual arguments over the division of authorities between the States and the Feds, and sort it out once and for all. As it is now, with the current infections, serious illnesses, hospitalizations, deaths and long COVID seemingly being swept under the carpet, and everything "back to normal" (although it isn't) it doesn't look as though we will look at anything, and therefore that we won't be better organised and prepared when the next public health crises comes - or  perhaps any crisis

Interestingly enough, it wasn't until Morrison became PM that legally the states had to ask for Federal assistance during emergencies. However, under previous PMs, the issue never arose, the federal and state governments just did. In any case, NSW during the latest floods had to ask in writing, three times, before anything happened. Hence Morrison and his government were incompetent.

Way back in the early 70s Whitlam offered to take over the entire hospital network from the states but the then Liberal party and the states opposed the move.

I don't think that the issue is a constitutional one - unless a state government challenges it in the High Court. It was a case of the federal government not even imagining what to do. Hence Gladys' comments on Morrison.

I suspect that the reason Morrison is remaining in Parliament is because he won't be able to get a decent corporate job as no one would have him. Contrast that with Gladys who left politics under a cloud and joined Optus at board level.

[jw1739]

1 hour ago, NewConvert said:

Contrast that with Gladys who left politics under a cloud and joined Optus at board level.

I guess they owed her. She must have run up a fair bill with all those calls to lover boy.