NationStates Jolt Archive

Well for any aussies around, please tell us who you voted for, I just voted now and put the socialists first in the house, and preferenced above the line in the Senate for the Greens, so my vote was pretty left, but who did YOU preference first?

Labor - social democracy
Coalition - liberal conservatism
Greens - left-wing environmentalism
Family First - Christian conservatism
Democrats - progressivism
Socialist Alliance - socialism
Liberty & Democracy Party - libertarianism
Citizen's Electoral Council - far-right
Christian Democratic Party - Christian conservatism

I don't get to vote, so I'll be making pizzas instead. We've got a 77 pizza order today, which I think can only be for a local rep's party - and I suspect it's the Labor guy, because he lives around the corner.

Not that he's gonna win, but nevermind.

I don't get to vote, so I'll be making pizzas instead. We've got a 77 pizza order today, which I think can only be for a local rep's party - and I suspect it's the Labor guy, because he lives around the corner.

Not that he's gonna win, but nevermind.

are the ultimate test in democracy: a labor government or free pizza

I don't get to vote, so I'll be making pizzas instead. We've got a 77 pizza order today, which I think can only be for a local rep's party - and I suspect it's the Labor guy, because he lives around the corner.

Not that he's gonna win, but nevermind.

Why does Australia spell labor as labor and not labour? That makes no sense at all...

Why does Australia spell labor as labor and not labour? That makes no sense at all...
Hey, give 'em a break. They don't exactly come from historically intellectual backgrounds, now, do they?

Why does Australia spell labor as labor and not labour? That makes no sense at all...

Originally The Australian Labor Party spelt it as Labour but changed it in 1912 to favour the american style (rather ironic now that Labor is very much anti-american)

The correct spelling in Australia is Labour

My understanding is that Labor removed the 'u' because it believed this was a trendy move, reflecting some belief that the 'u' would disappear from 'labour', in favour of the shorter American spelling. One assumes they are still waiting for the 'u' to be dropped.

My understanding is that Labor removed the 'u' because it believed this was a trendy move, reflecting some belief that the 'u' would disappear from 'labour', in favour of the shorter American spelling. One assumes they are still waiting for the 'u' to be dropped.
I think they just don't want to be associated with hard work.

Hey, give 'em a break. They don't exactly come from historically intellectual backgrounds, now, do they?

Gogh Whitlam did. Bob Hawk did. Pal Keating did.

*sticks out tongue*

According to WikiP, the name "Australian Labour Party" was adopted in 1908, but changed to "Labor" in 1912.

While it is standard practice in Australian English to spell the word labour with a u, the Party has spelt it without since Labor cabinet minister King O'Malley thought he would "modernise" the name;[11] at the time, it seemed likely that Australia would move to American spellings.

I think they just don't want to be associated with hard work.

They're no more going to change their name than the Liberal party is.

Interestingly, though, the National party used to be the National Country Party, and before that just the Country Party. So changing the party name is possible.

Gogh Whitlam did. Bob Hawk did. Pal Keating did.

*sticks out tongue*
I was referring more to the fact that most non-Aboriginal Aussies come from a historical root of those we kicked out for their casual muggery :p

Democrats, just because I believe in voting for the best party rather than the lesser of the two evils.

Zaij;13238726']Democrats, just because I believe in voting for the best party rather than the lesser of the two evils.

I voted Greens in the Senate for a similar reason. (read their policies on their website... I realise their focus is the environment but I also think the Government needs a boot up the backside on that particular issue and having some more Greens in the Senate should help.

Nobel Hobos: It's Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke, and Paul Keating. Sorry, but I saw the spelling errors and the Spelling Nazi Within could not resist. :p

I know nothing about any of the above Political Parties...

I know nothing about any of the above Political Parties...

Well, you wouldn't, because you're in Canada. It's talking about the Australian Election, which is occurring today. I've already voted.

I know nothing about any of the above Political Parties...

Umm.. yeah sorry about that, I'll edit in a description of their ideologies into the OP for non-Australians.

I voted Greens in the Senate for a similar reason. (read their policies on their website... I realise their focus is the environment but I also think the Government needs a boot up the backside on that particular issue and having some more Greens in the Senate should help.

I was going to hand out 'how-to-vote' recommendations for the Greens, based on their core issues, but reading their gamut of policies changed my mind.

I also learned that you aren't supposed to argue politics or try to persuade voters, just tell them who you are 'handing-out' for and smile nicely.

So I left the job to people who smile nicely. The Greens have plenty of those.

Nobel Hobos: It's Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke, and Paul Keating. Sorry, but I saw the spelling errors and the Spelling Nazi Within could not resist. :p

Thanks for getting my joke ;)

===============

Umm.. yeah sorry about that, I'll edit in a description of their ideologies into the OP for non-Australians.

Er, don't just rip them from WikiP like you did in your second ever thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=541892). Describing Labor as "third-way" is just ridiculous.

I thought the Democrats did totally the right thing with the GST, they bargained with all their mandate to make it fairer but did not do with Labor what the Nationals do with the Liberals, form a coalition and defend each other's policies.

Before the Greens became significant, the Democrats were trying to bring workable proportional-representation politics to Australia. As a minor party, their policy platform is significant only where it deviates from both of the major parties.
The Democrat core policies are electoral reform, open government and political rights ... and the only reason I'm voting Green is because over the last decade or so, ecological issues have become the most pressing in my view.

When voting for a minor party which will not get to set the agenda in Parliament, the question should not be "what would this lot do if they got into power?" ... but "what are this lot talking about that I think the major parties need their nose rubbed in?"

OK, going to vote now. Greens then Labor in the House; Democrat, Greens, Labor in the Senate.

i voted Democrat



because that's what jesus would have done

Hey, give 'em a break. They don't exactly come from historically intellectual backgrounds, now, do they?

And Johnny Howard does?

And Johnny Howard does?

Eh, that's sorted out already. Yootopia meant Australians.

The presumption that convicts were uneducated is roughly true. A few were very well educated.

But I'm very comfortable with Australia being invaded by convicts. That takes the responsibility for establishing the colony of Australia off the "settlers" and places it firmly on the shoulders of the British Government.

Once British and Irish were living here, they were arguably "Australians" and it is we, their decendents, who bear the guilt of taking the land off the Australians who lived here already. That guilt is lessened when the first whites were either employed by the British (governors and guards) or here against their will (convicts.)

So, right back at you Britain! Criminals indeed. Some convicts were petty thieves. Britain stole a whole country here.

I don't get to vote, so I'll be making pizzas instead.

Hey, I only just got that. You're making pizzas instead of doing deliveries?

Pro: safer, and a better reference. Con: you don't get to drive around.

So, are you happy about making them instead of driving them?

We've got a 77 pizza order today, which I think can only be for a local rep's party - and I suspect it's the Labor guy, because he lives around the corner.

Not that he's gonna win, but nevermind.

They're only a "rep" if they represent the electorate, ie are the member. Otherwise, "candidate."

77 pizzas ==> 60 Coalition campaigners.
77 pizzas ==> 90 Labor campaigners.
77 pizzas ==> 240 Green campaigners.
77 pizzas ==> 4 CDP campaigners (bad planning).
77 pizzas ==> 2 Marijuana Party campaigners (munchies).

A close analysis of the pizza types ordered could also be a clue. Mega-meat options would be Labor. 10 seafood, the rest vegetarian would be Green. An order like "whatever you usually sell" would be Liberal/National.

Let us know how it "pans out." :p

I don't get to vote, so I'll be making pizzas instead. We've got a 77 pizza order today, which I think can only be for a local rep's party - and I suspect it's the Labor guy, because he lives around the corner.

Not that he's gonna win, but nevermind.
I'm still confused by the idea of you working in a pizzeria. Is it a chain restaurant or some local place?

I thought the Democrats did totally the right thing with the GST, they bargained with all their mandate to make it fairer but did not do with Labor what the Nationals do with the Liberals, form a coalition and defend each other's policies.

Before the Greens became significant, the Democrats were trying to bring workable proportional-representation politics to Australia. As a minor party, their policy platform is significant only where it deviates from both of the major parties.
The Democrat core policies are electoral reform, open government and political rights ... and the only reason I'm voting Green is because over the last decade or so, ecological issues have become the most pressing in my view.

When voting for a minor party which will not get to set the agenda in Parliament, the question should not be "what would this lot do if they got into power?" ... but "what are this lot talking about that I think the major parties need their nose rubbed in?"

OK, going to vote now. Greens then Labor in the House; Democrat, Greens, Labor in the Senate.

The Democrats are gone friend, I wouldn't be surprised if they cease to exist as an electoral parliamentary party in the next few hours, and they deserve it. Howard gave up on the GST until the Democrats gave it too him, and after that the voters punished them for it. Don't get me wrong, I'd love more than anyone to bring back the heady days of Chip, but when your motto is 'keeping the bastards honest' and you sell out to the highest bidder.... well you loose credibility.

My tip for the election is, the house will be a tough battle and it will be won by a tiny margin either way. The Coalition are obviously going to loose the majority in the senate, which will be taken up mostly by the greens I am thinking.

I'm still confused by the idea of you working in a pizzeria. Is it a chain restaurant or some local place?

I don't find it confusing. In fact, I find it inspiring.

But of course, your reply wasn't to me, so I await Neu Leo's reply.

... which may be tomorrow. It's election night, we party win or lose. Must be a huge night for Pizzerias.

Personally, I'm going to go play Scrabble to kill the suspense until counting becomes worthwhile. Then I'll probably follow it on the telly, from about 7:30.

ABC election results here. (http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/)

The Democrats are gone friend, I wouldn't be surprised if they cease to exist as an electoral parliamentary party in the next few hours, and they deserve it.

Well, they don't deserve it. But anyway.

A big part of why I'm voting Green instead of Democrat all the way is: in a two party system, the third party are very symbolically important.

Sure, I'd like to vote to buy back Telstra, build a government corporation to provide Australians with cheap petrol out of our own reserves, grant exclusive title in land to traditional owners (regardless of private or Crown ownership) and give our entire defense budget to the UN.

Voting for some green-left party which advocates that, though, won't get those points raised in the public eye. The more absurd ideas of that party will instead be used against it, in mockery of the 'outsider.'

The Democrats were once the "third way," the people who stated the bleeding obvious, the enfant terrible, the party of "Keep the bastards honest."

The Greens are now in that position. They can take any 20%-popularity position (like "the government should not be allowed to imprison persons without showing cause tested in a public court," god help us) which the two majors don't ... and they'll look good.

The Greens without a fourth party will succumb to the same aimlessness. Do you want the fourth party to be Family First?

Howard gave up on the GST until the Democrats gave it too him,

Oh crap. Avoiding our first ever Double Dissolution isn't "handing it to him." He campaigned on it, he had a rock solid mandate.

and after that the voters punished them for it.

Yes, they did. But the current woes of the Democrats are far more than that, it's that their caucus was divided by their support base, the party members.

That's what you get for having policy decided by the members. Shit no, all hail our leader no matter what we think personally, they know better than us and it's probably just a political tactic to win more important issues down the track ... :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I'd love more than anyone to bring back the heady days of Chipp, but when your motto is 'keeping the bastards honest' and you sell out to the highest bidder.... well you lose credibility.

"Keeping the bastards honest" was a dud slogan, and it was Chipp's slogan. A politician saying "politicians lie" hasn't much credibility to start with.

My tip for the election is, the house will be a tough battle and it will be won by a tiny margin either way. The Coalition are obviously going to loose the majority in the senate, which will be taken up mostly by the greens I am thinking.

My tip is a landslide for the Labor party in the Parliament, most of the lost seats (all parties) in the Senate going Green, particularly in NSW and Victoria.

The Coalition do not have a majority in the Senate now. You could explain that.

There could be a surprise in the Senate, a new party like Shooter's Party taking a seat.

Voted for Kevin07! Mainly because my local liberal (conversative) candidate is a tool.

What about the AFP? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_First_Party) Too bad it wasn't available.

Victoria really got shafted in this election. If any of the brain dead officials of either parties had realised and built on that, they would have gotten a lot of votes here.

Democrats aren't going out, they seem to have gotten a lot of press this election and that alone might save them.

Early booth polling indicates a swing to labor in many seats, including marginals, but obviously way too early to call.

Zaij;13239520']Victoria really got shafted in this election. If any of the brain dead officials of either parties had realised and built on that, they would have gotten a lot of votes here.

Ya, us Tasmanians never get forgotten, unfortunately I live in a safe labor seat so we never saw any politicians in Denison.

Greens seem to be doing quite well so far.
Democrats? Who?

Greens seem to be doing quite well so far.
Democrats? Who?

Almost excessively so in some seats.

Hey, I only just got that. You're making pizzas instead of doing deliveries?

Pro: safer, and a better reference. Con: you don't get to drive around.

So, are you happy about making them instead of driving them?
Well, I did the dayshift today, which is all about preparing for the nightshift. There aren't many deliveries to do (I only did 3 today) but instead a lot of dough to mix and pizzas to roll.

I don't mind it, it saves petrol and you don't have to deal with drunk people.

I'm still confused by the idea of you working in a pizzeria. Is it a chain restaurant or some local place?
It's Pizza Hut.

I don't find it confusing. In fact, I find it inspiring.
Inspiring? I've heard it called lots of things, but this is a first. :D

And Johnny Howard does?
No, he's a complete tool too :p

(note : I was slightly taking the piss with my first statement)

It's a bit later in the night.

Labor has the house. Howard has conceded. Much to my disappointment, he neither cried nor said he was sorry.

Instead, he took the opportunity to "thank" various people, including his treasurer Costello and the Australian people.

Is it just me, or did his concession speech sound like a whiney brat blaming everyone else for how he got in trouble?

And it's looking now like he will LOSE HIS SEAT! Still he's not fucking sorry.

*grabs Howard by collar and seat of pants*
*throws Howard out*

:D

Hey, I'm not sure I like the new guy much either. In his acceptance speech he used the word "work" eight times by my count.

Those employers groups will be hoping this was all a bad dream! :p

Is it just me, or did his concession speech sound like a whiney brat blaming everyone else for how he got in trouble?

To me it sounded like an outgoing Prime Minister saying "it's my fault we lost, thanks for the good times and for putting up with me, Labor here's the country, don't screw it up".

To me it sounded like an outgoing Prime Minister saying "it's my fault we lost, thanks for the good times and for putting up with me, Labor here's the country, don't screw it up".

I totally missed that bit. Perhaps I wasn't paying much attention, what with the drinking and the dancing the happy dance as I was.

=============

I want US readers to note, the result in the House was decided before kid's bedtime, entirely by paper ballots. For each person's vote, there is a piece of paper with numbers written on it in pencil.

We're waiting on the Senate result. I'm OK with waiting ...

I totally missed that bit. Perhaps I wasn't paying much attention, what with the drinking and the dancing the happy dance as I was.

He said something along the lines of "I lead the campaign, I accept full responsibility for our defeat."

Greens seem to be doing quite well so far.
Democrats? Who?

Won't translate into seats though, due to the vagaries of the preferential vote.

Won't translate into seats though, due to the vagaries of the preferential vote.

Yes true, but they helped sink the coalition with their preference deal.

Yes true, but they helped sink the coalition with their preference deal.

True. Remains to be seen what they will get in return.

Democrats - progressivism


Ironic that the Democrats are now considered progressives given that they were started as a centrist party. It's just that Australian politics has shifted so far to the right that they are now the left wing.

Labor - social democracy
Coalition - liberal conservatism
Greens - left-wing environmentalism
Family First - Christian conservatism
Democrats - progressivism
Socialist Alliance - socialism
Liberty & Democracy Party - libertarianism
Citizen's Electoral Council - far-right
Christian Democratic Party - Christian conservatism

Wow you guys have a lot of Political Parties, Canada only has 4 major federal parties...

Liberal - Centrist/Centre Left
Conservative - Right Wing
NDP - Left Wing
Bloc Quebecois - French Separatists

and the Green Party (environment) seems to be gaining support recently

With the australian elections in the news I did some reading and found out much to my dismay that voting is compulsory
in australia? Is this correct? The government actually forces people to vote? Does anyone find this troubling? After all the government does have the monopoly on force. So esetnially you're voting at gunpoint. What are the penalties for not voting?

compulsory voting is abhorrent to one such as myself who loves Liberty. Doesn't forcing people to vote defeat the point and purpose of free expression?

If all this is moot due to something regarding the Aussie Constitution I aologize. If that is the case though, then wow- Australia should take a good long and hard look at what it means to be a member of the free world.

With the australian elections in the news I did some reading and found out much to my dismay that voting is compulsory
in australia? Is this correct? The government actually forces people to vote? Does anyone find this troubling? After all the government does have the monopoly on force. So esetnially you're voting at gunpoint. What are the penalties for not voting?

A fine, but if you really don't want to vote you can invalidate your ballot.

EDIT: I read a paper from the Electoral Commission, apparently the fine is $20 and can go as high as $50 if you don't pay it.

With the australian elections in the news I did some reading and found out much to my dismay that voting is compulsory
in australia? Is this correct? The government actually forces people to vote? Does anyone find this troubling? After all the government does have the monopoly on force. So esetnially you're voting at gunpoint. What are the penalties for not voting?

Flogging, plus they take away your children and the next time there's an election you have to vote twice. At gunpoint.

compulsory voting is abhorrent to one such as myself who loves Liberty. Doesn't forcing people to vote defeat the point and purpose of free expression?

No.

If all this is moot due to something regarding the Aussie Constitution I aologize. If that is the case though, then wow- Australia should take a good long and hard look at what it means to be a member of the free world.

OMG, you are right, what horrible oppression. I'd never even noticed! Shit, it's worse than taxation, worse than conscription. Australia is an utter mockery of a democratic system. I must kill myself.

The penalty for not voting is a fifty-buck fine. Alternatively, you can lie to the Australian Electoral Commission, say you did vote when in fact you didn't, and they just have to accept your version of events. That might tell against you if you ever run for office.

Interestingly, the newly elected Environment minister admits to not voting several times when he was younger.

Honestly, I think there are more important things that need fixing, than compulsory voting.

A fine, but if you really don't want to vote you can invalidate your ballot.

EDIT: I read a paper from the Electoral Commission, apparently the fine is $20 and can go as high as $50 if you don't pay it.

Oops, I guess you're right.

Just to outrage our US friend some more, one can vote more than once and there isn't much the AEC can do about it. I believe that was tightened up for this election (one is expected to vote at a particular booth) but it's still possible.

No voter registration. No need to show ID. You can walk up to the desk and give any name you like, if it's on the roll they let you vote under that name.

It's illegal, obviously. But there's no formal way of detecting it.

I knew someone who didn't vote once, and the next day the Electoral Commission goose stepped into his house and took him and his family to a concentration camp. True story.

Senate is interesting. Standing now at:

37 Coalition
32 ALP
5 . Green
1 . Family First
1 . Independent (Nick Xenophon)

The ALP must be tempted to appoint a coalition Senator as chair (chair can't vote).* Family First and the new independent would have to both vote with the coalition to block anything the Greens and Labor agreed on. That's wrong, too. A deadlock is sufficient for a bill not to pass.

Nick Xenophon is opposed to WorkChoices, he's pro-Kyoto and is generally terrific.

*This is wrong. Don't know where I got that idea. This senate guide (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/guides/briefno16.htm) set me right.

The Democrats are gone friend, I wouldn't be surprised if they cease to exist as an electoral parliamentary party in the next few hours, and they deserve it. Howard gave up on the GST until the Democrats gave it too him, and after that the voters punished them for it. Don't get me wrong, I'd love more than anyone to bring back the heady days of Chip, but when your motto is 'keeping the bastards honest' and you sell out to the highest bidder.... well you loose credibility.

My tip for the election is, the house will be a tough battle and it will be won by a tiny margin either way. The Coalition are obviously going to loose the majority in the senate, which will be taken up mostly by the greens I am thinking.

Don't be fooled The Democrats were not washed out because they supported GST they were washed out because once they decided to go against anything and everthing the government wanted to do the government then refused to help them thus they were unable to get any of their policies through. Unlike before were they could vote with the government making some changes (like they did with the GST) and the government would help them get their policies through thus people would continue to support them once they changed that tact to the one mentioned earlier they then became a party with some power that did nothing thus people left them in droves. Thanks to the likes of Stott-Despoija (think thats spelt right), Bartlett and other they brought the Democrats to their knees

It's a bit later in the night.

Labor has the house. Howard has conceded. Much to my disappointment, he neither cried nor said he was sorry.

Instead, he took the opportunity to "thank" various people, including his treasurer Costello and the Australian people.

Is it just me, or did his concession speech sound like a whiney brat blaming everyone else for how he got in trouble?

And it's looking now like he will LOSE HIS SEAT! Still he's not fucking sorry.

*grabs Howard by collar and seat of pants*
*throws Howard out*

:D

Hey, I'm not sure I like the new guy much either. In his acceptance speech he used the word "work" eight times by my count.

Did you even listen to his concession speech come on one the the very first things he said was that he takes full responsibilty for the election loss how does that sound like someone blaming everyone else

Howard losing his seat was actually a godsend for the coalition. Now they can put Costello straight into the job, and perhaps even replace him before the next contest.

Plus they don't have to choose between having Methuselah Howard on the back-bench or by-election in Bennelong to let him leave.

For folks who hated Howard personally, it's also funny to see him lose his seat. "the first prime minister since Stanley Melbourne Bruce in 1929 to lose his own seat" apparently.

Coalition are better off, Howard is better off, Howard haters are better off. That's a win/win/win. Yay!

I knew someone who didn't vote once, and the next day the Electoral Commission goose stepped into his house and took him and his family to a concentration camp. True story.
ORLY?

Proofs, bitte.

Did you even listen to his concession speech come on one the the very first things he said was that he takes full responsibilty for the election loss how does that sound like someone blaming everyone else

Yeah, I've since watched it again. "It's a bit later in the night" translates as "I'm really very drunk."

It's worth noting though, that he did not acknowledge the Australian peoples emphatic rejection of his government, taking responsibility only for the campaign. And now that he's out of the parliament, it's not a responsibility he has to do anything about, like standing down from the leadership.

Yeah, I've since watched it again. "It's a bit later in the night" translates as "I'm really very drunk."

It's worth noting though, that he did not acknowledge the Australian peoples emphatic rejection of his government, taking responsibility only for the campaign. And now that he's out of the parliament, it's not a responsibility he has to do anything about, like standing down from the leadership.

Well even if he does retain his own seat in parliament, which is looking considerably unlikely, the Liberal party leadership is automatically voided after every election. What would be interesting is if Turnbull wants to be leader over Costello, Turnbull was the only Coalition MP I believe to be able to retain his seat without having significant swing against him, which puts him in a stronger position for party leadership.

ORLY?

Proofs, bitte.

Most of the activities of the AEC are top secret. It's really better not to ask questions. Vote, be silent, take the government they give you.

We really just pretend to be a democracy, so our state controlled propaganda service (the ABC) can badmouth neighbouring countries with impunity.

Well even if he does retain his own seat in parliament, which is looking considerably unlikely, the Liberal party leadership is automatically voided after every election. What would be interesting is if Turnbull wants to be leader over Costello, Turnbull was the only Coalition MP I believe to be able to retain his seat without having significant swing against him, which puts him in a stronger position for party leadership.

I'm pretty sure he's gone. The coalition of course did not speculate on what they'd do if they lost, whether there would be the same 'eventual' succession plan as they intended if they won ... or if there would be an early turn-over of the top job to Costello.

I guess by losing the election, Howard lost the right to appoint Costello as his successor.

Possibly Costello will be a lot more attractive from Opposition. Certainly he's a fighter (rather like Keating really, the wit and appetite for a stoush come across as arrogance from the winning side, but as 'spirit' from the underdog position ...)

Anyway, it will be Costello to start with. They need a fall-guy for the Rudd honeymoon ... no-one is going to look good leading the Coalition for the next six months or so.

I'm pretty sure he's gone. The coalition of course did not speculate on what they'd do if they lost, whether there would be the same 'eventual' succession plan as they intended if they won ... or if there would be an early turn-over of the top job to Costello.

I guess by losing the election, Howard lost the right to appoint Costello as his successor.

Possibly Costello will be a lot more attractive from Opposition. Certainly he's a fighter (rather like Keating really, the wit and appetite for a stoush come across as arrogance from the winning side, but as 'spirit' from the underdog position ...)

Anyway, it will be Costello to start with. They need a fall-guy for the Rudd honeymoon ... no-one is going to look good leading the Coalition for the next six months or so.

Well after listening to Howard's defeat speech it was hard not to feel sorry for him etc, but when you look at it hard he should have handed over to Costello ages ago. People can say 'we he put up a good fight' but in reality the whole Liberal party has suffered an absolutely humiliating defeat and after 30 years Howard has lost his seat at the hands of a relative newcomer to politics.

Well after listening to Howard's defeat speech it was hard not to feel sorry for him etc, but when you look at it hard he should have handed over to Costello ages ago. People can say 'we he put up a good fight' but in reality the whole Liberal party has suffered an absolutely humiliating defeat and after 30 years Howard has lost his seat at the hands of a relative newcomer to politics.

Yeah, I suppose you could see that as admirable. A five-percent swing was going to do the Coalition in, and that's also what it took for him to lose his seat. In a sense he stood or fell with his government, instead of bolstering his own position with more work in Bennelong.

Agreed, Maxine McKew is a newcomer. She was a pretty dreadful television presenter, blatantly partisan and rather snide ... but she'll be an interesting debater. I wouldn't be surprised if she gets a portfolio soonish, certainly within the term of this government. She's bright and the new government will want to get as many women on their front bench as possible.

Well after listening to Howard's defeat speech it was hard not to feel sorry for him etc, but when you look at it hard he should have handed over to Costello ages ago. People can say 'we he put up a good fight' but in reality the whole Liberal party has suffered an absolutely humiliating defeat and after 30 years Howard has lost his seat at the hands of a relative newcomer to politics.

I see I didn't really answer this ... I'll try again.

It was hard to believe that Keating could win an election, he too was pretty unpopular as Treasurer.

How could the coalition have handed over the reins to Costello in that last term? Didn't they win in 2004 with Howard promising to serve the whole term?

Howard put up many a good fight. When he got the leadership for the third time, and Keating was mocking him as "Methuselah with a triple-bypass" I doubt many people could see him staying in power for over a decade. Tough little fella.

Costello won't stand. This news is an hour old, but I only just realized it.

The Age article (http://www.theage.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/costello-wont-lead-libs/2007/11/25/1195947541130.html)

Peter Costello has announced his intention to refuse the Liberal Party leadership following the Howard Government's election defeat.

Mr Costello made the announcement to journalists in Melbourne this afternoon.

Looks like Costello is stepping-down too. I couldn't have satirised a happier ending to this election than that which has eventuated... the coalition decimated in the lower house and losing their senate majority, Howard without a seat and Costello retiring. They have been destroyed at every state and federal level of government and my faith in the intelligence, strength and compassion of the citizens of this nation has been restored.

As for compulsory voting, there happens to exist logically valid conceptions of freedom other than the American. WE are horrified that you lot are too lazy to do anything about your own affairs, even vote about them.

Just thought this might be a good time to mention that gloating over election outcomes is regarded as trollbaiting.

Not saying anyone's done it yet -- this thread is mostly comments and speculation, and none of it's aimed at particular posters -- but let's make sure to keep it that way, 'kay?

Looks like Costello is stepping-down too. I couldn't have satirised a happier ending to this election than that which has eventuated... the coalition decimated in the lower house and losing their senate majority, Howard without a seat and Costello retiring. They have been destroyed at every state and federal level of government and my faith in the intelligence, strength and compassion of the citizens of this nation has been restored.

Hrmph. I was dancing in the street last night but I'm trying to be a bit more evenhanded today.

As for compulsory voting, there happen to exist logically valid conceptions of freedom other than the American. WE are horrified that you lot are too lazy to do anything about your own affairs, even vote about them.

Preferring socialist policies to business-friendly policies, I have always liked the compulsory vote. People who are disempowered in their everyday life are less likely to vote than successful people (if it's not compulsory). They simply don't take politics seriously or think their vote makes any difference.

So, compulsory voting represents a systemic advantage to whoever the poor and helpless vote for ... which is usually the more socialist party.

Though I mocked Dontletmedown, they are technically correct. The government requiring citizens to vote is a quite unnecessary act of compulsion ... though I think it is far less significant than say, conscription.

When the US demonstrates an ability to pass new amendments to it's "sacred" Constitution, when it provides voting facilities fairly to all people regardless of the wealth of their neighbourhood, and when they hold elections without blatant rorting of the electoral rolls by state governments ... then I'll listen politely as they criticize a minor injustice like compulsory voting.

Just thought this might be a good time to mention that gloating over election outcomes is regarded as trollbaiting.

Not saying anyone's done it yet -- this thread is mostly comments and speculation, and none of it's aimed at particular posters -- but let's make sure to keep it that way, 'kay?

Awwww. Libs aren't going to come out of the woodwork unless we tease 'em a bit! :p

You're right of course. I'll just go edit that white "WOOT!" out of the post you timewarped.

<snip>... then I'll listen politely as they criticize a minor injustice like compulsory voting.(emphasis added)

But you always listen politely, NH! :)

There's a respectable body of theory that compulsory voting isn't an injustice at all, even a minor one. Voting can be regarded as a duty the citizen owes the state, just as taxes are. (I really don't want to get into a debate on libertarian theory, as I have to go out now, but I had to put in a word for our idealistic, though sometimes misguided and frequently nutty, early Oz legislators.)

Preferring socialist policies to business-friendly policies, I have always liked the compulsory vote. People who are disempowered in their everyday life are less likely to vote than successful people (if it's not compulsory). They simply don't take politics seriously or think their vote makes any difference.

Though I mocked Dontletmedown, they are technically correct. The government requiring citizens to vote is a quite unnecessary act of compulsion
It would seem that compulsory voting is therefore necessary to ensure that the unfortunate or disempowered are not unfairly made the most disadvantaged. As a side note, I agree that a society in which this is not the case is a superior one. With regards to freedom, I believe it's measured by more than a simple summation of all the coersive factors present in society. If a group is unfairly and significantly disadvantaged to begin with, it seems rather fallacious to be talking-up how 'free' a society is, even though the advantaged and disadvantaged undergo the same degree of coersion; if the disempowered are also the unfairly disadvantaged, it appears they will be less able to produce from their autonomy. Compulsory voting, therefore, levels the field.

So yes - sort out the corruption of and inequities within a 'free', non-compulsory vote and the above justification will evaporate. This not currently being the case, in my opinion compulsory voting is a superior system, socially speaking.

Sorry for gloating before :D i've never known anything other than John Howard at the helm, so I'm rather excited about the prospects for the future.

But you always listen politely, NH! :)

It's a cunning ploy to sneak up on people I want to savagely attack. ;)

There's a respectable body of theory that compulsory voting isn't an injustice at all, even a minor one. Voting can be regarded as a duty the citizen owes the state, just as taxes are. (I really don't want to get into a debate on libertarian theory, as I have to go out now, but I had to put in a word for our idealistic, though sometimes misguided and frequently nutty, early Oz legislators.)

I guess this comes down to a libertarian/minarchist vs. social contract/socialist thing, then. It might give non-Australians a handle ... I fully understand that our little democracy isn't that interesting to Europeans or Americans.

I gotta go too. There is serious butt-whipping to be done on the Scrabble board. :)

With the australian elections in the news I did some reading and found out much to my dismay that voting is compulsory
in australia? Is this correct? The government actually forces people to vote? Does anyone find this troubling? After all the government does have the monopoly on force. So esetnially you're voting at gunpoint. What are the penalties for not voting?

compulsory voting is abhorrent to one such as myself who loves Liberty. Doesn't forcing people to vote defeat the point and purpose of free expression?

If all this is moot due to something regarding the Aussie Constitution I aologize. If that is the case though, then wow- Australia should take a good long and hard look at what it means to be a member of the free world.

Government is supposed to be representative of the people. If not everyone votes, then it's not representative, is it? Hence not having compulsory voting questions the legitimacy of the government it's harder to claim to have a mandate.

Well after listening to Howard's defeat speech it was hard not to feel sorry for him etc, but when you look at it hard he should have handed over to Costello ages ago. People can say 'we he put up a good fight' but in reality the whole Liberal party has suffered an absolutely humiliating defeat and after 30 years Howard has lost his seat at the hands of a relative newcomer to politics.

While she has only been a candidate for nine months you can't really say she is a newcomer to politics she was after all a journalist for 25 years the majority of them as a political correspondent for the ABC and was for many years a part of the Canberra Press Club, so she has certainly been deep inside Australian Politics for a long time.

Another reason why he may have lost the seat is due to the redistribution of his seat since the last election which placed in a large labor area and took out a large liberal supporting area, not to mention the fact that the past few elections his majoirty vote has been declining

Most forms of informal voting (where you cast an illegible / invalid paper) are also considered by the electoral commission as "effectively abstentions". Nobody is allowed to see your vote and typically 3-6% of votes cast are informal. So no, compulsory voting does not curtail freedom of expression. Compulsory voting is also not quite the same as 'forced' voting or something, where somebody holds a gun to your head and demands you cast a formal vote. So no, compulsory voting does not curtail liberty either (except having to walk 5 minutes to the nearest booth, pick up a pencil, etc. big whoop.)

[QUOTE=Esoteric Wisdom;13241031]Looks like Costello is stepping-down too. I couldn't have satirised a happier ending to this election than that which has eventuated... the coalition decimated in the lower house and losing their senate majority, Howard without a seat and Costello retiring. They have been destroyed at every state and federal level of government and my faith in the intelligence, strength and compassion of the citizens of this nation has been restored.[QUOTE]

Costello is not retiriing he has just said that he will not run for the position of leader of the opposition in the House of Representatives, he will remain in parliament and he may very well be a shadow minister and in two terms time when the coalition will have a chance of winning he may very well be a minister

Good call

So, the next question is: who will be Coalition leader?

I don't think it will be Turnbull. He has a huge ego, but surely it's too soon in his parliamentary career.

I think the Libs will be looking for someone with a track record of fail, to hold the place for now for their real contender. I say they'll pick Downer.

Downer would be a solid choice, also the most tolerable. I don't rate it a chance, but I REALLY hope that Abbot doesn't put his hand up (although I can't think of a worse portfolio to have put him in than health - hopefully he'll get shuttled around in any case). I similarly despise Brendan Nelson and especially Kevin Andrews, but also don't rate them much of a chance.

Downer would be a solid choice, also the most tolerable. I don't rate it a chance, but I REALLY hope that Abbot doesn't put his hand up (although I can't think of a worse portfolio to have put him in than health - hopefully he'll get shuttled around in any case). I similarly despise Brendan Nelson and especially Kevin Andrews, but also don't rate them much of a chance.

I went to Sydney Uni with Abbot (also Hockey.) Abbot's talent for fucking-up is nothing new to me. :)

EDIT: Nice self-timewarp there!

Nobel Hobos individual 'rights' don't exist, without government people wouldn't know when to eat, when to sleep and what to do with themselves, the state is the heart of society, you talk of personal responsibility but no one wants to take responsibility. People love the security that the government is looking out for them, and it can empower society with a sense of direction and purpose. People are too stupid and crude to act for themselves, we are herd animals and we need a strong government to keep them all in line.

It would seem that compulsory voting is therefore necessary to ensure that the unfortunate or disempowered are not unfairly made the most disadvantaged.

Ah, a socialist "for their own good" argument! The usual rebuttal is that by taking the decision to vote away from the individual, you disempower them further.

Which matters more, the individual's vote or the individual's experience of freedom of choice?

Looked at from one individual's point of view, their choice matters more. They have a right not to participate, it empowers them to think that government is none of their doing. Maybe that's 'negative empowerment', allowing them to feel less responsibility for a thing they feel is bad. Compelling them to participate in something they dislike is plain disempowering, though.

Looked at from government's point of view (or the artificially objective "looking at society" POV), dragging all those individuals to the polling booth and then letting them decide whether to cast a real vote is good for society by creating a more representative government. All individuals benefit from living in a better society, and the individual often finds that they prefer one party over the other, once the effort of getting out to the polling booth is taken out of the equation.

I always come down on the latter side, but I respect those who try to recast politics into a subjective frame, that of the individual. There is something philosophically pure about that -- we are all subjective, after all.

As a side note, I agree that a society in which this is not the case is a superior one. With regards to freedom, I believe it's measured by more than a simple summation of all the coersive factors present in society. If a group is unfairly and significantly disadvantaged to begin with, it seems rather fallacious to be talking-up how 'free' a society is, even though the advantaged and disadvantaged undergo the same degree of coersion; if the disempowered are also the unfairly disadvantaged, it appears they will be less able to produce from their autonomy. Compulsory voting, therefore, levels the field.

That's quite complicated.
"A society where this is not the case" refers to a society with high voter participation but not compulsory voting?

I know it was a "side note" ... but would you mind running that by me again?

So yes - sort out the corruption of and inequities within a 'free', non-compulsory vote and the above justification will evaporate. This not currently being the case, in my opinion compulsory voting is a superior system, socially speaking.

You think well.

Sorry for gloating before :D i've never known anything other than John Howard at the helm, so I'm rather excited about the prospects for the future.

From my longer perspective, I can tell you that there was widespread contempt for Bob Hawke after a decade of seeing him "being the Prime Minister." The mood was almost exactly the same, a sense that 'that there is a perfectly ordinary guy, he did alright, but he doesn't deserve to be PM forever.' And a kind of ... resentment? Like he's been wasting our time?

Interestingly, 'wasting time' and 'not doing enough' are the charges often laid against Menzies, our longest-serving PM before Howard took that title. Hawke comes third.

I may be quite tired of Howard, many others might be too, but he didn't slack off in the office. When he had political capital, he used it effectively for his party's conservative agenda ... and when he didn't, he'd make the nice noises and say there was nothing government could do.

Just how quick and decisive he could be was shown by two events at each end of his leadership: the gun-control bill after the Port Arthur massacre, and the intervention in the NT after the "little children are sacred" report.

The way those two actions were perceived says a lot about "prime minister fatigue" in the electorate.

If anything, it is extraordinary how little people hate Howard ... after so many years of seeing him make decisions for us. He was a likeable guy, and will no doubt fit in well among our show-pony stable of ex-PM's. Let's look forward to Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard coming out unanimously against Rudd on some future issue, as the first four did against Howard on reconciliation with Aborigines.

Firstly, I'd like to note that you timewarped. I saw this page with my two posts in the wrong order ... I refreshed the page, and this was between them.

Aussies rule the timewarp!

Nobel Hobos individual 'rights' don't exist, without government people wouldn't know when to eat, when to sleep and what to do with themselves, the state is the heart of society,

Eh, crap. Two people on a desert island must form a social contract. Your "heart of society" is but a squatter, an organism not unlike a corporation, which leverages its longevity to bully a society consisting of and sustained by each and every one of us. Society is built of our lives, and government is the ruler we yearn for to replace the harsh rule of nature.

Without government, there is still society. Without society, there can be no government.

You are talking fascist crap.

you talk of personal responsibility but no one wants to take responsibility. People love the security that the government is looking out for them, and it can empower society with a sense of direction and purpose. People are too stupid and crude to act for themselves, we are herd animals and we need a strong government to keep them all in line.

Ah! I see you DID read your own "Authoritarians of NSG" thread.
Good, wasn't it?

Government can be brilliant, it can be miserable. Perhaps it is not so much the leaders as the led who make it so.

The leader who asks too much, who tries but fails to inspire a dull and downturned society, does a little harm.

Great leaders of great societies only do their duty, likewise bad leaders of bad societies.

The only truly harmful government, is the unambitious leadership of a great society to small and petty ends. Now, I will not call Western societies great, but I will say they are at or near their peak. Any leader who concentrates the vast power of an industrialized, democratic society on petty matters like personal wealth, is a failing and decadent leader, whom history will condemn just as harshly as the kings who lost their armies or the caesars who lost democracy.

... Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man,
the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time
handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now
restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things:
bread and circuses

Quoting this in the Latin would obviously be more kudosly, but I don't speak Latin, so fuck it.
"Bread and circuses" in Latin is "panem et circenses." I'll try to remember that.

At the peak, is the time to look up and dream of what may be possible. It is the time to build monuments, and to preserve our achievements. To instead avert our eyes in fear of the possibilities, to revert to a "what about me?" selfishness, is incredibly wasteful and an insult to the generations who strived to get us here.

Yes, we can try for more heights (though I think our hill of skulls can't grow much higher without collapsing), we can revel in what we have. These are not so bad, compared to a return to "me, me, me" barbarism.

Damn, after that rave I've forgotten if I agree or disagree with you! I'll stick a blue question-mark on the post. Yep, me drunk.

It would seem that compulsory voting is therefore necessary to ensure that the unfortunate or disempowered are not unfairly made the most disadvantaged. As a side note, I agree that a society in which this is not the case is a superior one.
I wanted to claim that a society in which the most unfortunate/disempowered are made also the most disadvantaged by being under-represented in the vote is a far more inferior one, socially, than one in which the vote is compulsory. Although yes, if there were similar levels of voter participation and equity in a non-compulsory system, I would say that a non-compulsory system would theoretically be superior. I doubt this would ever be achieved, though.

I also wanted to claim that if we are to begin talking about freedom, we need to look past measuring it in terms of coercion alone and take something more fundamental into account - autonomy. Yes, a society in which the vote is non-compulsory has less coercion than one which does. However, is that society necessarily more 'free'? The most disadvantaged in society appear to have their autonomy circumvented if those who make laws (which shape how autonomy is to be exercised) largely ignore their interests. Whilst this is very much a leveling-down argument, it does seem to come down to, as you suggested, whether personal freedom or collective benefit is weighted more heavily. Personally, individual freedom is simply fundamental, however there appears to be no society on the planet that can enjoy a libertarian conception of freedom whilst ensuring minimal decency and fairness. If we can't ensure the latter two, then there's nothing (logically) contradictory in having a handful of individuals with unimaginable freedoms at the expense of the unwittingly enslaved, but uncoerced, masses.

I wanted to claim that a society in which the most unfortunate/disempowered are made also the most disadvantaged by being under-represented in the vote is a far more inferior one, socially, than one in which the vote is compulsory. Although yes, if there were similar levels of voter participation and equity in a non-compulsory system, I would say that a non-compulsory system would theoretically be superior. I doubt this would ever be achieved, though.

I also wanted to claim that if we are to begin talking about freedom, we need to look past measuring it in terms of coercion alone and take something more fundamental into account - autonomy. Yes, a society in which the vote is non-compulsory has less coercion than one which does. However, is that society necessarily more 'free'? The most disadvantaged in society appear to have their autonomy circumvented if those who make laws (which shape how autonomy is to be exercised) largely ignore their interests. Whilst this is very much a leveling-down argument, it does seem to come down to, as you suggested, whether personal freedom or collective benefit is weighted more heavily. Personally, individual freedom is simply fundamental, however there appears to be no society on the planet that can enjoy a libertarian conception of freedom whilst ensuring minimal decency and fairness. If we can't ensure the latter two, then there's nothing (logically) contradictory in having a handful of individuals with unimaginable freedoms at the expense of the unwittingly enslaved, but uncoerced, masses.

This seems cogent. I will give it the consideration it deserves, tomorrow when I am sober. Meanwhile, I commend it to other posters.

This seems cogent. I will give it the consideration it deserves, tomorrow when I am sober. Meanwhile, I commend it to other posters.
hehe have a good one! I might join in but for the fact of an empty fridge. *sigh* back to it tomorrow morning. nite nite NSG!

I wanted to claim that a society in which the most unfortunate/disempowered are made also the most disadvantaged by being under-represented in the vote is a far more inferior one, socially, than one in which the vote is compulsory.

Ah yes. But the old adage "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" applies.

We can force the politically-apathetic to vote, but we can't make them vote in their own interests. If they care so little, the chances are they will vote on a whim ... their votes are easily bought, and easily swayed by "moral" issues like a candidates private life.

To this end, it might actually make sense to formalize the "informal" vote, by putting an extra tick-box on each ballot paper: a "none of the above" option. Yes, drag the apathetic to the ballot-box, but legitimize the choice not to vote.

Although yes, if there were similar levels of voter participation and equity in a non-compulsory system, I would say that a non-compulsory system would theoretically be superior. I doubt this would ever be achieved, though.

Well, many European countries have voluntary voting with turnouts over 80%. The pathetic (apathetic?) turnout in the US is not typical of democracies. I'll leave the interpretation of that to Americans themselves.

I also wanted to claim that if we are to begin talking about freedom, we need to look past measuring it in terms of coercion alone and take something more fundamental into account - autonomy.

Interesting.

Yes, a society in which the vote is non-compulsory has less coercion than one which does. However, is that society necessarily more 'free'? The most disadvantaged in society appear to have their autonomy circumvented if those who make laws (which shape how autonomy is to be exercised)

Er, "set limits to autonomy" perhaps? I'm troubled by the idea that autonomy is shaped by law, it seems contradictory.

... largely ignore their interests. Whilst this is very much a leveling-down argument, it does seem to come down to, as you suggested, whether personal freedom or collective benefit is weighted more heavily.

BUT! Does a government really represent the interest of people simply because they vote? A dumb vote, a vote that needs a "get off the couch or we'll fine ya" compulsion, is very likely informed by trivial factors like campaign ads or timely tax-cuts.

Honestly, there are plenty of people who don't realize that a tax-cut means reduced government spending, and therefore reduced services for them personally. They know someone who pays tax, perhaps, so they'll vote for tax cuts for their mate directly reducing their autonomy by taking away government services which are granted to them unconditionally, and replacing it with the conditional largess of their mate.

People who don't pay income tax are not "rejects", they aren't some shady fringe of society. It's most Australians. Yet we all get a warm fuzzy from the "working families" catchword. It's bunk. All four members of my family work: both my parents are well into retirement age but they both do lots of voluntary or token-pay work, I have a sister who pays a lot of tax, but it's to the British and US governments, and personally I work so little that I haven't hit the tax threshold since 2003.

We're a "working family." Between the four of us, we do more work than any breadwinner with a stay-at-home spouse and two kids. What do we get from income tax cuts? Shit-all diddly-squat, that's what. It's reduced services at our hospitals, reduced standards of justice in our courts, it's a less reliable safety-net if one of us fucks up.

What "working families" says to me is "if you aren't reproducing and paying tax, you can go get fucked. We don't represent you, your vote doesn't count." And that goes for every dependent spouse, every self-funded retiree, every disability pensioner, every school-age kid in Australia. You just don't count.

Oh, I started well but that's just a rave. It's bloody 5 am and I can't sleep. I hope Rudd never uses the term "working families" ever again, I really want to like the guy but he just smiles too much.

Personally, individual freedom is simply fundamental, however there appears to be no society on the planet that can enjoy a libertarian conception of freedom whilst ensuring minimal decency and fairness. If we can't ensure the latter two, then there's nothing (logically) contradictory in having a handful of individuals with unimaginable freedoms at the expense of the unwittingly enslaved, but uncoerced, masses.

I agree that the concept of freedom is compelling. But it is only a concept, and in practice, in our life decisions and our everyday decisions, we consider almost exclusively the limits on what we can do. We're like caged rats, running the walls over and over in the irrational hope that somehow the limits to our freedom have changed.

We get mighty pissed when the cage gets smaller, we hardly notice when it gets a bit bigger.


A model of ideal politics which starts from individual freedom and builds outwards to a society which protects each individual's freedom is flawed. Likewise, a model which starts from an ideal society and works inwards to define the ideal behaviour of individuals is flawed.

And particularly when a "society" is millions of people strong. There are emergent properties of a society which simply cannot be derived from how an individual behaves. And I haven't forgotten the flipside: there are social needs, the "interests" of society, which no individual can serve, or perhaps even know.

Let me give an example: crime. Crime serves a social purpose, even if I cannot show what that purpose is. I could guess, but that isn't the point. Laws and crime are a feature of every society, therefore they must serve some social purpose.

Crime exists because there are laws to be broken ... the laws are there to define what actions are "crimes." Both laws and crimes serve a social purpose, even though to the individual they seem quite alien. In fact, the individual is bound by something far more intuitive: their conscience, their sense of right and wrong. This sense is the "super-ego", a little model of what society expects, which each individual carries their own version of.

This sense is only weakened by law. Law and punishment quite simply pre-empt the individual's freedom to learn from experience. The concept of a "criminal record" is anathema to freedom: isn't redemption, the ability to improve oneself and learn from one's own mistakes, at the very heart of freedom? Yet, the permanent record of wrongdoing serves a good social purpose.

Another example: the "social contract." Two people in a relationship have a contract, they have tacit expectations of each other. The contract is easily changed. But it is a mistake to extend this model to a society of thousands or millions -- can anyone seriously say that they chose the society which formed them, or 'negotiated a contract' of benefits and obligations, when from the individual's point of view that is like playing rugby against a team of millions?

In a way, "society" is like God. We believe in it, but can't really define what it is. Sociologists of course have a clear definition of society, but then they go on to examine "society" from outside, in a way which quickly becomes abstracted and descriptive rather than involved and prescriptive. Unless they're Marxists, of course ... then they just talk bunk. ;)

Looks like Turnbull wants the Opposition leader job:

ABC news report (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/26/2100756.htm)


Outgoing environment minister Malcolm Turnbull has begun selling himself as the next leader of the Liberal party.

Mr Turnbull says he expects the party to meet early next week to discuss who will replace John Howard as leader, after Peter Costello yesterday ruled himself out of the position.
...
"We cannot afford to go into a funk and months of introspection, we have to get on with it. We need energy, commitment - that's what I'll deliver."
...
...
This morning former foreign minister Alexander Downer refused to rule himself out of the race, telling ABC Radio that he was still considering his future.
...
Several other former ministers are working behind the scenes to determine if they have the support to run.
...
Now-retired Liberal MP Bruce Baird says he would like to see former workplace relations minister Joe Hockey as leader.
...
Andrew Robb is the still the only person to have confirmed his nomination for the deputy leader's position.

The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/liberals-in-turmoil/2007/11/25/1195975870960.html) has:

MALCOLM Turnbull is pitching for the leadership of a shattered Liberal Party after the historic federal election win by Kevin Rudd, which has set off seismic shifts in the national political landscape.
...
The sudden abandonment of Mr Costello's long-held ambition to be prime minister left the Liberals reeling. It came barely 12 hours after Mr Howard re-anointed him, and after two senior ministers, Nick Minchin and Alexander Downer, called on the party to get behind him.

Three high-profile frontbenchers from NSW — Mr Turnbull, Brendan Nelson and Tony Abbott — are already set to fight for the poisoned chalice of leader of the Opposition. Mr Turnbull, the multimillionaire ex-merchant banker who has been an MP for just one term, is presenting himself as a "cleanskin" candidate, bringing minimal baggage from the past 11½ years of Coalition rule.

It is expected he will argue, along with others in the party, that it needs to embrace more liberal positions and modern issues such as climate change.

Mr Rudd was swept to power with a national swing of about 6%, winning 23 seats and losing only one — in Western Australia. He is set to govern with a majority of between 12 and 30 in the new Parliament.

Mr Rudd's home state of Queensland delivered handsomely, with at least nine and up to 12 extra Labor seats. Labor won six seats in NSW, two in Victoria, three in South Australia, two in Tasmania, and one in WA. About nine remain in doubt.

Cabinet minister Mal Brough lost his seat, as did junior minister Gary Nairn, with the seats of Jim Lloyd, Peter Dutton and Fran Bailey in doubt.
...
Mr Costello's decision to pull the plug on his leadership ambitions came as a bombshell to his colleagues. Mr Howard was among the first to be told — shortly after re-endorsing his deputy on Saturday night.

Addressing a news conference yesterday, Mr Costello said that after 17 years as an MP and 11½ years as treasurer, he wanted to pursue other opportunities."The time has come for me to open a new chapter in my life," he said. "I will be looking to build a career, post-politics, in the commercial world."

For now, he said he would sit on the back bench and mentor younger MPs. "I do believe that it is time for the young people of talent and ability — of whom there are many — to be given their go in the Liberal Party."

He did not say whether he would serve a full term — although he vowed before the election to do so.

Former premier Jeff Kennett accused Mr Costello of baling out when the party needed him. "I am angry, profoundly disappointed," Mr Kennett writes in a scathing attack in The Age today.

"This one announcement says more about the character of the man than his 11 years as treasurer of this country."

Mr Turnbull quickly declared he would be a candidate for leadership, promising to bring "new ideas, new policies, and new agendas" to the party room. "I will deliver, if elected to the leadership of the Liberal Party, the energy and the drive and the determination to win," he said.

A spokesman for Dr Nelson said he was consulting his colleagues. Mr Abbott made no comment but plans to run.

Betting agency Lasseters last night installed Mr Turnbull as a $1.33 favourite to become Opposition leader.

Well, there's a thought. Prime Minister Kennett! :D

So let's read Boofhead's contribution as well:

Second page of Jeff Kennetts editorial. (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/25/1195975866027.html?page=2)

Next liberal leader - I think it will be either Turnbull or Nelson. Downer sounds he isn't going to stand. I think Abbott might have a go too.

Next liberal leader - I think it will be either Turnbull or Nelson. Downer sounds he isn't going to stand. I think Abbott might have a go too.

I'm saying Downer precisely because he is so lukewarm about the job. The other contenders can probably agree on one thing: if they give the job to Turnbull they'll never get rid of him.

I'm saying Downer precisely because he is so lukewarm about the job. The other contenders can probably agree on one thing: if they give the job to Turnbull they'll never get rid of him.

Like Johnny Howard! The people got rid of Howard for the Libs where they couldn't.

With all this compulsory voting talk I find our system works because I heard (And forgive my figures they would be very off as I heard this years ago) that about 20% of the USA voted for Bush? That’s not a majority of the country voting for your leader when our new leader Kevin Rudd had at least over 50% of the voting population vote for him and his party.

Like Johnny Howard! The people got rid of Howard for the Libs where they couldn't.

Indeed! We saw history this weekend. Quite a lesson for future leaders: don't ride your horse into the ground.

I know he hasn't mentioned it in years, but Howard's admiration for Robert Menzies is well-known. Menzies stayed too long, the party became so dependent on him that when he finally lost the leadership they flailed around, picking impractical leaders (out of practice at it!) and finally went down hard to Whitlam, their worst nighmare. A PM far to the left who they should have been able to discredit easily enough to the rather timid Australian electorate.

(Don't get me wrong, I love the country and the people, but we aren't very politically savvy and we're easily spooked. And Gough was fantastic, could have used a better front bench.)

Even after Whitlam, they couldn't do better than Fraser, a brainless twerp who was largely propped up by ... John Howard.

WorkChoices was a big play. The Libs probably knew they'd lose on it, but time was up anyway. It will be back, just like the GST, and just like the dental rebate. Getting the Australian people to accept change is like getting kids to eat weird food ... "aw, come on, just try it, huh? For me? You can spit it back out ... oh OK" ... and next time you just dump it on their plate and they eat it.

Shit, that's so arrogant, I really should get active in my party. There's room at the top!

Indeed! We saw history this weekend. Quite a lesson for future leaders: don't ride your horse into the ground.

I know he hasn't mentioned it in years, but Howard's admiration for Robert Menzies is well-known. Menzies stayed too long, the party became so dependent on him that when he finally lost the leadership they flailed around, picking impractical leaders (out of practice at it!) and finally went down hard to Whitlam, their worst nighmare. A PM far to the left who they should have been able to discredit easily enough to the rather timid Australian electorate.

(Don't get me wrong, I love the country and the people, but we aren't very politically savvy and we're easily spooked. And Gough was fantastic, could have used a better front bench.)

Even after Whitlam, they couldn't do better than Fraser, a brainless twerp who was largely propped up by ... John Howard.

WorkChoices was a big play. The Libs probably knew they'd lose on it, but time was up anyway. It will be back, just like the GST, and just like the dental rebate. Getting the Australian people to accept change is like getting kids to eat weird food ... "aw, come on, just try it, huh? For me? You can spit it back out ... oh OK" ... and next time you just dump it on their plate and they eat it.

Shit, that's so arrogant, I really should get active in my party. There's room at the top!
Your a Liberal party member?

Why do they call themselves the Liberal party anyway? It seems a misnomer, both socially and economically.

Why do they call themselves the Liberal party anyway? It seems a misnomer, both socially and economically.They define themselves as Classical Liberals, so the name's actually relatively accurate. Except that CLs are supposed to DECREASE state power, which plainly hasn't happened.

Ah yes. But the old adage "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" applies.

We can force the politically-apathetic to vote, but we can't make them vote in their own interests. If they care so little, the chances are they will vote on a whim ... their votes are easily bought, and easily swayed by "moral" issues like a candidates private life.

To this end, it might actually make sense to formalize the "informal" vote, by putting an extra tick-box on each ballot paper: a "none of the above" option. Yes, drag the apathetic to the ballot-box, but legitimize the choice not to vote.
I do agree to a significant extent. It's one of my greatest disappointments in my lowest of times: why people don't give more of a shit? Wherever they stand. Just represent SOMETHING! From there, at least people are being engaged and we can (perhaps) tend toward some kind of convergence through a more deliberative means of democracy. Certainly a healthy society and democracy cannot be one in which a majority of voters are apathetic or unappealed to. But, there is no way to ensure that 100% of voters make a conscious choice and concurrently retain liberty.

Another famous phrase comes to mind: "The lord helps those who help themselves". Religious overtones aside, if the most disadvantaged in society are made so through their own making, there is some point at which our compassion for them must cease. By separating the unfairly disadvantaged from the willfully disadvantaged, we will at least be able to ensure that a maximum number of voters make conscious choices whilst retaining individual liberty - if such a prospect is practically feasible. Such a prospect does make me more uncomfortable when applied in areas such as medicine, however.

Er, "set limits to autonomy" perhaps? I'm troubled by the idea that autonomy is shaped by law, it seems contradictory.
Yes, I believe I was searching for your words there :)

BUT! Does a government really represent the interest of people simply because they vote? A dumb vote, a vote that needs a "get off the couch or we'll fine ya" compulsion, is very likely informed by trivial factors like campaign ads or timely tax-cuts.
It's interesting, I am always very skeptical indeed of governments who claim to have 'mandates' for this and that, largely for this very reason. That said, I believe it's very true that opposition does not 'win' government, rather governments get kicked out. A government can do anything it wants to, within the law, and does not need to act in the interests of people at all yet still get voted back in, however this is an extremely implausible prospect. It seems that the Howard government indeed failed to accurately represent the interests of a majority of people, so people voted against it. But whether a vote is informed by the biggest propaganda budget or by conscientious investigation by the individual, the only difference is the interests of the individual. If a government represents dumb votes, then a dumb government is most likely going to be the product since they represent mostly dumb interests. Although, this is not a matter of logic.

People who don't pay income tax are not "rejects", they aren't some shady fringe of society. It's most Australians. Yet we all get a warm fuzzy from the "working families" catchword. It's bunk. All four members of my family work: both my parents are well into retirement age but they both do lots of voluntary or token-pay work, I have a sister who pays a lot of tax, but it's to the British and US governments, and personally I work so little that I haven't hit the tax threshold since 2003.

We're a "working family." Between the four of us, we do more work than any breadwinner with a stay-at-home spouse and two kids. What do we get from income tax cuts? Shit-all diddly-squat, that's what. It's reduced services at our hospitals, reduced standards of justice in our courts, it's a less reliable safety-net if one of us fucks up.

What "working families" says to me is "if you aren't reproducing and paying tax, you can go get fucked. We don't represent you, your vote doesn't count." And that goes for every dependent spouse, every self-funded retiree, every disability pensioner, every school-age kid in Australia. You just don't count.
I hadn't really thought of it this way... I need to think about it a bit more. It most certainly makes sense at least from the point of view of the 'mortgage belt'... I always laughed when Howard would talk-up our "debt-free" government and their good economic credentials, but actually all they've done is made individuals bear the burden of debt and the need to pay it off. Apparently massive amounts of debt is a good thing. I too am from a working background and my parents have found it very difficult indeed finding decent work, so I don't see 1) how the economy is supposed to be so great at the moment, 2) how it is supposed to benefit me, and 3) what the correlation is between a gangbuster economy and a good life. But i digress :p

A model of ideal politics which starts from individual freedom and builds outwards to a society which protects each individual's freedom is flawed. Likewise, a model which starts from an ideal society and works inwards to define the ideal behaviour of individuals is flawed.
How might we better approach the problem?

Another example: the "social contract." Two people in a relationship have a contract, they have tacit expectations of each other. The contract is easily changed. But it is a mistake to extend this model to a society of thousands or millions -- can anyone seriously say that they chose the society which formed them, or 'negotiated a contract' of benefits and obligations, when from the individual's point of view that is like playing rugby against a team of millions?
It may well be possible, certainly it isn't logically precluded. I know that a shape with some million sides must exist yet it is beyond my ability to fully comprehend the intricacies of such a concept. But I do not need to - I know what a side is and what function it serves in the overall framework and that a great many of them are responsible for the integrity of the shape, even if all of them are not identical.

In a way, "society" is like God. We believe in it, but can't really define what it is. Sociologists of course have a clear definition of society, but then they go on to examine "society" from outside, in a way which quickly becomes abstracted and descriptive rather than involved and prescriptive. Unless they're Marxists, of course ... then they just talk bunk. ;)
Hehe a nice philosophical note to end on :D Certainly much of the same is frustrating for philosophy, and I'm sure many social sciences/humanities.

I must add that this is one of the most stimulating discussions I've had for a while, either on- or offline. I think I'll certainly be looking forward to some of my subjects next year about these topics!

Your a Liberal party member?

To judge by that Timewarp, you are an Illuminati member.

So get on the phone and find out ... :D

Honestly, no. I would have been a Communist Party member if, one drunken night, we could have found a pen.

A week ago I considered joining the Greens. Being older and wiser now, I wred their policies before rallying to the cause. No deal.

I'm afraid Party membership is not for me.

I tried journalism too. Ain't no freedom of speech there.

Are you a Labor party member?

*snip*

I must add that this is one of the most stimulating discussions I've had for a while, either on- or offline. I think I'll certainly be looking forward to some of my subjects next year about these topics!

Um, good? One virtue of traditional education (as opposed to google education) is the student trying to reconcile subjects (or fields) into a unified body of knowledge. Each student does that differently. Sure you have a favourite, but you must pass the others as well.

Again, I must defer my reply to your entire post -- in respect of its length which I am not sober enough to do credit -- and henceforth headbutt a pillow.

That didn't work out last night. There was a full moon or something, the little creatures kept waking me up and eventually I came back and typed up some mad shit. Then crashed around dawn. That can't be healthy, and I'm getting out tomorrow, maybe going swimming. I'm just about broke, too.

But I will reply. :)

Are you a Labor party member?
Yes I was until about 6 months ago, I had been a Young Labor member for about 3 years when I first started in uni, I was never really active though with work and exams to do, I turned up to all the discussions but left-wingers aren't exactly very welcome in my branch, although I hear the Socialist Left (you might want to wiki that) are quite influential in NSW and Queensland. When Rudd basically called himself an 'economic conservative' I basically left, I felt it was against the party platform, I'd just stopped paying my dues and later resigned. I am not in any party now because none really suits me, the Socialist Alliance I despise because of their new feminist, environmentalist, 'world peace' crap.

They define themselves as Classical Liberals, so the name's actually relatively accurate. Except that CLs are supposed to DECREASE state power, which plainly hasn't happened.
The Liberal Party has been dominated by the paternalistic social conservatives since it's creation really, the Howard era was just basically a recreation of the 'good old' days of Menzies, and like the Menzies days the party became too reliant on a central leading personality, and after Menzies was gone the party fell to bits and too years to recover, exactly what it happening now.

Why do they call themselves the Liberal party anyway? It seems a misnomer, both socially and economically.

It drives me insane. 90% of the population doesn't know what "liberal" actually means.

It drives me insane. 90% of the population doesn't know what "liberal" actually means.

It's kinda like in the Russian Revolution, with the Bolsheviks... they called themselves the majority despite being the clear minority because it makes the people more amenable, its more fashionable and means the party is more likely to be taken seriously. Similarly, it's uncool to be called a conservative, so they call themselves the Liberals, even though its blatantly untrue.

Not that I feel the Liberals deserve to be in any way connected to the Bolshevik's, but...

I do agree to a significant extent. It's one of my greatest disappointments in my lowest of times: why people don't give more of a shit? Wherever they stand. Just represent SOMETHING! From there, at least people are being engaged and we can (perhaps) tend toward some kind of convergence through a more deliberative means of democracy.

Yes. I'm actually tending towards the view that democracy isn't a good method for making decisions, it's more about getting the consent of the governed, for a big old government which would be there even without their consent.

Certainly a healthy society and democracy cannot be one in which a majority of voters are apathetic or unappealed to. But, there is no way to ensure that 100% of voters make a conscious choice and concurrently retain liberty.

100% is a pretty unrealistic expectation, somewhere in the eighties would be quite acceptable.

It's funny, because when I go up to the polling booth, I'm not feeling terribly oppressed or longing for the liberty of the golf-course instead. In fact, it gives me a warm feeling of 'doing my duty' and I see the odd collection of fellow-citizens voting and we share an ironic grimace or a little joke about the huge Senate ballot. This is our role in democracy? It's SO not a big deal.

I rather think I might feel worse in a voluntary voting system. Expecting "my" side to win, I might look down on my fellow-citizens who don't vote, feel that I'm a better citizen than them and more deserving to be represented by government. Expecting "my" side to lose, I might look at them resentfully, as if they have failed us all by not voting.

The $20, or $50, or whatever, isn't the real compulsion for me. Perhaps that sum of cash is the "gunpoint" if you want to really challenge your right not to vote, but I think for most of us it's a sense of duty, an expectation. It's a curious thing: do we avoid murdering others because we really believe it is wrong, because it is a social expectation, or because both the feeling and the apprehension are compelled from us "at gunpoint," by the existence of a law which will punish us for murdering another?

In any case, being compelled to vote is a small thing for the individual. The only important consideration is whether it makes a better government, whether compulsory voting leads to a better or worse outcome for society, by the governments elected and by the attitude of the voter to their government.

I must come down in favour of compulsory voting, because there is one more thing: by compelling the vote, the government has more obligation to provide fair and convenient voting facilities, than if the government merely "recognizes a right to vote."

Another famous phrase comes to mind: "The lord helps those who help themselves". [AKA, the rich get richer] Religious overtones aside, if the most disadvantaged in society are made so through their own making, there is some point at which our compassion for them must cease. By separating the unfairly disadvantaged from the willfully disadvantaged, we will at least be able to ensure that a maximum number of voters make conscious choices whilst retaining individual liberty - if such a prospect is practically feasible. Such a prospect does make me more uncomfortable when applied in areas such as medicine, however.

This paragraph seems to come from somewhere else. I do not define social rights (rights not of the human, but of the citizen) on the basis of compassion. Quite simply, emotional and personal decisions like "citizen A deserves it, citizen B doesn't" do not belong in politics, they are the realm of personal morality or of religious judgement. The point is to make laws that apply to the abstract citizen, and if those laws allow one citizen to gain an advantage over another (eg by lying) ... make a better law.

Yes, I believe I was searching for your words there :)

Vague terms are attractive to the speaker, but unsatisfying to the listener.

Within this very post I use vague terms. If you were hostile, you would do well to seek them out, for they often cover inconsistencies ... like a coat of paint can cover the crack in a wall which will eventually collapse.

It's interesting, I am always very skeptical indeed of governments who claim to have 'mandates' for this and that, largely for this very reason. That said, I believe it's very true that opposition does not 'win' government, rather governments get kicked out.
It's one of the attractions of democracy, really. We get to play at being revolutionaries!
A government can do anything it wants to, within the law, and does not need to act in the interests of people at all yet still get voted back in, however this is an extremely implausible prospect. It seems that the Howard government indeed failed to accurately represent the interests of a majority of people, so people voted against it.
Or else we were just tired of the same faces. We were restive, we wanted to change something and see what would follow from that. There weren't serious risks, so we did it for the heck of it?
Hey, maybe the more aware we are of government intervening in our lives, the more we react against it and change it however we can ...?

I'm only speculating there. It's subject to far more serious analysis, including statistical analysis. There's a bunch of factors, for instance that government attracts attention (therefore blame for problems) in a way rather unrelated to the statements of politicians or the actual policies implemented.

But whether a vote is informed by the biggest propaganda budget or by conscientious investigation by the individual, the only difference is the interests of the individual. If a government represents dumb votes, then a dumb government is most likely going to be the product since they represent mostly dumb interests. Although, this is not a matter of logic.

Indeed not. The dumbest votes will go to the cleverest campaign, the one which appears different things to different voters. "Economic responsibility" to the smart vote, "fist-full of dollars" to the dumb vote.

I hadn't really thought of it this way... I need to think about it a bit more. It most certainly makes sense at least from the point of view of the 'mortgage belt'... I always laughed when Howard would talk-up our "debt-free" government and their good economic credentials, but actually all they've done is made individuals bear the burden of debt and the need to pay it off. Apparently massive amounts of debt is a good thing. I too am from a working background and my parents have found it very difficult indeed finding decent work, so I don't see 1) how the economy is supposed to be so great at the moment, 2) how it is supposed to benefit me, and 3) what the correlation is between a gangbuster economy and a good life. But i digress :p

You needn't be too disturbed by the example I gave: "working families" has a pretty plain meaning to most people, it means a family with one or two working parents, school age kids, and a big mortgage. (The youngest in my "family" is 41 y.o, as I said we all work in some way, and none of us has a mortgage, plus we're just weird ... the term offends me for it's presumptions even though I know what it is meant to mean.)

But my personal offense at not being included in the "meaningful electorate" of Working Families aside ... I do respect Working Families in Rudd and Howard's senses. People who have faith in themselves to take out a big mortgage which they can only afford by advancing in their jobs and earning more pay in the future, people who have children and make sacrifices for them by working into their sixties to pay off the debt, and above all single parents who work, I do indeed respect.

But I won't vote on their behalf. I'll vote for me, for my interests, and for the interests of my family and for those who pay me for my occasional lick of work. I'll vote for a welfare safety-net for those who fuck up (as I have fucked up in the past), I'll vote for the dreams of pisswank artists on scholarships ... and then I'll think of their "Working Families."

I didn't vote for Rudd because he represented "Working Families." If I thought that he really did represent only those people, I'd vote elsewhere.

Here's where the cleverness of politicians comes in. I ignored that, because there were other things on the table. To the politically naive, the ones who don't dare have an opinion on serious matters and just want to delegate responsibility for everything political to a nice guy in a suit, Rudd was this painfully polite guy who was embarassed in a strip club and is in favour of work and families. Better than that polite guy who gets defensive about WMD's (whatever they are.)


How might we better approach the problem?

With a holistic approach which does not claim certain answers, I think. Look at it from one end, look at it from the other. If you get the same result, provisionally accept that until it fails for some specific case.

(I wrote up an example but it didn't work. I simply can't get a coherent view from the "point of view" of society.)

Chalk it up as "interesting" ... I don't really know.

It may well be possible, certainly it isn't logically precluded. I know that a shape with some million sides must exist yet it is beyond my ability to fully comprehend the intricacies of such a concept. But I do not need to - I know what a side is and what function it serves in the overall framework and that a great many of them are responsible for the integrity of the shape, even if all of them are not identical.

People are not shapes with a predefined number of sides.

I spoke of "emergent properties." It's a thing I picked up from my scanty knowledge of Chaos Theory. I also got the Mandlebrot Set, a very simple definition which leads to an infinitely complex set, an infinite set whose individual members are each defined precisely by the simple definition, yet form a very pretty pattern.

This spoke to my soul in a way that only mathematics can. Music comes close. It serves nothing and no-one to try to put it into words. I simply have faith that there is a thing we call society, and that while we individuals can perhaps trace our effect on society, and recognize society's effect on us ... we can only reliably build a model of the world from ourselves, you from your individuality and I from mine.

Yes, we compare those models, those viewpoints. Yes, we learn about ourselves and each other by doing that.

And yes, we might share a common view of "society." We can debate what is good or bad for "society." But we cannot know it the way we know ourselves.

Some would be tempted to say that "society" does not exist, or is a mental kludge to reduce the vast number of individuals you or I must consider in our lives, to a "them." An"other."

Yet I have faith. It's not from me, it's not from a god, and it's not just the inability of my brain to calculate the influences of the many individuals who interact with me -- there is something there, a species for which I cannot think, any more than the cells of my body can comprehend me. I serve it willingly, as we all serve it, even as we individually hate it or rebel against it with "individuality," or deny it with suicide.

"Freedom" is like a hormone, running through the body of our species. If you dare look, it runs through all life. Paradoxically, it rewards us for doing things not in our individual interests (it does not make us happy), but in some interest which may not be that of society. I cannot tell, perhaps I and you cannot know, being ourselves on a different level of existence.

The belief in "Gods" is trivially explained by this. God is a sloppy approximation of this "society" I speak of.

An appropriate response to this rave would be "Yo dude, great rave! Ya want another bong?"

I don't know what got into me, but it took me a good night's sleep, a bunch of distractions, and most of today to think it through. I have a lot to go on with there, and surely a lot of the above is quite wrong. :cool:

Hehe a nice philosophical note to end on :D Certainly much of the same is frustrating for philosophy, and I'm sure many social sciences/humanities.
Even Economics is troubled by that paradox. Those damn little atoms won't stay still for long enough to define them! Uppity little atoms, they're reading my book! Sometimes it seems they're reading before I've even written! 8->

I must add that this is one of the most stimulating discussions I've had for a while, either on- or offline. I think I'll certainly be looking forward to some of my subjects next year about these topics!

For me, too stimulating. Please don't say such nice things to me, a simple smilie will suffice. :)

Do we know anything about Turnbull's stances on immigration, gay rights and so on?

In my head, because of an interview he gave a long time ago before he was famous and in which he advocated a low flat tax, he's a sort of champion that would give the Liberal Party a reason for its name. Go through his website, and these little things (http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=542) keep popping up.

But thinking about it, I don't know anything about him. Maybe I need to send him an email and ask.

Do we know anything about Turnbull's stances on immigration, gay rights and so on?

To the left of Kevin Rudd :p
No, I don't really.

Go through his website, and these little things (http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=542) keep popping up.
Yeah, that's nice.

EDIT: I mean "nice." It's a finnesse. Let me quote it in full:

Boredom works for bureaucracies as smell works for a skunk

Friday, 1 September 2006

Earlier this week as I was preparing a speech for the Sydney Institute (it is on the website in the speeches section) I read Daniel Connell's new book (to be published next year) entitled "Water and Politics in the Murray Darling Basin". It is a great piece of work and represents Dan's PhD thesis at the ANU.

I was taken by a quote he used at the top of the prologue from Richard White's "The Organic Machine". It is a brilliant insight:

"Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring: the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for a skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention."


Young Dan wrote something clever, Bullturd liked it and was decent enough to credit every part of it, Neu linked to it, and I quoted it to show my respect for everyone involved. What a web we weave!