|
|
Post by froome on Aug 4, 2013 20:43:32 GMT
I have to say that I am glad I don't live in Australia as I would find it impossible to vote for Kevin Rudd and his appalling wolf-whistle politics on asylum-seekers. His 'contracting-out' to Papua New Guinea makes me feel physically sick. Fortunately there is a reasonably successful Green Party to vote for.  Rudd always did seem to be a nasty piece of work, and seems to be getting worse in his bitter battle with (and now victory over) Gillard. She seemed to be a quite decent person while she was PM. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 4, 2013 20:50:51 GMT
By all accounts the problem with asylum seekers is overwhelmingly one of economic migration although largely because its so difficult to legally emigrate to Australia.
It does have elements of very conservative social thinking, despite the informality and relative egalitarianism
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2013 7:55:34 GMT
The irony of a country almost exclusively built on immigration being this far right on immigration is not lost on anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 5, 2013 10:22:11 GMT
I have to say that I am glad I don't live in Australia as I would find it impossible to vote for Kevin Rudd and his appalling wolf-whistle politics on asylum-seekers. His 'contracting-out' to Papua New Guinea makes me feel physically sick. Fortunately there is a reasonably successful Green Party to vote for. Who would you transfer to? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2013 10:39:03 GMT
Fortunately there is a reasonably successful Green Party to vote for. Who would you transfer to? I mighntn't bother. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,028
|
Post by Sibboleth on Aug 5, 2013 12:40:47 GMT
Anyone who thinks that 'we' would react any better if we were where Australia is is fooling themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2013 12:46:35 GMT
I don't think "we" would, that is the sadness.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 5, 2013 13:25:13 GMT
Who would you transfer to? I mighntn't bother. Then, even if your preferred party is in the final two, your vote wouldn't count. |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Aug 5, 2013 15:05:13 GMT
Who would you transfer to? I mighntn't bother. In which case your ballot would go informal. Great system isn't it.  It would be "better" without compulsory voting and compulsory preferences. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 14:44:55 GMT
Then, even if your preferred party is in the final two, your vote wouldn't count. I know, which shows my disillusionment with Australian politics. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 14:48:25 GMT
I have to say that I am glad I don't live in Australia as I would find it impossible to vote for Kevin Rudd and his appalling wolf-whistle politics on asylum-seekers. His 'contracting-out' to Papua New Guinea makes me feel physically sick. Although you and I have similarly welcoming views on migration (for differing reasons) I don't agree with you here. While I would like a very welcoming approach to economic migration, I am much more sceptical about asylum. When faced with asylum claims I would want to make people safe but so uncomfortable that they did not choose it other than out of fear for their safety. An internment camp in a third nation seems to me to be a good way of doing that.. That said, I don't like Rudd. I did like Gillard. Internment Camp are words which leave me feeling uncomfortable, not least given experience of the Italian and German (largely Jewish) residents in the UK during WWII. We used third countries then, such as Canada. I agree with you about the Rudd/Gillard comparison. |
|
tricky
Lib Dem
Building a stronger economy and a fairer society so everyone can get on in life
Posts: 1,420
|
Post by tricky on Aug 6, 2013 16:01:55 GMT
Although you and I have similarly welcoming views on migration (for differing reasons) I don't agree with you here. While I would like a very welcoming approach to economic migration, I am much more sceptical about asylum. When faced with asylum claims I would want to make people safe but so uncomfortable that they did not choose it other than out of fear for their safety. An internment camp in a third nation seems to me to be a good way of doing that.. That said, I don't like Rudd. I did like Gillard. Internment Camp are words which leave me feeling uncomfortable, not least given experience of the Italian and German (largely Jewish) residents in the UK during WWII. We used third countries then, such as Canada. I agree with you about the Rudd/Gillard comparison. I have a suspicion that Boogie's like/dislike is not governed by policy on this occasion. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 6, 2013 16:10:34 GMT
Although you and I have similarly welcoming views on migration (for differing reasons) I don't agree with you here. While I would like a very welcoming approach to economic migration, I am much more sceptical about asylum. When faced with asylum claims I would want to make people safe but so uncomfortable that they did not choose it other than out of fear for their safety. An internment camp in a third nation seems to me to be a good way of doing that.. That said, I don't like Rudd. I did like Gillard. Internment Camp are words which leave me feeling uncomfortable, not least given experience of the Italian and German (largely Jewish) residents in the UK during WWII. We used third countries then, such as Canada. I agree with you about the Rudd/Gillard comparison. In reality, though, given that Australia has no legal economic migration to speak of, the contrast between the two is impossible to work out. If you can't migrate at all legally, then you will try the asylum route. I actually prefer Rudd to Gillard. He is intelligent and I could never really get to grips with Gillard's inconsistent views on many social issues such as same sex marriage |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 17:24:30 GMT
Internment Camp are words which leave me feeling uncomfortable, not least given experience of the Italian and German (largely Jewish) residents in the UK during WWII. We used third countries then, such as Canada. I agree with you about the Rudd/Gillard comparison. In reality, though, given that Australia has no legal economic migration to speak of, the contrast between the two is impossible to work out. If you can't migrate at all legally, then you will try the asylum route. I actually prefer Rudd to Gillard. He is intelligent and I could never really get to grips with Gillard's inconsistent views on many social issues such as same sex marriage There is no such thing as an official line when it comes to social issues - you can be opposed to capital punishment and abortion and see that as consistent, whereas others would say that one was a liberal stance and the other a conservative stance. Most of my views place me firmly on the left of most people I know yet they would suggest I am a social conservative. I don't buy that, I just don't happen to be a liberal one. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 7, 2013 13:59:50 GMT
For me, though, the 'left-wing catholic' social viewpoint is in opposition to my own outlook. So I tend not to vote for people who hold that outlook, if there are other choices available. Gillard I found inconsistent in that she claimed feminism, justified cohabitation and the right for women not to marry if they wished, and atheism too, yet opposed same sex marriage without any sort of , say religious justification. I could understand the religious objection though I don't agree with it. but she never really came up with any good reason for her opposition which seemed inconsistent with the rest of her outlook.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 14:26:29 GMT
The question though is whether she took a consistent libertarian line and, if you look at her policies as a whole, she didn't.
As for voting - I have voted for people who would not hold the positions I hold on all matters because I saw them as being in favour of policies which are generally redistributive and likely to support the weakest in society. That is the point of the coalition that the Labour Party is and, without the Catholic vote, Labour would have been unable to be in a position to be in power to pass laws of which you would approve.
Anyway, this is the wrong thread for this, but an interesting discussion nonetheless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 14:55:53 GMT
For me, though, the 'left-wing catholic' social viewpoint is in opposition to my own outlook. So I tend not to vote for people who hold that outlook, if there are other choices available. Gillard I found inconsistent in that she claimed feminism, justified cohabitation and the right for women not to marry if they wished, and atheism too, yet opposed same sex marriage without any sort of , say religious justification. I could understand the religious objection though I don't agree with it. but she never really came up with any good reason for her opposition which seemed inconsistent with the rest of her outlook. Would you vote for my brand of tory over catholicleft then (or over the lovely Ms. Berger)? I can imagine you doing so. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,028
|
Post by Sibboleth on Aug 7, 2013 15:14:15 GMT
An oddly apposite digression in a thread about Australia, given that Coalition governments were kept afloat for nearly two decades as a result of H.V. Evatt throwing a moody and chucking out the Groupers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 7, 2013 15:37:57 GMT
For me, though, the 'left-wing catholic' social viewpoint is in opposition to my own outlook. So I tend not to vote for people who hold that outlook, if there are other choices available. Gillard I found inconsistent in that she claimed feminism, justified cohabitation and the right for women not to marry if they wished, and atheism too, yet opposed same sex marriage without any sort of , say religious justification. I could understand the religious objection though I don't agree with it. but she never really came up with any good reason for her opposition which seemed inconsistent with the rest of her outlook. Would you vote for my brand of tory over catholicleft then (or over the lovely Ms. Berger)? I can imagine you doing so. To be honest, no, because I have such a firm opposition to the Tory view on what you might call mainstream socio-economic issues - where I'm well to the left I would vote for a left alternative, though, if the candidate had that bad a record. I'm very glad that I don't live in Liverpool Wavertree |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 16:36:16 GMT
I would think Ms Berger would be closer to Mike on some social issues, but I don't take too kindly to being bracketed with her. I would feel I am comfortably to her left.
|
|
It would be "better" without compulsory voting and compulsory preferences.