Remove this Banner Ad

John Howard - hero

  • Thread starter Thread starter GuruJane
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Bombers 2003 said:
Compulsory Voting is useless,People have the right NOT to vote if they chose.Just look at the liberal garbage and filth in the australian parliament.Liars Half-wits etc.
There's good arguments for and against compulsory voting.

If they made it optional I reckon it would be long time before your ALP got in again.I think you'd be dead before you saw a red government. again. ;)
 
evo said:
There's good arguments for and against compulsory voting.

If they made it optional I reckon it would be long time before your ALP got in again.I think you'd be dead before you saw a red government. again. ;)

Actually while I agree I think also the Liberals would swing right back to the centre because most of the voters who drag to the right would not turn up.
 
demon_dave said:
the rodent is a dag and a lying SOB, racist ******** etc etc, I don't think its trendy to be a dag, especially in your case, you are a dag and the most uncool person along with tim,pseud,nonuts etc etc

As much as u think u can, u cant actually prove that he is rascist. No way it would hold up in the court of law.
I spose ur all righteous and everything.
Rock on demon dave ..lol cool name too man. B4 u sledge mine, learn the language
 
sinepari said:
As much as u think u can, u cant actually prove that he is rascist. No way it would hold up in the court of law.
I spose ur all righteous and everything.
Rock on demon dave ..lol cool name too man. B4 u sledge mine, learn the language

This is an interesting article: http://nationalforum.com.au/the_domain/archives/ambit_gambit/000081.html

I don't think John Howard is a racist in any meaningful way, but I do think he has a problem valuing non-western cultures. Due to a combination of an almost complete acceptance of conservative, white Australian culture and a certain narrowness of mind, Howard just seems incapable of understanding that some people might reasonably live differently. Due to this narrowness of experience and vision, he just doesn't get why indigenous people are so unhappy about being dispossessed of their land or taken from their relatives. Or that Afghani refugees might really love their children. Or that land reform in Zimbabwe is seen by many blacks as central to its future.
Up till now Howard has got away with this xenophobia because it resonates with the old demon of Australian history, racism, defined simply in colour terms. Many white Australians came to fear and then feel guilty about their abuse of Aboriginals, and racism as a defence against black and yellow labour was built into the new national industrial fabric. So the ongoing ignorance of the plight of Aboriginal Australians and the hostility to (often brown skinned) refugees has a strong historical basis.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

spindoctor said:
That article was a load of crap.

I must disagree. I think a problem is that racism is nowadays seen as an ultimate sin. But we all act in some racist ways, and I think it helps to understand why.

I certainly would not call Howard racist. But he certainly knows how to manipulate latent racist feelling in the community.
 
funkyfreo said:
Actually while I agree I think also the Liberals would swing right back to the centre because most of the voters who drag to the right would not turn up.
Hmmm... The US doesn't have compulsary voting yet the Republican Party is far from centrist.

Indeed the conventional wisdom is that high turnout favours the Democrats. So the right are the more motivated in that respect. [edit: This refutes Bombers 2003 assertion that turnout favours the right]

I tend to think that Australia's compulsary voting might favour the incumbent party. I have no way of backing this up, but I suspect there's a fair bit of a "better the devil you know" attitude from unengaged voters when there's no pressing desire for change. Governments generally win elections and referendums usually fail.
 
Further... I've seen the exact opposite to what funkyfreo contends suggested.

That is, compulsary voting makes the major parties more centrist. In the US, both major parties drift away from the centre because they need to appeal to their base to make sure of their votes.

In Australia, the ALP and the Coalition only compete for the voters in the middle and can take their base for granted. (And preference voting makes that even more true.)
 
Yes,I would tend to agree with that contention DaveW.

The battle for the centre has been raging since Whitlam and Fraser left the building IMO.

I always laugh when I hear about Tony Blairs "third way".I mean WTF? It's just a snazzy name for populist(centrist) politics.
 
DaveW said:
I tend to think that Australia's compulsary voting might favour the incumbent party. I have no way of backing this up, but I suspect there's a fair bit of a "better the devil you know" attitude from unengaged voters when there's no pressing desire for change. Governments generally win elections and referendums usually fail.

I'd agree with that. Compare how often Australian government has changed hands (5 times since WW2) with how many times the Presidency has changed hands in America (8 times). Their elections are less common, as well. I can't be bothered looking it up - but how often do the mid-presidency Congress elections give control to the party opposing the President?
 
evo said:
There's good arguments for and against compulsory voting.

If they made it optional I reckon it would be long time before your ALP got in again.I think you'd be dead before you saw a red government. again. ;)
"Red Government"?'You mean we have to put up with White Governments for the rest of my life,in that case that wouldnt be long.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom