Non-AFL chat thread part 2

[D Mitchell]

3 Ministers. No confidence. An election on the way.

 

[footscray1973]

NFI

 

[Fossie 32]

NFI

My 54th post in this thread
ossie_21 and mambavino will celebrate their 16th with their next posts and dogwatch his 54th!!

 

[footscray1973]

My 54th post in this thread
ossie_21 and mambavino will celebrate their 16th with their next posts and dogwatch his 54th!!
View attachment 893605

Very interesting Fossie 32 - you learn something new everyday! That NFI wasn't directed at you btw! It was for the poster I have on ignore, but someone else PMed me to say he stated only the ALP does ethnic branch stacking. That was the reason for my NFI, hope you didn't take offence?

 

[Fossie 32]

Very interesting Fossie 32 - you learn something new everyday! That NFI wasn't directed at you btw! It was for the poster I have on ignore, but someone else PMed me to say he stated only the ALP does ethnic branch stacking. That was the reason for my NFI, hope you didn't take offence?

Hah no I realised that thanks

 

[BEaston]

Ethnic branch stacking is. You have to love that engagement ring-christmas turkey skit, though.

It's done more on religious grounds by the other mob. https://www.smh.com.au/national/con...rol-of-nsw-liberal-party-20190807-p52evl.html

Of course branch stacking is wrong. That's why it's good they are clearing these grubs out. You'd have to be extremely naive to believe ALP are the only ones that do it though.

 

[D Mitchell]

It's done more on religious grounds by the other mob. https://www.smh.com.au/national/con...rol-of-nsw-liberal-party-20190807-p52evl.html

Of course branch stacking is wrong. That's why it's good they are clearing these grubs out. You'd have to be extremely naive to believe ALP are the only ones that do it though.

Branch stacking isn't confined to Political Parties. Ambitious members of the ALP, at least in Victoria, have engaged in ethnic branch stacking forever, I ran into it in the early 80s in inner northern Melbourne. A few years back, it was in the papers over Council elections in the Deer Park area. I've never heard of the Libs branch stacking on ethnic/racial grounds and couldn't find any reference to in in the press. I saw your article. I wouldn't be at all surprised if ambitious individuals stacked. It's one thing to ring around and get your mates to join an organisation to help you get something through the AGM but when it's done along ethnic or racial lines, that's particularly pernicious. Andrews now calling for reform and touting his virtue on TV is a joke. Albanese likewise. They knew it was going on and would have let it go on but for 60 Minutes. If I know, don't tell me that the heavies in the Party don't.

 

[BEaston]

Branch stacking isn't confined to Political Parties. Ambitious members of the ALP, at least in Victoria, have engaged in ethnic branch stacking forever, I ran into it in the early 80s in inner northern Melbourne. A few years back, it was in the papers over Council elections in the Deer Park area. I've never heard of the Libs branch stacking on ethnic/racial grounds and couldn't find any reference to in in the press. I saw your article. I wouldn't be at all surprised if ambitious individuals stacked. It's one thing to ring around and get your mates to join an organisation to help you get something through the AGM but when it's done along ethnic or racial lines, that's particularly pernicious. Andrews now calling for reform and touting his virtue on TV is a joke. Albanese likewise. They knew it was going on and would have let it go on but for 60 Minutes. If I know, don't tell me that the heavies in the Party don't.

Yeah, as I said, looks like it's more on religious grounds with LNP. I don't really see how one is worse than the other. The groups of people targeted is irrelevant IMO. The core issue is the stacking itself, not who is targeted which you seem fixated on (maybe for point scoring purposes?).

It's good Vic ALP are cleaning those out that are undertaking this practice.

Again, you're naive if you think it isn't happening in every party (including smaller ones). If the heavies know in one party, they know in all parties. Clean out occurring in one currently, we'll see if any other action comes of this but as with politicians usually action only happens when they're busted.

 

[LittleG]

Yeah, as I said, looks like it's more on religious grounds with LNP. I don't really see how one is worse than the other. The groups of people targeted is irrelevant IMO. The core issue is the stacking itself, not who is targeted which you seem fixated on (maybe for point scoring purposes?).

It's good Vic ALP are cleaning those out that are undertaking this practice.

Again, you're naive if you think it isn't happening in every party (including smaller ones). If the heavies know in one party, they know in all parties. Clean out occurring in one currently, we'll see if any other action comes of this but as with politicians usually action only happens when they're busted.

As someone who attended a meeting to elect a Liberal Candidate for an inner city seat in Melbourne, I can tell you that branch stacking occurs.... whether you would say on religious or ethnic grounds, it occurs. I saw it at two other more minor parties too.

It’s a huge issue with ALL parties.


It would be great to have a federal anti-corruption commission with teeth. Give it the power to create recommendations in legal format that the parliament can then vote on.

 

[D Mitchell]

Yeah, as I said, looks like it's more on religious grounds with LNP. I don't really see how one is worse than the other. The groups of people targeted is irrelevant IMO. The core issue is the stacking itself, not who is targeted which you seem fixated on (maybe for point scoring purposes?).

It's good Vic ALP are cleaning those out that are undertaking this practice.

Again, you're naive if you think it isn't happening in every party (including smaller ones). If the heavies know in one party, they know in all parties. Clean out occurring in one currently, we'll see if any other action comes of this but as with politicians usually action only happens when they're busted.

The article you cited refers to a reform group, it looks like from outside the Liberal Party because it says they preferred the Liberal Party to the ALP, with an agenda in August last year intending to persuade likemindeds to join. It doesn't say whether they did or did not succeed. In the Article, Nick Greiner is reported as saying that there was a rise in membership in 2019 off a low base probably inspired by the election win. It's a one off and a possible attempt at that. I don't think you can use it to assert that branch stacking in the Liberal Party is based on religious affiliations rather than ethnicity/race. I'm not saying that the ALP is the only party that stacks, I am saying that it's the only party that stacks on racial/ethnic grounds, more accurately, tolerates its members stacking, at least as far as my enquiries reveal.

There's nothing illegal in stacking, the ALP has a rule against it, apparently, wisely so. Rewarding the pitting of different ethnic groups against each other then jumping up on television proclaiming inclusiveness.

 

[dogwatch]

All of these dodgy dealings may help explain why party politics generally is on the nose and a well-credentialled hard-working independent with demonstrated integrity is often very attractive.

It's just a shame that the nature of our democracy means it's always going to be one of those big two party groupings (ALP or Lib/NP Coalition) that forms government. Occasional minority governments are OK but perpetual minority governments (eg Italy, Japan) are problematical.

 

[LittleG]

All of these dodgy dealings may help explain why party politics generally is on the nose and a well-credentialled hard-working independent with demonstrated integrity is often very attractive.

It's just a shame that the nature of our democracy means it's always going to be one of those big two party groupings (ALP or Lib/NP Coalition) that forms government. Occasional minority governments are OK but perpetual minority governments (eg Italy, Japan) are problematical.

Germany has had a minority government for decades. It doesn’t stop them from being an economic powerhouse.

I had to think hard to remember the last time I voted for a non-independent. I wish there were more around.

 

[dogwatch]

Germany has had a minority government for decades. It doesn’t stop them from being an economic powerhouse.

I had to think hard to remember the last time I voted for a non-independent. I wish there were more around.

I was more referring to the instability caused by frequent elections due to deadlocks in parliament. And the paralysis / lack of progress that sometimes accompanies that.

I'm no expert on any of those countries' systems but it seems Germany has at least had stable government for whatever reasons. Japan has had notoriously unstable government for many decades (not so much the last few years) but is still an economic powerhouse.

(I wonder, is it a coincidence that all three were Axis powers in WWII?)

Back to the topic of independents ... our best hope of parliamentary and government reforms comes from them, even if they only ever occupy the cross-benches.

For example

• elimination of direct bribes party donations,
• real-time declaration of party donations with lower thresholds for disclosure,
• genuine freedom of information not the current charade it has degenerated into,
• transparency and accountability for decision making (think sports rorts),
• accountability for monumental expenditure wastage in the areas of defence, border control and security,
• exposure of pork-barrelling generally,
• reporting and controls over post-retirement directorships and other largesse bestowed on ex-ministers by companies who benefited from their decisions while in office,
• genuine accountability of ministers instead of constant deflection of blame and arms-length removal from nudge-nudge wink-wink actions done in their interests,
• accountability of non-APS "advisers"
• an end to secret trials, imprisonments and anything else done under the guise of national security simply to spare the government of the day the discomfort of public exposure for its mis-steps (eg the Bernard Collaery trial)
• an end to persecution of whistleblowers

and so on.

The major parties have no genuine interest in changing the current arrangements which for the most part suit them, especially when in office.

 

[D Mitchell]

All of these dodgy dealings may help explain why party politics generally is on the nose and a well-credentialled hard-working independent with demonstrated integrity is often very attractive.

It's just a shame that the nature of our democracy means it's always going to be one of those big two party groupings (ALP or Lib/NP Coalition) that forms government. Occasional minority governments are OK but perpetual minority governments (eg Italy, Japan) are problematical.

Independents can't achieve anything, wasted vote. Even if he/she held the balance of power, best outcome is limited to ethics influence or influence in a particular hobbyhorse and that's usually watered down in negotiations. With the 2 party system, you get government where the elected party can be assessed against what it campaigned on. Coalitions of minorities, policy becomes the subject of negotiation, you don't get that. Elect a Party, give it majorities in both houses. If you don't like what it does, vote 'em out.

 

[dogwatch]

Independents can't achieve anything, wasted vote. Even if he/she held the balance of power, best outcome is limited to influence in a particular hobbyhorse and that's usually watered down in negotiations. With the 2 party system, you get government where the elected party can be assessed against what it campaigned on. Coalitions of minorities, policy becomes the subject of negotiation, you don't get that. Elect a Party, give it majorities in both houses. If you don't like what it does, vote 'em out.

Disagree. There's a role for independents and small parties (even if some of them are anathema to me).
See above.

 

[D Mitchell]

Disagree. There's a role for independents and small parties (even if some of them are anathema to me).
See above.

I've re read your list and amended the offending post. Elect, let 'em govern. If they are any good, return 'em. If not, vote 'em out.

 

[LittleG]

I've re read your list and amended the offending post. Elect, let 'em govern. If they are any good, return 'em. If not, vote 'em out.

Disagree.
When both parties aren’t interested in fixing the status quo, you need someone without that vested interest to insist it gets done.

Either it gets done OR they won’t support your government. Be clear on the issue and very transparent in the negotiations.

 

[dogwatch]

I've re read your list and amended the offending post. Elect, let 'em govern. If they are any good, return 'em. If not, vote 'em out.

Yes, as I said originally, our democracy does gravitate towards party politics. A parliament full of independents would be chaotic - I reckon parties or factions of some sort would inevitably coalesce. However there's still an important role for an ethical cross-bench.

The benefit of parties (in theory) is that one lot can go in and implement their policies without interference or compromise. That is, you should be able to get an integrated, well thought out vision for the country, and a co-ordinated program of delivery of that vision.

In practice what we're seeing more and more is small-target election campaigns (such as Howard in the early 2000s and policy-free ScoMo at the last election) where the sole aim is to appear anodyne and comforting, seasoned with a few well-targeted electoral bribes so that you retain power.

That's a huge challenge for our democracy. It's delivering static, reactive government with no real program for development of the country other than let independent operators dig it up and take it away. Labor is only slightly better in this area of policy proposal but every time it sets out an agenda it creates a huge target on its back which is used for misinformation and scaremongering at election time. That's a huge disincentive to put forward anything constructive next time.

The following has been attributed variously to Alexander Tytler and Alexis de Tocqueville but whoever said it, it bears some thinking about.

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

Obviously we haven't reached that end-stage yet, if it really does work that way. But are we mature, perceptive and selfless enough to vote for a candidate (or party) that promises what's best for the nation rather than the one that offers the biggest personal kickback? I'm not encouraged by what I've seen in the last 20 years.

 

[Virgin Dog]

Independents can't achieve anything, wasted vote. Even if he/she held the balance of power, best outcome is limited to ethics influence or influence in a particular hobbyhorse and that's usually watered down in negotiations. With the 2 party system, you get government where the elected party can be assessed against what it campaigned on. Coalitions of minorities, policy becomes the subject of negotiation, you don't get that. Elect a Party, give it majorities in both houses. If you don't like what it does, vote 'em out.

I know they're not independent, but One Nation exists outside the two party system and have voted down a number of disgusting bills proposed by the Coalition in the current term despite being essentially allied with them.

Back in November 2019, the Coalition tried to get through their union busting bill which would have been disastrous for workers rights as it would make it almost trivial to bring down unions, but One Nation (despite being right wing and teaming with the Coalition) and Jacqui Lambie voted with Labor and Greens to defeat it.

If those two were forced to go with a major, both would obviously be Coalition, in which case such a concerning bill may actually have been successful. Small parties and independents are vital for our democracy

 

[LittleG]

I know they're not independent, but One Nation exists outside the two party system and have voted down a number of disgusting bills proposed by the Coalition in the current term despite being essentially allied with them.

Back in November 2019, the Coalition tried to get through their union busting bill which would have been disastrous for workers rights as it would make it almost trivial to bring down unions, but One Nation (despite being right wing and teaming with the Coalition) and Jacqui Lambie voted with Labor and Greens to defeat it.

If those two were forced to go with a major, both would obviously be Coalition, in which case such a concerning bill may actually have been successful. Small parties and independents are vital for our democracy

It’s a shame One Nation have lots members who I consider to be extremists.... their defeat of the Union Bill and their proposal to lift the GST (while reducing income taxes); are good policy.

 

[Virgin Dog]

It’s a shame One Nation have lots members who I consider to be extremists.... their defeat of the Union Bill and their proposal to lift the GST (while reducing income taxes); are good policy.

Yeah it's frustrating really. They have some really good policies, but it's ruined by the fact that a huge proportion of their members are xenophobic. I still voted for them ahead of the Libs and Nats last election despite that, since the Coalition have proven to be no better when it comes to racism, sexism, etc.

 

[maddog37]

Yeah it's frustrating really. They have some really good policies, but it's ruined by the fact that a huge proportion of their members are xenophobic. I still voted for them ahead of the Libs and Nats last election despite that, since the Coalition have proven to be no better when it comes to racism, sexism, etc.

please explain

 

[Virgin Dog]

please explain

What part?

 

[BEaston]

Yeah it's frustrating really. They have some really good policies, but it's ruined by the fact that a huge proportion of their members are xenophobic. I still voted for them ahead of the Libs and Nats last election despite that, since the Coalition have proven to be no better when it comes to racism, sexism, etc.

you know there are other parties that..... are better when it comes to "racism, sexism, ect" ????

 

[Virgin Dog]

you know there are other parties that..... are better when it comes to "racism, sexism, ect" ????

Yep, which I had ahead of ON. I just meant I had ON ahead of Libs and Nats, not that they had my number 1 spot. They were all quite far down on my docket