Politics The Hangar Politics Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

The Speaker said:
Please be advised that the model used on the website is skewed by the ideology of the site's owners.
Click to expand...
Does it skew some respondents more than others? In what way is it skewed? Are some questions weighted more heavily?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The Speaker said:
What the owners of the site see at "centrist" is very arguable, and reflective of their personal politics.

And, of course, this putting aside the fact that it's a flawed model.
Click to expand...
I think you’re taking it too seriously. It’s an online test that attempts to place political parties from all countries and points in history on the same plane.

I don’t personally care where the black background lines are on the plane. As long as all respondents are judged the same way then they are comparable to each other, which is what I was going for.

I find it amusing that it places me further to the bottom left of the plane than even the greens, despite never having voted for them in my life. If you’re using an online test to tell you who to vote for then you’re doing it wrong.
 
One stat that is interesting and that is if the voting was first over the line then the LNP would have won 80 plus seats. Preference deals help both sides.
 
sameolds33 said:
One item that came across my feed today:

Our PM Scott Morrison wants to repeal the Medevac Law which allows doctors to decide if refugees require urgent medical treatment. Only a handful of people have been brought to Australia under this law in spite of Morrison and Dutton trying to use it as a scare campaign and claiming that it would open the floodgates to tens of thousands of new refugee claims. What sort of Christian wants to deny sick people from getting medical treatment? Only soulless hypocrites like ScoMo and Dutton.

Another:

Antony Green's Twitter feed says that if Mr Dutton wins there are 40 days after the return of the writ that his eligibility can be challenged.

I disagree with you. Let's leave it at that.
Click to expand...

I will leave the differences out but I do think this part of LNP policy is about scaring people and is pretty poor.
 
Arguing over politics, gay rights, the sorry mob, women or mens rights, cruelty to animals, home and away or whether Gilligan was gay, is the same as arguing what's more painful, a crowbar or a length of steal pipe.
 
Cold Sober said:
Arguing over politics, gay rights, the sorry mob, women or mens rights, cruelty to animals, home and away or whether Gilligan was gay, is the same as arguing what's more painful, a crowbar or a length of steal pipe.
Click to expand...

I will take the steal pipe. No sharp bits :tonguewink:
 
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.49
chart
 
sameolds33 said:
Hi I took the test but the questions annoyed me - would agree with the speaker on the bias of the test. How did I go?
Click to expand...
In the same quadrant as me but you're more akin to Noam Chomsky whereas I'm apparently mates with Jeremy Corbyn. This is the "certificate" version, I'm the red dot in the green section;
Screen Shot 2019-04-11 at 2.28.48 pm.png



And this is where they put the parties based on their 2019 election promises;
Screen Shot 2019-05-21 at 10.25.57 pm.png

Along with this commentary on the election:
This Australian election marks an all-time high in public contempt for party politicians. Perpetual in-fighting within the ruling Liberal-National coalition, and the decidedly uncharismatic prime ministership of Christian fundamentalist Scott Morrison, has kept Labor in a steady lead in most polls — despite the failure of its leader, Bill Shorten, to ignite the public. His refusal to approve or rule out the controversial Adani coalmine project reflects a desire not to frighten the horses. While some of his economic proposals are more bold they, too, are a mix of the neoliberal directions that the party has been on since the mid-80s, with some concessions to traditional Labor sentiments. It is a reflection of the all-round confusion of political identity that Shorten’s adversary for party leadership, Anthony Albanese, is touted as coming from the left of the party, though he attacks Shorten for being anti-business.

The Greens, too, pose us with difficulties because of a considerable difference between the pragmatic willing-to-do-deals leader Richard Di Natale and the mainstream membership that insist on a more radical direction in the tradition of their much-loved earlier leader, Bob Brown. The Greens have also been hurt by warring between the national organisation and the state organisations that have demanded more control. Nevertheless the Greens, both socially and economically, remain to the left of Labor.

One Nation’s Pauline Hanson, unlike the leaders of many of Europe’s new authoritarian nationalist parties, continues to wrap hardline social policies and neoliberalism together as naturally as fish and chips.

This time ’round there’s an unprecedented number of independent candidates, many of them carefully positioned to do maximum damage to Labor and, more especially, Liberal heavyweight incumbents in vulnerable seats. This has turned out to be the most interesting aspect of an otherwise lacklustre election.

Our chart has been compiled with reference to speeches, manifestos and, where applicable, voting records. Should significant policy changes be announced during the campaign, the chart will be updated accordingly.
Click to expand...
https://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2019

Obviously, and as with anything, take it with a truckload of salt. But I find it interesting. For what it's worth most major parties in most countries fall in the blue corner in recent elections.
 
Lore said:
In the same quadrant as me but you're more akin to Noam Chomsky whereas I'm apparently mates with Jeremy Corbyn. This is the "certificate" version, I'm the red dot in the green section;
View attachment 678194



And this is where they put the parties based on their 2019 election promises;
View attachment 678196

Along with this commentary on the election:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2019

Obviously, and as with anything, take it with a truckload of salt. But I find it interesting. For what it's worth most major parties in most countries fall in the blue corner in recent elections.
Click to expand...
Prefer Chomsky to Corbin, so phew! I took one of these test a couple of elections ago and, from memory, was considered socially progressive but fiscally conservative. Kind of like Malcolm Turnbull!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

"Overall, Morrison persuaded a narrow majority of voters that a Shorten government was more risky, and more likely to result in higher taxes, than a continuation of his government. He himself put forward almost nothing in the way of a program or a vision for the future. His victory - effective reinforcement of the status quo - now gives him enormous authority within the party, and a fairly free hand on policy. His biggest risk is that the National Party reads the result differently, and believes it has a renewed mandate on its approach to coal mining, and, perhaps, water policy."

Today in the CT, a sound analysis of the election by Jack Waterford: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/st...ht-yes-the-election-does-make-sense/?cs=14329
 
Lore said:
I think you’re taking it too seriously. It’s an online test that attempts to place political parties from all countries and points in history on the same plane.

I don’t personally care where the black background lines are on the plane. As long as all respondents are judged the same way then they are comparable to each other, which is what I was going for.

I find it amusing that it places me further to the bottom left of the plane than even the greens, despite never having voted for them in my life. If you’re using an online test to tell you who to vote for then you’re doing it wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm a serious person, except when I'm not.
 
eth-dog said:
Am I wrong in thinking that Jeremy Corbin is basically Britain's version of Bill Shorten?
Click to expand...


Very wrong.

Shorten is a complete scumbag with no ideology and a cupboard full of skeletons who voters hate.

Corbyn is enormously popular among the grass roots but is undermined at every turn by the establishment. He's only just started to abandon his ideology by pretending that any of his popular proposals (e.g. nationalisation of infrastructure) are even legal within the EU framework (which they are not) but then I'm happy for the clueless left to find itself bound by the neo-liberal globalist enterprises they don't seem to know anything about.

Kind of have to cut him some slack because he's hardly the first politician to sell out for power.

The anti-Semitism allegations against him are unfair. There have been some ugly things said by union reps and even a politician or two (I think) which he has condemned but the allegations against him personally tend to conflate the geopolitical issues created by the state of Israel with discrimination against Jewish individuals (which is just a dishonest argument generally).

UK Labor is a disgusting neo-liberal party that doesnt even bother with the facade as a party of the working class, unelectable but for Corbyn. AU Labor was unelectable because of Shorten (and desperation and the usual selective polling blinded everyone to this reality).

A better comparison is Bernie Sanders.

For the record I endorse none of these people.

Spiked Podcast is a really good resource for discussion about UK politics. Brendan O'Neil, in particular, is generally excellent.
 
Last edited:
There isn't really an Australian comparison, maybe partly because neo-liberalisation in Australia was so heavily driven by Labor that the party was fundamentally altered, where UK New Labour accepted it as a matter of electoral necessity, but also because the rigid (particularly Labor) machine politics in this country would never tolerate the likes of Corbyn, or Sanders, or Trump for that matter. It's party stiffs all the way down.
 
Who is the UK's Peter Garrett?
 
GUMBLETRON said:
There isn't really an Australian comparison, maybe partly because neo-liberalisation in Australia was so heavily driven by Labor that the party was fundamentally altered, where UK New Labour accepted it as a matter of electoral necessity, but also because the rigid (particularly Labor) machine politics in this country would never tolerate the likes of Corbyn, or Sanders, or Trump for that matter. It's party stiffs all the way down.
Click to expand...


AU Labor does a much better job of at least looking like it fights for workers and I think it has incorporated some of that identity into it's neo-liberal heart (at least the headt of the contemporary party). That's probably because the reforms were driven by the likes of Whitlam, Hawke and Keating who at least partially recognised the need to evolve the econony and were not just driven by the pure cynicism of Tony Blair.

Point definitely taken, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top