-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Liverpool said:
I haven't read much of this thread and took jb's comments about you at face value so I apologise if he was wrong.
Liverpool said:I think you better vote "informal"...
I'm a big girl and I reckon I'll manage to work out who to vote for or not vote without your thinks thanks Livers. :hihi
rosy23 said:I'm a big girl and I reckon I'll manage to work out who to vote for or not vote without your thinks thanks Livers. :hihiLiverpool said:I think you better vote "informal"...
Jury is still out on that one Rosy.... :hihi
Interesting article by George Monbiot journalist for the English newspaper Guardian.
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your+say&subclass=general&story_id=1044435&category=opinion
Begs the question who really is running the western democracies - Government? Big business? Media? Unions? The People?
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your+say&subclass=general&story_id=1044435&category=opinion
Begs the question who really is running the western democracies - Government? Big business? Media? Unions? The People?
Prisoners Win Right To Vote
Jane Holroyd
August 30, 2007 - 11:46AM
Thousands of Australian prisoners have had their right to vote reinstated after the High Court today upheld by majority a challenge to Howard Government legislation banning all prisoners from voting at federal elections.
However, the court upheld earlier legislation which stipulated any prisoners serving a jail term of three years or longer could not vote.
Lawyers acting for Vickie Lee Roach, a 49-year-old Aboriginal woman currently serving time in the Dame Phyllis Frost Women's Prison at Deer Park, argued the Government amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act were not supported by the constitution, which declares the Parliament shall be "directly chosen by the people".
Her case was heard in June with her lawyers arguing that the criterion for disentitlement were arbitrary and therefore inconsistent with representative democracy.
A lawyer acting for Ms Roach said she had won a great victory for fellow prisoners and particularly indigenous prisoners, who make up a quarter of Australia's total prison population of about 20,000.
Phil Lynch, director of the Human Rights Law Resource Centre, told The Age about 7000-8000 prisoners currently serving sentences up to three years would have their voting rights reinstated before this year's federal election.
However, Ms Roach was unsuccessful in her challenge to the pre-2006 legislation banning prisoners serving longer sentences from voting.
As Ms Roach is serving a five-year sentence for negligently causing serious injury in a car accident, she will remain ineligible to vote at this year's election.
"We would have ideally like to have seen the three-year prohibition struck down too," said Mr Lynch. "That would have been ideal for Vickie (in) allowing all prisoners to vote.
"But she did it more broadly on behalf of the prison population, particularly the indigenous prison population and she has been very, very successful in that respect."
Mr Lynch described the court's decision as a victory for democracy.
"It's an affirmation of the importance of the fundamental human right to vote," he said.
"It is an affirmation that the legislative and the executive power of the government is not unconstrained and that meaningful representative democracy requires that people be enfranchised and have their say."
Today's judgement was delivered in Canberra by High Court Chief Justice Murray Gleeson.
Reasons behind the decision will be released later.
The court directed Ms Roach, due for parol next year, should pay half the court costs.
with AAP
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/prisoners-win-right-to-vote/2007/08/30/1188067238763.html
Jane Holroyd
August 30, 2007 - 11:46AM
Thousands of Australian prisoners have had their right to vote reinstated after the High Court today upheld by majority a challenge to Howard Government legislation banning all prisoners from voting at federal elections.
However, the court upheld earlier legislation which stipulated any prisoners serving a jail term of three years or longer could not vote.
Lawyers acting for Vickie Lee Roach, a 49-year-old Aboriginal woman currently serving time in the Dame Phyllis Frost Women's Prison at Deer Park, argued the Government amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act were not supported by the constitution, which declares the Parliament shall be "directly chosen by the people".
Her case was heard in June with her lawyers arguing that the criterion for disentitlement were arbitrary and therefore inconsistent with representative democracy.
A lawyer acting for Ms Roach said she had won a great victory for fellow prisoners and particularly indigenous prisoners, who make up a quarter of Australia's total prison population of about 20,000.
Phil Lynch, director of the Human Rights Law Resource Centre, told The Age about 7000-8000 prisoners currently serving sentences up to three years would have their voting rights reinstated before this year's federal election.
However, Ms Roach was unsuccessful in her challenge to the pre-2006 legislation banning prisoners serving longer sentences from voting.
As Ms Roach is serving a five-year sentence for negligently causing serious injury in a car accident, she will remain ineligible to vote at this year's election.
"We would have ideally like to have seen the three-year prohibition struck down too," said Mr Lynch. "That would have been ideal for Vickie (in) allowing all prisoners to vote.
"But she did it more broadly on behalf of the prison population, particularly the indigenous prison population and she has been very, very successful in that respect."
Mr Lynch described the court's decision as a victory for democracy.
"It's an affirmation of the importance of the fundamental human right to vote," he said.
"It is an affirmation that the legislative and the executive power of the government is not unconstrained and that meaningful representative democracy requires that people be enfranchised and have their say."
Today's judgement was delivered in Canberra by High Court Chief Justice Murray Gleeson.
Reasons behind the decision will be released later.
The court directed Ms Roach, due for parol next year, should pay half the court costs.
with AAP
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/prisoners-win-right-to-vote/2007/08/30/1188067238763.html
Well this phony election campaign seems to be dragging on and on. surely we'll have the election before Xmas? Maybe a snap election during the Spring Carnival. It used to be the way didn't it, have the poll during the footy finals or the horse racing with the theory that people felt contented and would therefore vote for the status quo.
All the newspolls have the ALP out in front and Rudd as preferred PM. This is understandable as the Libs have been there for so long and many people are wanting change. It's hard to know what issues people are identifying as the difference between the parties as Rudd seems to be a 'me too' sort of fella.
I read a good analogy somewhere likening Howard to yr grandfather. You don't hate him but you don't want him to be always opening the batting!
Anyways, bring on the election.
All the newspolls have the ALP out in front and Rudd as preferred PM. This is understandable as the Libs have been there for so long and many people are wanting change. It's hard to know what issues people are identifying as the difference between the parties as Rudd seems to be a 'me too' sort of fella.
I read a good analogy somewhere likening Howard to yr grandfather. You don't hate him but you don't want him to be always opening the batting!
Anyways, bring on the election.
Six Pack said:
Agree with all your post SixPack.
But my question on this thread before has been....if Rudd is agreeing with Howard and the Government's policies on many of the important issues, then why change at all?
Why change, just for the sake of change?
And if Rudd is just agreeing with the Government because he has learnt from Latham/Beazley that going against the Government is not want the people want....then wouldn't it be better to vote for the people who are coming up with the original policies, instead of the sheep just following suit?
I'd certainly like to see more of a definite policy difference between the parties. But that's the modern way isn't it. Keep it safe in the middle ground.
As for change, well I guess people don't see much difference between the parties, their leaders and their programs, so voting for change isn't really such a big deal.
By the way, if Howard was my grnadfather and he was opening the batting, I'd dig a few shorts ones in!
As for change, well I guess people don't see much difference between the parties, their leaders and their programs, so voting for change isn't really such a big deal.
By the way, if Howard was my grnadfather and he was opening the batting, I'd dig a few shorts ones in!
In 1996 Howard did to Keating what Rudd is now doing to Howard in 2007.
Back in the lead up to the 1996 election Howard did not voice 1 new policy - during the election he was very limited in announcing where his policies differed from Keatings - why? Because that made for a smaller target for Keating to hit - Keating had run his course - let his political life die and become a carcus and the people will want a new face. Howard won.
Rudd is a small target for Howard - Howard and his cabinet ministers are constantly looking for the negative to throw at Rudd (just like they did at Latham and Beasley) - But Rudd is being a me too so if the coalition do throw negatives at him about his policies they are in effect throwing negatives at themselves. Howard needs an issue to divide the people with himself on one side and Rudd on the other - loosely it is call wedge politics.
That issue is Workchoices - but because it is on the nose as far as the electorate is concerned Howard is not using that issue as his wedge as he will come off second best. Climate change - that is Labors territory always has been always will be - the environmentalist versus the capitalist - again no luck for a wedge there for Howard.
The state governments then can be next - after all they are labor - again Federalism is not traditional ground for the coalition moreso Labor.
Why change you ask Liverpool - personally I don't think there will be a change - history shows economic uncertainty is the reason Governments lose government (oppositions have never won government) and we are in an economic boom from a macro economics aspect - I know micro economics maybe showing the opposite.
If Rudd's style of being a small target does succeed then Howard has lost Government as the people have had enough of him - Rudd will not have pushed him out - Rudd is just the alternative.
Remember Newspaper Political Polls are run to create stories for the newspapers - they do not necessarily reflect the truth of how the electorate is feeling (Morgan Gallop poll last election had Latham in front - how far were they wrong?)
I can see little Johnny Bonsai prancing around the stage claiming victory and be pronounced the greatest political comeback since Lazarus - this will be a sad day for Australia for he is well past his use by date and for mine it is now his ego more than his so called love for Australia..........
Back in the lead up to the 1996 election Howard did not voice 1 new policy - during the election he was very limited in announcing where his policies differed from Keatings - why? Because that made for a smaller target for Keating to hit - Keating had run his course - let his political life die and become a carcus and the people will want a new face. Howard won.
Rudd is a small target for Howard - Howard and his cabinet ministers are constantly looking for the negative to throw at Rudd (just like they did at Latham and Beasley) - But Rudd is being a me too so if the coalition do throw negatives at him about his policies they are in effect throwing negatives at themselves. Howard needs an issue to divide the people with himself on one side and Rudd on the other - loosely it is call wedge politics.
That issue is Workchoices - but because it is on the nose as far as the electorate is concerned Howard is not using that issue as his wedge as he will come off second best. Climate change - that is Labors territory always has been always will be - the environmentalist versus the capitalist - again no luck for a wedge there for Howard.
The state governments then can be next - after all they are labor - again Federalism is not traditional ground for the coalition moreso Labor.
Why change you ask Liverpool - personally I don't think there will be a change - history shows economic uncertainty is the reason Governments lose government (oppositions have never won government) and we are in an economic boom from a macro economics aspect - I know micro economics maybe showing the opposite.
If Rudd's style of being a small target does succeed then Howard has lost Government as the people have had enough of him - Rudd will not have pushed him out - Rudd is just the alternative.
Remember Newspaper Political Polls are run to create stories for the newspapers - they do not necessarily reflect the truth of how the electorate is feeling (Morgan Gallop poll last election had Latham in front - how far were they wrong?)
I can see little Johnny Bonsai prancing around the stage claiming victory and be pronounced the greatest political comeback since Lazarus - this will be a sad day for Australia for he is well past his use by date and for mine it is now his ego more than his so called love for Australia..........
You have to be joking. He was a disaster, but at least he was interesting for awhile.
I can't stand the dweeby little middle of the road politicians. I want them to stand for something and give us something to believe in. Not these smarmy little toads we seem to get served up.
That's why I couldn't stand Blair. He was like a slimy grub.
I can't stand the dweeby little middle of the road politicians. I want them to stand for something and give us something to believe in. Not these smarmy little toads we seem to get served up.
That's why I couldn't stand Blair. He was like a slimy grub.
Liverpool said:
The lefties are not anti-American - they just do not lick the yanks boots like the righties do.
About time Australia stood up for its own foreign policy don't you think.........
RemoteTiger said:
If the American policy suits Australia's needs, then why not run with them?
we need oil...US need oil...most of the Western civilisation needed oil....so let's go into Iraq before the Iranians do.
I have no problem with that.
