Fully agree, I do question their priorities with having spent so much on submarines when there are so many other things that should take precedence. Putting some of that money to housing for example could have built an awful lot of homes.
Even then, I’d argue that the relative economic success (that they claim as ‘standing up for jobs and workers’ in their period was despite their leadership, not because of it. Just like in 2007, Labor has come in right at the moment the global economy turns to crap again.
Hence my use of ‘supposedly’ and having quotation marks
At the end of the day, the Coalition are a bunch of narrow minded fools who keeps blowing up their own tires at their supposedly perfect economic record but have got nothing done when the economy was good anyway.
She’s probably the only hope in that party remaining. All the remaining moderates are toeing the party line word in word out. If the Liberals lose her then they’ll be consigned to the political sin bin.
I feel like the Liberals are now deliberately sputtering out pure misinformation about the voice to mislead the Australian public. It’s not even a reasonable and healthy debate about the pros and cons. They just don’t care about reconciliation and would prefer the incumbent to continue which is a farce on our nation.
If they’re determined to stay down the right wing, socially conservative path, I really see no reason for them not to merge with the Nationals at this point. Especially since the Nationals pretty much fall in line with the Liberals economic policy these days, they are increasingly indistinguishable.
Ideally, this would then open up a space for a potential new party that is geared back towards the centre, at least from a social policy perspective.
As someone, like just about everyone else in this country, directly benefiting from colonisation which has turned the country into a Western nation and society with high standard of living, and the availability of technology and science which you champion, I find this comment very peculiar. You are a part of “they” whether you like it or not.
Regardless of that particular issue, your nation should be able to defend itself against any enemy, you cannot tell what the circumstances will be in 10 or 20 years time. It is a furphy having to rely on the US all the time, then complaining when we get lumped into their conflicts.
I hope you’re not implying that we as part of ‘they’ shouldn’t continue the process of reconciliation? Are you happy with the way things are? I’m not and it’s important that we take steps towards more than just recognising our indigenous people as part of this nation. If it is the voice then so be it.
The past is the past, no one can change that but recognition and action goes a long way to better this country. Just because people say that status quo is fine because of how advanced we are right thanks to colonisation now doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work to improve our relationship with our First Nations people.
If they initially framed it that way then there would be less concerns about the intentions and it’s purpose would be more justified. I don’t see how spending billions of dollars purely to counter an authoritarian dictatorship that is going to increase its capabilities anyway is a good reason to spend all that money. If I the government argued that it’s for the sake of improving Australia’s military capability and providing jobs and boost the economy, it would be much more justifiable.
Plus we should be doing everything to avoid conflict with anyone, at all costs. Buying weapons is good preparation but we really should be stamping out any fires before it gets out of hand anyway which I commend this government for doing.
I actually don’t think true reconciliation is possible. As you said you cannot undo the past, which was bound to happen IMO if not the Brits then another progressive nation. As a society, we need to stop imposing 21st century logic on 18th century happenings. If far lefties don’t want to move forward that is their problem as far as I’m concerned.
People with indigenous heritage already have recognition as part of our society, like everyone else, in what @cmo calls a secular country, I find this movement to Voice which will be undoubtedly be followed by so-called treaty very odd indeed. There is no real need for constitutional amendment, just do it and make sure they do their jobs properly and don’t become another vehicle for corruption like last time. Everyone also has parliamentary representation through their MPs, if those members are not doing their jobs properly in representing their constituents, then fix it.
Voice will not be the end for the Greens and far left Labor, there is always a next level for the radicals as they are never happy.
Can agree to a certain extent for as long as the likes of Mehreen Faruqi and Lidia Thorpe stay in parliament we’ll keep seeing a lot of over-the-top antics that cover any substance of actual genuine movements.
Reconciliation is hard no doubt, and you won’t get a turn out of 100% in society to come to terms with everything. But I’m a believer that if the government is willing to use the voice to work with First Nations people and legislate policies that will have a direct positive impact on their living standards and prospects, then it will be a productive body in parliament.
From my experience, a lot of First Nations people do not trust the government (understandably). If the concerns of the people represented by the voice can play a role in closing the gap then it will undoubtedly improve relationships between the two sides and show that the government genuinely cares about First Nations people.
The Coalition keeps bleating on about regional and local voices. Great! But has there been any proper progress or issues resolved through the incumbent? Very minimal if anything.
While they have traditionally had a consistent position on a number of key policies (and support from the same groups), there are a lot of differences in their policy position that would make it incredibly difficult for them to be a party with a consistent position and offering.
The failure of the Teal movement to make any significant headway into the elections in Victoria and NSW to me suggests that the movement in its current guise may have a limited lifespan. I suspect they’ll spawn something new in future elections (which is probably a smart move, it allows them to have some agility).
Don’t know about that. There’s very different fundraising rules in Victoria and NSW compared to federal elections and you had a Liberal government in NSW being seen as good on climate and a Liberal opposition in Victoria being seen as fine. Both streets ahead of the federal liberals.
Given Dutton seems to be turning the party into more of a right wing reactionary rump than it was under Morrison, I don’t see why teal electorates would go back to the Liberals.
Also, don’t forget that government accountability through a federal anti-corruption commission was a key policy in the federal election for the teals. NSW probably has the strongest in the country, and Dan Andrews has taken some steps in his term to strengthen Victoria’s, so that was another issue which was neutered somewhat on a state level.
As far as I can remember the Teals are only conservative economically but socially they’re progressive (and the electorates are certainly the same), unlike Dutton who’s both socially and economically conservative. I think Dutton’s presence as the leader of the Liberal Party could actually turn more Teal electorates off the Liberals if what happened to Katherine Deves is anything to go by. Teal electorates don’t want petty games played by the Liberals, they want someone who can advocate and push for things to be done.
Though I suspect those kind of candidates are going to be the ones the Coalition are going to push in those electorates into the future. The Teals are appealing to younger voters which are increasing in numbers. Soon the Liberals and Nationals will only appeal to those from the country or the uneducated bogans.
Proves they’re just opposing for the sake of opposing. Making it more ideological than anything else. Leeser saying he will campaign for Yes whilst trying to make amendments during the committee/review stages. That sounds a little more constructive than just saying No because sky news told you to.
Here we go with the Sky News bashing again. If you actually took any notice there’s certain after dark presenters who support the voice. Chris Kenny is one and even read out some of the comments he’s received. Not everyone sings from the same hymn book.
