PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics) (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/628189-war-australia-any-oz-politics.html)

WingNut60 25th Jun 2019 02:35

Yes, the senate electoral processes have certainly been wrangled to suit the wishes of the pollies.

The "above the line / below the line" option has made voting for senate positions a lot easier, especially when you have 35 or so senate candidates to number in order of preference.
But it has been implemented by allowing the major parties to re-direct their preferences to a level of absurdity.
Importantly, it draws into question whether the outcome, in any shape or fashion, resembles the underlying voter preferences.

dr dre 25th Jun 2019 03:04


Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie (Post 10502248)
Been out of country for a month, but I saw that the retired general Jim Molan garnered the greatest number EVER of first-preference votes in history. But some idiot greenie got the seat on preferences.

Sad that this can happen - obviously a lot of people wanted to see Jim in the senate, but the behind-the-scenes manoeuvring between the parties meant that the most popular person didn't get a look in.

Actually no they didnít get in on preferences.

Jim Molan got 137í000 first preference votes.
But the Greens got 410í000 total votes.
They got more votes than Molan so were entitled to a quota above him.

No failure of democracy here. System worked as intended.

WingNut60 25th Jun 2019 03:27


Originally Posted by dr dre (Post 10502260)


Actually no they didnít get in on preferences.

Jim Molan got 137í000 first preference votes.
But the Greens got 410í000 total votes.
They got more votes than Molan so were entitled to a quota above him.

No failure of democracy here. System worked as intended.

Of the 410,000 total votes, how many of those voters thought that they were voting to put a Green Party representative into the senate?

dr dre 25th Jun 2019 03:34


Originally Posted by WingNut60 (Post 10502266)
Of the 410,000 total votes, how many of those voters thought that they were voting to put a Green Party representative into the senate?

All of them? What do you mean?

I assume every person who goes into any election booth marks the box next to the person they most want to see in that particular representative body after the election is over.

JustinHeywood 25th Jun 2019 12:00


Originally Posted by dr dre (Post 10502268)




I assume every person who goes into any election booth marks the box next to the person they most want to see in that particular representative body after the election is over.

Well, if that were actually true Doc, Molan (137,000 votes) would have romped home over the candidate who WAS elected (25,097).

I dont think our our democracy is broken, but it could definitely use some tweaking. The major parties, who receive the vast majority of the vote, are too often held to ransom by minor parties who are only too happy to exercise power far beyond the actual electoral support they receive.

The majority of voters want the Ďsensible centreí, but the centre is undermined at every turn by the having to deal with extreme right and left groups and individuals , along with the odd nutter like Lambie.



dr dre 25th Jun 2019 12:33


Originally Posted by JustinHeywood (Post 10502550)
Well, if that were actually true Doc, Molan (137,000 votes) would have romped home over the candidate who WAS elected (25,097).



Actually no. Those vote totals (137,000 vs 25,000) were not enough to get either candidate elected. It was over a million votes on the total group ticket that got candidates from that party elected.

That was the way the candidates were ranked on the ticket according to the NSW Liberal party. All individual candidates running on the Liberal ticket didnít receive enough personal votes to get elected so had to rely on the group ticket to get elected.

If the Liberals are unhappy with the rankings for each candidate thatís an internal party issue they need to argue about amongst themselves. As far as the AEC is concerned the Coalition was allocated a quota and seats were issued to those who met the quota in their order the ticket.

No failure of democracy there.


I dont think our our democracy is broken, but it could definitely use some tweaking. The major parties, who receive the vast majority of the vote, are too often held to ransom by minor parties who are only too happy to exercise power far beyond the actual electoral support they receive.

The majority of voters want the Ďsensible centreí, but the centre is undermined at every turn by the having to deal with extreme right and left groups and individuals , along with the odd nutter like Lambie
In reality the differences between the major parties in Australia are minor, they run the country basically the same way. TBH since Keating there hasnít been any real major structural changes to the way Australia operates. Most of what dominates the news as ďpoliticsĒ is petty personal gossiping and irrelevant media outrage.

JustinHeywood 25th Jun 2019 22:19


Originally Posted by dr dre (Post 10502570)


Actually no. Those vote totals (137,000 vs 25,000) were not enough to get either candidate elected. It was over a million votes on the total group ticket that got candidates from that party elected.





If you read what you originally had written Doc (and I quoted in my comment), you will see that you were wrong, or at the very least expressed yourself poorly. However I'm sure you understand the political system, as do I, and I should have been interpreted your statement more charitably and let it go.

But our 'democracy' has no failures? Come on.
1. Who shamefully scuttled Rudd's original Emissions Trading Scheme? Yes, the Greens, on ~10% of the vote. A classic case of the sensible centre held to ransom by ideologues.

2. Political 'preference whispering' is now apparently a profession. In our last parliament we had 'elected' Senators on a handful of votes, whose policies were unknown or undefined, and who clearly weren't the result of the collective will of the states they represented. The new parliament will likely be the same. The cynical manipulation of the preference system is widely acknowledged by everyone, except it seems, you, who claim there are 'no failure[s]' in our democracy.


WingNut60 26th Jun 2019 00:33

I find the current senate ballot system to be so complex that it implies manipulation.

Have a read of this. I have not yet been able to ingest all of it. I'll need some time to have another read myself.

The current Oz senate voting system

I do know that I have serious misgivings that what the system produces is an effective and equitably representative senate.

dr dre 26th Jun 2019 01:56


Originally Posted by JustinHeywood (Post 10502935)
If you read what you originally had written Doc (and I quoted in my comment), you will see that you were wrong, or at the very least expressed yourself poorly.

Iíll just clarify what I mean.

Neither Molan nor the first ranked Liberal on the ticket received enough individual votes to gain a quota by themselves. The Coalition group ticket received 3 quotas. The seats were won by the first three candidates on the ticket. Molan was fourth so didnít get a seat. The last senate seat went to the group ticket most entitled to a quota after Coalition and Labor which was the Greens. Their ticket got 3x the amount of votes as Molan so they got that seat above his individual votes. (One Nation received more votes than Molan as well).

By the same token in the NSW Senate election the ALP got two seats. The 3rd and the 4th ranked Labor candidates received more individual votes than the 2nd ranked candidate, but did not gain senate seats for the exact same reason. Except they donít seem to be crying about it as much as Molanís supporters.

If anyone is unhappy about Molan not being in the Senate it is not a failure of the voting system or the AEC, it is an issue with how the Liberal party rank their candidates on the ticket and it is an issue the Liberals need to sort out internally.

No failure of democracy here.

WingNut60 26th Jun 2019 03:46


Originally Posted by dr dre (Post 10503013)


I’ll just clarify what I mean.

Neither Molan nor the first ranked Liberal on the ticket received enough individual votes to gain a quota by themselves. The Coalition group ticket received 3 quotas. The seats were won by the first three candidates on the ticket. Molan was fourth so didn’t get a seat. The last senate seat went to the group ticket most entitled to a quota after Coalition and Labor which was the Greens. Their ticket got 3x the amount of votes as Molan so they got that seat above his individual votes. (One Nation received more votes than Molan as well).


Not completely accurate.
The Coalition group ticket actually received 2.6986 quotas (of 670,761 votes each), thereby securing 3 senate seats.


Jim Molan ran his campaign encouraging Liberal voters to vote for him below the line.
Whether that worked for him or not, I nor the vast majority of NSW voters, will ever know.
He managed 137,325 first preferences as at 17 June with 7.3% of the ballot still uncounted - one month after the ballots closed. (Even Indonesia can do better than that).

However, with the quota for election standing at 670,761, he had less than half the vote of the third placed Coalition candidate Perin Davey after the distribution of more than 1.6 million Coalition ticket votes.
He also trailed One Nation and was passed by both HEMP and the SFFP during the distribution of preferences.

The Greens candidate, who entered parliament last August as a nominee to fill a caual vacancy (ie - never faced an election) was "re-elected" with a little over half (0.61) of a quota of primary votes

It's this sort of complexity, the time needed for counting, and the fact that he, rightly or wrongly, thought that a below the line vote inferred some advantage that makes me think that this part of the system needs overhaul.

Fliegenmong 16th Dec 2019 11:32

what stop does this clown get off at?
 
Josh Frydenberg, Australian treasurer's party has been in power now for 6.5 years...the country is sliding into recession (though no one will say it!), and six and a half years on this clown is still blaming the previous government? What do you want buddy 8 years ?10...12?...15?, when do you 'own' your administration?...At what point do you actually take credit or otherwise? The national debt has doubled under his party's watch! 392 Billion..Actuallly not saying the other side are better...but these @rse clowns are no worse..


601 16th Dec 2019 11:56


and six and a half years on this clown is still blaming the previous government?
So all the debt that the previous bunch lumbered us along with the open ended and unfunded schemes just stopped with a change of Govt.


but these @rse clowns are no worse..
So getting the finances under control and paying down debt is worse that accumulating more debt?

currawong 16th Dec 2019 12:43

Cannot say if he is good, bad or otherwise.

But I will say this. The agricultural sector, which is pretty huge, is on its knees due to several years of drought.

Produce is mainly exported.

This has a bigger effect on the bottom line than most care to admit.

Also, the Feds contribute tens of millions towards air support for our firefighters. Technically a state responsibility.

All that machinery dropping retardant does't come cheap.

So a year of less coming in and more going out, regardless of who is driving the bus.

WingNut60 16th Dec 2019 13:25


Originally Posted by currawong (Post 10641194)
Cannot say if he is good, bad or otherwise.

But I will say this. The agricultural sector, which is pretty huge, is on its knees due to several years of drought.

Produce is mainly exported.

This has a bigger effect on the bottom line than most care to admit..

Take a leaf out of Jokowi's book. One of his first major initiatives in power was to demand that resource lease holders start putting in processing plants and initiate value adding to their raw export products.
The miners all cried foul, said they'd just go broke and would have to pull out.

He backed off a little but he called their bluff. Told them that if they couldn't operate profitably under the new rules they should hand in their Contract of Works and he'd find someone who could operate profitably.
By and large, they're still there.

But that sort of action requires long term vision.
Australian pollies can see just as far as their next kick-back or the next election, whichever comes first.




chuboy 16th Dec 2019 20:39


Originally Posted by 601 (Post 10641160)
So getting the finances under control and paying down debt is worse that accumulating more debt?

When economic indicators such as GDP per capita growth, interest rates, inflation rates, unemployment rates, underemployment rates - are all tell you the economy is weakening? Yes, it is far worse. Macroeconomics 101 tells you borrowing is required to stimulate the economy in these circumstances. Chasing a surplus by cutting funding to programs left, right and centre, is just going to reduce the flow of money through the economy and make things worse.

Every economist in Canberra could tell this to our esteemed Treasurer, in fact they probably have. But as we know achieving a budget surplus is politically motivated, and by all accounts, the current members of parliament do not listen to good advice regardless.

CoodaShooda 16th Dec 2019 20:57

Chuboy

You are overlooking the roles of the state and territory governments.

The Feds aren’t responsible for the basket case that is now the Northern Territory. You can put that down to successive labor governments from 2001-2012 and since 2016. The libs didn’t help with their peculiar brand of disfunctional politics between 2012 and 2016 but they had at least started to reduce labor’s debts.

chuboy 16th Dec 2019 23:11


You are overlooking the roles of the state and territory governments
While I have no doubt each state/territory's government has a contribution of some kind, a recession-like environment is not isolated to any particular part of the country. It's nationwide. Federal government policies (particularly in the taxation arena) that encouraged a real estate bubble are to blame for our current environment. Anybody who bought a house pre-2010 is quite wealthy indeed (on paper anyway) so no wonder these policies were never tinkered with. The problem is that the banks were allowed to be very liberal in issuing loans as we saw in the banking RC, anyone who owns a house now can't afford to spend their disposable income on anything other than the mortgage.

This would be fine if it were only a few people here or there who had stretched themselves. But it is in fact widespread and that is why we are seeing the Reserve Bank struggle to stimulate the economy through lowering interest rates. Ordinarily a lower interest rate environment would stimulate borrowing and discourage leaving money sitting in savings accounts, but everyone who can afford a house has already borrowed and they have stopped spending as a result. If you're running a business that's not a good environment to be borrowing money to expand either. At this point a Rudd-style stimulus would probably just go straight into offset accounts and do nothing but feed the banks. It's a hole that Howard started digging at the turn of the millennium, with each successive government happily taking over shovel duty.

The people who are most likely to stimulate organic growth in the economy again are the demonised "renters" who do not have significant debt - they will spend extra money that comes in. Money sitting in a bank account doing nothing is not good for the economy. This is a fact whether it is country's budget or your life savings. Leaving more cash in the bank than you need in the immediate term makes you poorer in the long run. For non-mortgagees to have extra money to spend in shops and services, they either need a stimulus package (which won't happen under a Morrison gov), or a meaningful pay rise (which won't happen in an unstimulated economic environment). So here we are... stagnating as we have done for the last few years.

I could go on a much longer rant, because there's a number of levers the feds could have pulled in the last ten years that would not have left us in this precarious situation. Instead both Labor and the Coalition have spent their time in Canberra yanking each other off with self-interested leadership spills and have achieved a whole lot of nothing (with the exception of legalising same sex marriage).

JustinHeywood 17th Dec 2019 01:33


Originally Posted by chuboy (Post 10641601)
While I have no doubt each state/territory's government has a contribution of some kind, a recession-like environment is not isolated to any particular part of the country. It's nationwide. Federal government policies (particularly in the taxation arena) that encouraged a real estate bubble are to blame for our current environment. Anybody who bought a house pre-2010 is quite wealthy indeed (on paper anyway) so no wonder these policies were never tinkered with. The problem is that the banks were allowed to be very liberal in issuing loans as we saw in the banking RC, anyone who owns a house now can't afford to spend their disposable income on anything other than the mortgage.

This would be fine if it were only a few people here or there who had stretched themselves. But it is in fact widespread and that is why we are seeing the Reserve Bank struggle to stimulate the economy through lowering interest rates. Ordinarily a lower interest rate environment would stimulate borrowing and discourage leaving money sitting in savings accounts, but everyone who can afford a house has already borrowed and they have stopped spending as a result. If you're running a business that's not a good environment to be borrowing money to expand either. At this point a Rudd-style stimulus would probably just go straight into offset accounts and do nothing but feed the banks. It's a hole that Howard started digging at the turn of the millennium, with each successive government happily taking over shovel duty.

The people who are most likely to stimulate organic growth in the economy again are the demonised "renters" who do not have significant debt - they will spend extra money that comes in. Money sitting in a bank account doing nothing is not good for the economy. This is a fact whether it is country's budget or your life savings. Leaving more cash in the bank than you need in the immediate term makes you poorer in the long run. For non-mortgagees to have extra money to spend in shops and services, they either need a stimulus package (which won't happen under a Morrison gov), or a meaningful pay rise (which won't happen in an unstimulated economic environment). So here we are... stagnating as we have done for the last few years.

I could go on a much longer rant, because there's a number of levers the feds could have pulled in the last ten years that would not have left us in this precarious situation. Instead both Labor and the Coalition have spent their time in Canberra yanking each other off with self-interested leadership spills and have achieved a whole lot of nothing (with the exception of legalising same sex marriage).

Much motivated reasoning there, very little evidence. Iíll take a wild stab in the dark. Youíre a Greens supporter who rents.

chuboy 17th Dec 2019 02:52


Originally Posted by JustinHeywood (Post 10641643)


Much motivated reasoning there, very little evidence. Iíll take a wild stab in the dark. Youíre a Greens supporter who rents.

I'll ignore the pot shot. On the contrary, there's plenty of evidence in dozens of economics textbooks. A first-year economics student would be able to predict what we have seen the Australian economy do in the last few years. Quarter after quarter we have seen reductions or stays on the interest rate, with no improvement to consumer confidence or retail spending. Harris Scarfe is the latest of many big names to go bust in the last year, unable to stay cash positive even through the busiest period of the year for retail sales. If that isn't enough to tell you that people aren't spending the money they have, then I don't know what will. With wage growth at miserly levels, inflation similar, and GDP growth per capita declining, as a country we are technically going backwards except that we are propping things up with immigration. Until that changes I can't see people suddenly deciding to go ahead with that renovation or business expansion.

If you want to avoid recession, you need to stimulate the economy - no different to paying for ads when sales are down even though your cashflow is hurting. Now is the time to be subsidising growth into new industries, stimulus packages for households (which worked during the GFC to protect Australia from recession at a time when the rest of the OECD succumbed), pressing ahead with infrastructure projects, etc. Not tightening the purse strings for the sake of saying you're paying down debt. Not all debt is bad - if people and corporations never went into debt we'd be a very poor country indeed. Even the USA's messiah Donald Trump has doubled down and increased US debt by $9 trillion, their economy is doing quite well despite the impact of his showboating and tariffs - how do the superior economic managers in the Coalition explain that?

chuboy 17th Dec 2019 03:39

What do you know... https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/pol...17-p53kpn.html


The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) may open the new year with an interest rate cut, using the minutes of its December meeting to signal concern that slow wages growth is restricting heavily indebted households from boosting the economy.


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:43.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.