Indigenous Voice to Parliament

[stui magpie]

^

Thanks Nomad, I CBF bothering to write detailed rejections of his statements because I know that will just end up in a debate which can't be won. His ideological bent is such that whatever facts I could throw up would be rejected or warped.

On a side note, I notice that most of the people who had Vote Yes signs in their front yards haven't taken them down. They're still up, as is the 1 No sign I've seen which happens to be up in Toc.

[David]

Hard to disagree with Stan Grant's take here:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/30/australia-was-not-big-enough-to-vote-for-the-voice-says-stan-grant

[pietillidie]

^It might be that he means 'monumental' in the sense that the polity can't cope with even the simplest, smallest policy change, so politically it's a 'monumental task'.

I stand by my view that Australia has virtually solved no problem of consequence or complexity in my lifetime. Doing so is beyond the electorate, which can at best muster up motivation to kick something or someone in a brief flurry of rage.

There's no way, for instance, that Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, his best policy by miles, gets passed in Australia. The best Australia could do is find energy to rail against an Inflation Reduction Act. It would spawn three fringe counter parties in response and cries of an Illuminati takeover. That's the level of suburban dim that envelopes you.

I don't think you guys realise how tiny-minded Australian political ambitions are. Nothing can ever be done except in rage or panic.

[Magpietothemax]

[stui magpie]

^

and I'm sure the cash those volunteers received had nothing to do with it.

[Magpietothemax]

[pietillidie]

Alright, I was too harsh further above. Maybe I still have bad memories of a few things such as climate change denial, and looking back I might have felt generally stifled by Australia's reflexive conservatism.

The advantage is that Australia avoids American-level extremes. The disadvantage is that it reacts too late to science, technology and risk signals.

By personality I'm likely to move fairly quickly on a plan if I'm convinced of the risk assessment or think a shift has merits generally. I'm also happy to trial things if they're stuck at an obvious impasse (so the Voice and Israel-Palestine).

Global warming probably left me most frustrated. I was comfortable with the risk assessment, but felt even if one wasn't compelled by the science, a move away from fossil fuels was reasonable anyway on the basis of energy security, sectoral balance, new industry advantage, pollution reduction, etc.

All those things are clear now, while the melt rate is accelerating at the top end of or even beyond predictions that were once deemed alarmist (once you trigger these processes they unlock faster than anticipated, develop their own feedback loops, etc., and scientists could rightly smell this a mile off). So, the naysayers couldn't have been more wrong if they tried.

Israel-Palestine is similarly frustrating. Decades ago my conclusion was that a neutral security arrangement, such as peacekeepers, was needed to bring credibility and transparency to the situation. And yet, here we are again with another Natenyahu failure. Much like the Voice, Israel-Palestine is one of those cases where you have to take a different tack even if just for the learning.

I already assume Hamas will be scumbags, while I expect average Mo Palestinians to naturally have less choice by virtue of poverty and the historical situation. But Israel has choices, one of them being not to vote for Netanyahu and not to repeat the same process ad infinitum by taking the low ground, breeding a new generation of terrorists, off-siding the planet, and sending the bill to the global economy.

Today I was reminded by a news article of those who claimed Brexit would halt illegal arrivals to the UK, when in fact it increased them. That's because illegal immigration, much like the Israel-Palestine conflict, is a pan-regional problem clearly bigger than any one party or side that requires large-scale buy-in and coordination. (Not to mention the UK already had great leeway of policy in that regard even in the EU, so was likely to flounder now as then if the mindset didn't change).

With all such major challenges, wishing the hard but serious solution away merely delays the inevitable. It's just so frustrating watching things on repeat as the costs and risks grow.

[nomadjack]

[stui magpie]

[slangman]

I love the Black & White world ⚫️⚪️⚫️🏆

[Jezza]

They've stopped counting, so I assume these are the final results:

The turnout nationally was around 90%.

National:
[*] YES = 6,286,894 (39.9%)
[*] NO = 9,452,792 (60.1%)


NSW:
[*] YES = 2,058,764 (41.0%)
[*] NO = 2,957,880 (59.0%)

VIC:
[*] YES = 1,846,623 (45.9%)
[*] NO = 2,180,851 (54.1%)

QLD:
[*] YES = 1,010,416 (31.8%)
[*] NO = 2,167,957 (68.2%)

WA:
[*] YES = 582,077 (36.7%)
[*] NO = 1,002,740 (63.3%)

SA:
[*] YES = 417,745 (35.8%)
[*] NO = 748,318 (64.2%)

TAS:
[*] YES = 152,271 (41.1%)
[*] NO = 218,425 (58.9%)

https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/ReferendumNationalResults-29581.htm

[eddiesmith]

When the campaign started, Victoria and NSW were in the bag as Yes states and they focused their attention on SA and Tassie to get the 4 states as QLD was always a no and the WA state government had ensured WA was a hard no.

Yet in the end they got smashed in NSW and a landslide loss in Victoria whilst not even getting close in SA or Tassie.

[Kingsofclutch]

[Magpietothemax]

[Pies4shaw]

^ Yep. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VK1KcZoDu0