NSW Election 2023

[SirRumpole]

There is nothing whatever wrong with admitting your beliefs as a Pollie...

Only for the pollie , because admitting your beliefs might make one unelectable. So they keep their beliefs hidden until they need to use them, ie when they vote on legislation.

 

[mullokintyre]

Only for the pollie , because admitting your beliefs might make one unelectable. So they keep their beliefs hidden until they need to use them, ie when they vote on legislation.

Sorry Sir Rumpole, but I think your bias is coming through.
If People, including Pollies, do not act on their belief systems when performing their duties (e.g. voting on legislation), what the heck do you want them to base their intentions on? Populism? Party Politics and Policies? Th Pub test? A quick ring around your best mates?
I admire people of conviction, without having to agree with them.
I don't have much time for people who lack the conviction of their belief systems and go with the flow.
Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

If People, including Pollies, do not act on their belief systems when performing their duties (e.g. voting on legislation), what the heck do you want them to base their intentions on?

Facts and evidence would be a good start.

Is the Bible factual ? I doubt it. Too much contradiction with evidence. So you want people to vote according to myths ?

Sorry, but there are so many holes in religion that it's no foundation for most forms of decision making.

 

[mullokintyre]

Facts and evidence would be a good start.

Is the Bible factual ? I doubt it. Too much contradiction with evidence. So you want people to vote according to myths ?

Sorry, but there are so many holes in religion that it's no foundation for most forms of decision making.

Religion may be full of contradictions and lacking in evidence, but what they have done is provide a framework for people to create a continual improvement of societies.
Humanists will argue that we could arrive at many of the conclusions that are needed for a society, but religions provided the belief systems for these societies to accept the tenets such as do not steal, do not kill, be kind to your neighbours , do not bear false witness against your neighbour etc etc.
They have no logic, no proof, no evidence, but how many of us agree that these are pretty good tenets on which to base society?
Unfortunately, religions added a few that we did not need - such as There is but one God, Allah, or You shall have no other Gods before me, take no idols, not take the name of god in vain, keep the sabbath holy, a woman shall be subservient to her husband etc etc.
it would seem that religion is being phased out in many societies which probably will be a good thing. It is no coincidence that some of the countries with the least standard of living still cling to mass religious beliefs.
It is far better to discuss points of division with people than to just label them with such perjorative terms as dumb, or ignorant, RWNJ's or god botherers.
Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

It is far better to discuss points of division with people than to just label them with such perjorative terms as dumb, or ignorant, RWNJ's or god botherers.

I would never do that. I know religious people who are decent and kind and all the rest, but if they are politicians then their decisions are up for scrutiny like anyone else.

One example is right to die legislation, opposed by many religious people on the grounds that it should be "God's" decision on when people die, no matter how much pain they are in.

Is that a valid basis for making a decision on other people's lives or deaths ? Are they being kind or cruel ?

There are quite a few moral conundrums there.

 

[mullokintyre]

I would never do that. I know religious people who are decent and kind and all the rest, but if they are politicians then their decisions are up for scrutiny like anyone else.

One example is right to die legislation, opposed by many religious people on the grounds that it should be "God's" decision on when people die, no matter how much pain they are in.

You may be misinterpreting their belief systems.
One of the tenets of most religions is that you cannot kill someone else.
Its is the argument that right to lifers put forward for banning abortion, and is always up against another tenet, namely women have the choice over their own bodies.
It is also the argument that I personally put forward to opposing any sort of capital punishment by the state or anyone else.
Nonetheless, there are always grey areas, such as the right to defend oneself, or in times of war, or when protecting others (the police who shoot a deranged person with multiple weapons for instance).
if someone who is not a supporter of religion based a decision on right to die legislation based on the do not kill belief, are there decisions any less valid than someone who does?

Is that a valid basis for making a decision on other people's lives or deaths ? Are they being kind or cruel ?

The right to die legislation is another one of those furphies. Anyone can choose to die, you do not need legislation to do so.
Some people drive their cars into trees, others shoot themselves, some take drug overdose, and others just shut their organs down.
No legislation or do gooder intervention required.

There are quite a few moral conundrums there.

Well thats most definitely true!
Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

The right to die legislation is another one of those furphies. Anyone can choose to die, you do not need legislation to do so.
Some people drive their cars into trees, others shoot themselves, some take drug overdose, and others just shut their organs down.
No legislation or do gooder intervention required.

For some that is true. Others who are in care facilities don't have the means available but still want to go.

The legislation is for them.

 

[sptrawler]

Religion may be full of contradictions and lacking in evidence, but what they have done is provide a framework for people to create a continual improvement of societies.
Humanists will argue that we could arrive at many of the conclusions that are needed for a society, but religions provided the belief systems for these societies to accept the tenets such as do not steal, do not kill, be kind to your neighbours , do not bear false witness against your neighbour etc etc.
They have no logic, no proof, no evidence, but how many of us agree that these are pretty good tenets on which to base society?
Unfortunately, religions added a few that we did not need - such as There is but one God, Allah, or You shall have no other Gods before me, take no idols, not take the name of god in vain, keep the sabbath holy, a woman shall be subservient to her husband etc etc.
it would seem that religion is being phased out in many societies which probably will be a good thing. It is no coincidence that some of the countries with the least standard of living still cling to mass religious beliefs.
It is far better to discuss points of division with people than to just label them with such perjorative terms as dumb, or ignorant, RWNJ's or god botherers.
Mick

I'm not religious but what you have stated above nails it, at the moment there appears to be a concerted effort to undermine the very social structures that has taken us to where we find ourselves today.

Whether the vacuum that is left is filled by a better and more humane and benevolent structure remains to be seen, but for all the criticism I'm yet to find a place I would rather live, work or be unemployed etc, yet all we hear is how $hit it all is.

I personally think people are in for a big shock, I just hope I'm not here to see it.

 

[wayneL]

I maybe one of those who Mick regards as lacking intellectual rigour and logic etcetera; I'm not an atheist even agnostic (a discussion for another time perhaps), however I do have my issues with organised religion and in open and acrimonious conflict with the church I was raised in. The only reason I go anywhere near any of those places is for the traditional choral music. I see the Bible strictly as a philosophical document that I can pick and choose the positive bit's from. I also draw from both Buddhism and the Tao Te Ching as useful philosophical documents. That's my thing and other people can believe whatever the hell they like.

As for politics, we do purportedly hold the value of the separation of church and state, which I believe is enshrined in most western constitutions. Curiously though, the State enforces he Good Friday and Christmas Day holidays and various trading hours etc, which I find to be extremely contradicting and irritating. Why should people of other religions (or no religion) have such holidays enforced upon them?

If people want to observe good Friday, or Ramadan or whatever, fine, then do that and let the rest of us get on with our own business as our own conscience guides us.

As for trying to phase out religion altogether, I am totally 100% against this. Humans have a religious impulse and the subjugation of any religion or have it replaced by some other religion like belief system which may then be enforced by the state... Marxism and postmodernism for example.

Like it or not, our western culture is based upon and guided by a Christo-Judaic value system, which I believe has led to a very workable culture. Perhaps the best in the history of our species (though not suggesting for a moment it is not without room for improvement).

I'm happy to have conservative Christians in our parliament just is I'm happy for representatives of other value systems. Let them have productive debates and (while remembering the principle of the separation of church and state) vote on the issues of the day, letting their own values and *those of their constituents* guide them to hopefully come to the best outcome for all.

Call me a pollyanna if you like but that's how I think things should work.

 

[SirRumpole]

I'm happy to have conservative Christians in our parliament just is I'm happy for representatives of other value systems. Let them have productive debates and (while remembering the principle of the separation of church and state) vote on the issues of the day, letting their own values and *those of their constituents* guide them to hopefully come to the best outcome for all.

Call me a pollyanna if you like but that's how I think things should work.

There is a big difference between should and does.

ScoMo ran a branch of Hillsong from the Lodge and embarrassed the country by trying to get a dodgy Hillsong mate invited to the White House.

That is not a recipe for good Government.

 

[sptrawler]

There is a big difference between should and does.

ScoMo ran a branch of Hillsong from the Lodge and embarrassed the country by trying to get a dodgy Hillsong mate invited to the White House.

That is not a recipe for good Government.

Absolutely and yet he was instrumental in one of the biggest social welfare programmes we've ever seen. Nothing and no one is perfect and most pollies are given the heave ho when their time is up, be that part term or full term one of the benefits of our system of government.

As I said at the time he wasn't the sort of person that I would have as a mate, or even have a drink with and I did say that most of the 'christians' i've met are the most unchristian people I know. But I think through covid he and Frydenberg did an amazing job through an unbelievably difficult period. Morrison for his belligerent manner and self belief, it wasn't a time for being hesitant and indecisive and Frydenberg for his astute financial background to be able to get his head around the fiscal side, it wouldn't have been easy.
But those are only my opinions, trying to be objective.

Time will tell how we come through this next period, I think it is just as difficult and will take a completely different skill set, which I don't think Morrison had but Albo does. This period is all about not collapsing the economy around an energy crisis, as we transition to renewables, it will take a lot of statesmanship, coercion and trust. Morrison wouldn't have had any chance.

So IMO its a bit like the WW2 era, Churchill was the man for the time, but was given the heave ho after the war.
It is also like the Hawke era, there was no other politician that could have navigated the path through the business/union maze, the way Hawke did, yet IMO he wasn't that pleasant a person and I did meet him in person.

You have to have the right person for the particular issues at hand IMO and neither party has a monopoly on the right people.

 

[mullokintyre]

It looks like the NSW libs have bowed to pressure and dumped Poulos.
From The Australian

NSW upper-house Liberal MP Peter Poulos has been suspended from the party and disendorsed ahead of the March 25 state election.

This comes after Mr Poulos yesterday stepped down from his role as parliamentary secretary after revelations he shared an explicit photo of a female preselection rival five years ago.

“This afternoon, the state director, in consultation with the state president, exercised campaign powers to suspend Peter Poulos from the NSW division for a period of six months,” a NSW Liberal Party spokesman said.

“The effect of the suspension is that Mr Poulos is disendorsed as a Liberal candidate for the Legislative Council at the coming election.

“While Mr Poulos has apologised for his actions to the person concerned and to the community, his conduct fell short of the standard of behaviour expected of members of our party.

“The party will promptly fill the vacancy on the ticket in line with the requirements of our constitution.”

As usual, one has to ask, what is different today as compared to last week when this story broke?
Have they found some new evidence, or just sniffed the wind and found it unpalatable.
Dragged kicking and screaming.
Mick

 

[Knobby22]

It looks like the NSW libs have bowed to pressure and dumped Poulos.
From The Australian

As usual, one has to ask, what is different today as compared to last week when this story broke?
Have they found some new evidence, or just sniffed the wind and found it unpalatable.
Dragged kicking and screaming.
Mick

It's a step. It's called removing the sht from the wall of the share house.

In Victoria, Pesutto is finally in charge and cleaning up the Libs here. Two of two biggest losses in history has finally woken the party up. Hopefully he gets to finish the job.

Mathew Guy again caught having lunch with crime figures. See, the public judged him correctly.

 

[Smurf1976]

I think you are mixing up the believers and the institutions.

On the question of religion I perhaps haven't stated it very well, and I'll take the blame for that 100%, but my original thought is simply this.

1. Religion and all things associated with it.

2. Nude photos, topless models, strippers etc and all things associated with them.

Which of those poses the greater danger? Which is the greater red flag?

In my view definitely religion.

I'm not seeking to ban them from politics and so on but I do see incredible hypocrisy in religion's apparent problems with nudity. That's the pot calling the kettle black and then some.

Related to that, well I really dislike the notion that we fill parliament with those of "respectable" backgrounds which is taken to mean tertiary educated white collar occupations, they're married with two children, they do "respectable" things like go for walks in the park and attending church.

We'd gain greatly by electing a much broader cross section of society in my view.

A background being photographed nude definitely shouldn't be seen as a barrier to a political career. It simply shouldn't be relevant in any way beyond suggesting somewhat broader life experience than many current politicians seem to have.

 

[sptrawler]

@Smurf1976 how many times have you been photographed nude and how many times have you been in a church?
Not saying any of it matters, but it does question what is reflective of the norm. Lol
I as you see nothing wrong with either, but being religious is definitely on the outer ATM.
Well that is if you are christian, every other religion seems to be out of bounds, in the name of political correctness and discrimination.

 

[Smurf1976]

@Smurf1976 how many times have you been photographed nude and how many times have you been in a church?

I'll argue that a more direct comparison would be how many times I've looked at nude photos, watched someone strip etc versus how many times I've attended an actual religious service.

How many Australians have in the past 12 months viewed "adult" images online or seen a live strip show?

How many Australians in the past 12 months have attended a religious service?

In both cases excluding any use of the facilities for other purposes. Eg a public meeting that simply hired the church as a venue and has nothing to do with religion as the subject doesn't sensibly count as a religious service. It's just a commercial arrangement using the building.

About 18% of Australians frequently attend church services whilst 53.4% hold religious beliefs as such. The latter is in a clear downtrend whilst the former is relatively stable. https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/the-shrinking-proportion-of-religious-australians

So being religious as such is a coin toss. Being actively religious is a definite minority.

In contrast, what religion likes to call "sin" is somewhat more popular:

Most men (84pc) and about half of women (54pc) reported that they had ever looked at pornographic material, with three-quarters of these men (76pc) and one third of these women (41pc) having viewed pornography in the past year.

https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opin...0n-but-few-report-ill-effects--new-resea.html

Australians aren't particularly conservative with this sort of thing so it really ought not be brought up in politics in my view. May as well accuse someone of driving a car or wearing jeans.

 

[sptrawler]

That is a better analogy than the posing nude one IMO. Lol
I dont agree with any of the virtue signalling, the only time any of this becomes an issue, is when the person has media circulation potential.
How many people have a squeeky clean history, my guess not many, but I bet it stops a lot of highly qualified and suitable people from even considering politics.
That may well lead to a better standard of politician, or it may not, we will never know, we still seem to have corruption and need ICAC bodies.

 

[mullokintyre]

The NSW Libs have once again shot themselves in the foot.
The candidate for Wyong has been dissendorsed because of homophobic and islamaphobic comments he made online.
From ABC News

There are calls for better vetting processes in the New South Wales Liberal Party after a candidate was disendorsed over homophobic and Islamophobic comments he made online.

Key points:​

• Matthew Squires will remain on the ballot in the upcoming March 25 election
• Dominic Perrottet says the party made the right decision
• Wyong MP David Harris says he is "disappointed" that the contest will not be competitive

The party said the media made it aware of the comments by Wyong candidate Matthew Squires before an internal investigation was conducted and he was disendorsed.

Mr Squires was selected as the candidate for the upcoming election two days before nominations closed.

He was in the top spot on the local ballot.

According to the NSW Electoral Commission, his name will remain on the ballot papers when voters head to the polls.

Premier Dominic Perrottet said the right call had been made.

"I just want to back in the Liberal Party's decision," he said.

"There is no place for those views in our party and he's been disendorsed, as he should have been, and I completely back that decision."

Given how close the election is, one can only assume that the vetting process took so long, they did not see the tweets or FB posts or whatever they were.
perhaps they need to start the vetting process for the election after this one.
Mick

 

[wayneL]

The NSW Libs have once again shot themselves in the foot.
The candidate for Wyong has been dissendorsed because of homophobic and islamaphobic comments he made online.
From ABC News

Given how close the election is, one can only assume that the vetting process took so long, they did not see the tweets or FB posts or whatever they were.
perhaps they need to start the vetting process for the election after this one.
Mick

What did he actually say? I cannot find any quotes.

 

[macca]

What did he actually say? I cannot find any quotes.

Apparently he will still be included on the ballot paper as it is too late to change.

He is Number 1 so will get a few donkey votes

Labor has always won the seat so no expectations