This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Poll: Should all political threads be merged into one?

Should all political threads be merged into one super thread?

  • Yes: Merge all current and future political threads into one super thread.

    Votes: 20 47.6%

  • No: I like it the way it is, no change.

    Votes: 22 52.4%
  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
Jump to new
prawn_86 said:
One of the best paragraphs i have read on ASF
Click to expand...

It's one of the silliest I have thread. Do you have an opinion on this thread? You must have been selected as a moderator for your ability to moderate, apart from your good looks. I would have thought that moderation would have reduced the 58 Rudd posts to one or two. I think a bit of slashing and burning is in order to resolve this issue.

PS There are 17 threads on Barack Obama. I would have thought the original one started by Doris on 11th-December-2007 would suffice.
 

I agree, Joe. Politics is too complex (especially at this point in time) to be put into one thread and yet I think there are too many threads at present so the poll in this thread needs to have a third option of cutting down the number of threads. I would have voted for less threads instead of inaccurately voting to leave it alone.

And, in addition to simply dividing the threads up into political parties, where does things like mining tax, carbon tax and boat arrivals go? When the coalition get voted in and they change policy on these issues - it would break the continuity of discussion some of these major policies if they are started under the labor thread and then some of the discussion goes into the coalition thread.
 

Yes i have an opinion. I have stated that i think all political threads, past and present should be merged under 4 or 5 over-arching threads, we are a stock forum, not a political forum. I agree that all the Obama ones probably should be merged also. Bear in mind i am just a mod (and a good looking one at that as you say), ultimately most of these decisions come from Joe himself.

I dont moderate politcal threads as i very rarely see the point discussing politics, hence i do not read those threads, and as they fall under general chat, a lot of the ASF rules (ramping, price targets, analysis etc) dont apply so there is no need for me to read them.
 

Those big national issues need to go under "Australian Politics"

It is the slanging on internal political party and individual issues attached thereto that would be under party banners.

It would be good to see this issue aired for awhile (few more days at least) to give other members a crack at the voting and for comment.

 

1. IMO (not Joes) tax is seperate. IE it can have an economic impact, so mining and carbon tax threads would be fine. Boat people would probably fall under the current government

2. Perhaps after each election new threads could be started. I think someone else has mentioned it already. If it were up to me, after reading this feedback i would have:
Gillard/Labor Government
Abbot/Liberal Opposition
Greens
Other politcial chat

Or something of that ilk.

Then after an election the thread titles could either be changed or a new government/opposition thread started.
 

The results of this poll show how divisive this issue is. There clearly needs to be some kind of permanent consolidation of the political threads on ASF. The question is how do those who participate in political threads want this to be organised? What is the most satisfactory arrangement?

Is it just a matter of merging every single previous thread on the same topic (e.g. Rudd, Gillard, Abbott etc.) together or should previous threads be left intact and a new system be introduced from this point forward?

I would appreciate it if those who participate regularly in political threads express a preference so we can establish some kind of consensus, and a decision can be made on that basis.
 

I think that political issues that are unrelated to specific political parties should have their own thread but they need to major issues. The mining tax, carbon tax, Gonski Report and immigration issues don't relate to one specific political party but are big issues that deserve their own dedicated discussions.

The problem in the past has been the starting of dozens of Gillard, Rudd and Abbott threads. These need to be consolidated and my initial feeling was that broad discussion threads on specific political parties would solve the problem. Apparently not.
 
Joe Blow said:
The problem in the past has been the starting of dozens of Gillard, Rudd and Abbott threads. These need to be consolidated and my initial feeling was that broad discussion threads on specific political parties would solve the problem. Apparently not.
Click to expand...

If we stop to think about the attacks on Abbott, (I am big offender) Gillard or Rudd for example, they are more to do with attacking the party itself via the individual. Gillard not keeping her promise would be a national issue if the attack could change anything, but it cannot, so should be under the Labour or ALP thread.
 

Joe, the solution is simple. Simply apply Rule 1.

Posting Guidelines

1. Before starting a new thread on a particular stock or topic, please use the search feature to see if there is an active thread on the same stock or topic. This will help prevent unneccesary duplicate threads and will make Aussie Stock Forums a more effective resource. Duplicate threads will be merged or deleted by moderators.(my Bolds)
 
prawn_86 said:
I dont moderate politcal threads as i very rarely see the point discussing politics.
Click to expand...

The stock market and the political environment are intrinsically linked through regulation and taxation. For instance, buy CBA when you have the ALP in power. If you do not have a knowledge of political trends then you are a poorer investor for it.

I must say that I use ASF for general discussion these days and talk stocks elsewhere. Liquidity is an issue i.e. not enough posters. Also the discussion tends to be dominated by one or two traders talking about trading systems; my interest is in 'bottom up' research. Hence I would call the ASF a trading forum first with some lively political banter. I enjoy the political chat as it always gets a wide range of views. I assume there are political forums out there but have never checked.

Personally, it is very difficult to capture the nuances of the political process in a single thread. Also, if the intention is to return to being a stock forum then potentially consider closing down the General thread? But under that scenario you need to ensure the stock discussion has wider pulling power.
 
Bushman said:
The stock market and the political environment are intrinsically linked through regulation and taxation.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but this is very rarely the type of political discussion you see here on ASF. It is more along the lines of why the party/person is good/bad/getting fired/should be shot etc etc as opposed to what actual impact any policy or tax will have on individual stocks or the ASX in general.

Political threads generally just turn into slanging matchs with no hard data presented.

I would be interested to see how the market has reacted with certain parties in power, however personally without seeing data i would assume that it is much more correlated with macro effect. The current rally is not due to anything of the Gillard government, just as the previous boom was more to do with commodities rather than a Liberal government. (all imo)
 
Bushman said:
Also, if the intention is to return to being a stock forum then potentially consider closing down the General thread? But under that scenario you need to ensure the stock discussion has wider pulling power.
Click to expand...
(My Bolds)

On second thoughts, maybe this is the best solution, to purify the ASF.
 
Calliope said:
(My Bolds)

On second thoughts, maybe this is the best solution, to purify the ASF.
Click to expand...

well it would remove the socialist cohort, after all they have no money as they donate every extra dollar as tax revenue... or are they hypocrites?
 

I admit I've probably been too forgiving in the past with political threads. When a new thread was started on a topic that had been discussed before I usually didn't pay much attention as long as it took a new slant or presented a different perspective. In retrospect that was probably an error of judgment, as was allowing the provocative and inflammatory thread titles.

Perhaps the best idea is to just merge all the Julia Gillard threads, rename the end result, "Julia Gillard" and go from there? If we do the same to all the Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott and Barack Obama threads we'll probably turn close to 100 threads into around half a dozen.
 

Fair enough. I agree that political discussion tends to be along partisan lines. As another poster said, you should never talk about politics or religion in polite company as it tends to inflame the passions.

Regarding the link between politics and share prices, it does change sector by sector. For instance, healthcare has a high regulatory risk as does infrastructure, defense etc. Another rule of thumb is that I would be a natural short on sectors with high levels of unionisation when the ALP is in power i.e. transport, stevedoring and construction.

However, as with any fundamental research process, regulatory or sovereign risk is just one critera amongst many. If iron ore prices are due to tank then I would not necessarily buy BHP because Tony Abbott has won the election.

Interesting area. We probably need a thread on it
 

Joe, that sounds like a good starting point and see how it goes from there?
 
explod said:
It would be good to see this issue aired for awhile (few more days at least) to give other members a crack at the voting and for comment.
Click to expand...
Agree.

Sounds reasonable. So you'd have separate thread for:
Federal Labor
Federal Coalition
Federal Greens
State Labor
State Coalition/LNP
State Greens
Independents and minor parties
Julia Gillard
Tony Abbott
Kevin Rudd

Is that what you have in mind, Joe?
I'd like to see the same standard of moderation applied to general threads as is applied to other threads.
eg there was a post yesterday describing the Coalition as 'a piling of steaming turds'. This adds nothing to anything and imo should be moderated out. Ditto comments that are obviously just designed to be inflammatory and/or insulting to those with a differing political view.
Agree with Calliope's suggestion that a search be done before starting a new thread in order to avoid doubling up.

I don't know why:
1. It shouldn't be possible to discuss politics without being insulting or rude.
2. It's so difficult for those uninterested in politics to just ignore those threads without feeling obliged to denigrate anyone who does have an interest.
 
Calliope said:
PS There are 17 threads on Barack Obama. I would have thought the original one started by Doris on 11th-December-2007 would suffice.
Click to expand...

Agree, we could up our efficiency a great deal with just this merging approach.

Us Indians are generally honest but do need supervision

 
In 2010 soon after Ms Gillard assumed power, I started a thread "The Gillard Government". I fail to see how every post after this time, on Gillard, or the Labor Government or members of the Government could not have been accommodated under that title. It has had 5891 posts.

I think a similar thread titled "The Abbot Coalition" would serve the same purpose. Ancillary threads for important political topics such as "2013 Election", "Boat People", "Climate Change", "Greens", "State Governments" etc. would still be needed. It would be important that each title should have a Key Word so the thread can be easily found in "Advance Search", to prevent duplication.

As Julia has suggested, threads with pejorative titles should be banned.

My
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How does Labor salvage the furniture?
Replies
14
Views
4K
Surly
S
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...