Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Voice

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
I don't know if the government can do much when people insist on living a remote lifestyle away from the modern world that provides a lot more opportunities.

That's the sad part imo, "stolen generations" of aboriginal kids forced by their parents to live in isolation when there are many opportunities in the modern world that they can take advantage of.
Click to expand...
Thinking about this today, the decision itself more than the arguments for or against, I think a relevant point is victimhood.

Rather a lot of people could legitimately say they've been a victim of something at some point in their lives. Divorce, burglary, death in the family, having a serious illness, being involved in an accident, serious things like being assaulted, whatever.

Initially a process of grieving is the expected and normal response along with anger and perhaps genuine dismay and not understanding "why me?".

Ultimately though what separates those who succeed from those who fail is getting up and getting on with it. A point comes where grieving moves from being the expected response to the problem to becoming the problem itself if it's still ongoing. Even if you perceive a major injustice has been done and that the decision made was absolutely wrong, it's in your own interests to find a way forward.

Most of us have either been there ourselves or know someone who has, it's a situation most can relate to.

If we look at the specific disadvantage and problems faced by Aboriginal people as raised by Voice advocates, it's a reality that the solution to most of them is in the mind. It's not a physical problem needing to be overcome, it's not a disability or a lack of some specific physical thing, it's a mindset problem with failing to grab the future with both hands and make it work.

Now where the problem with the Voice arises is that the strongest and most visible advocates for it are those who extensively play the victim card, indeed they actively keep Aboriginal people down by keeping them in that victim mindset rather than turning their focus toward the future.

I think deep down that's part of the reason for the No vote prevailing. An underlying thought that the Voice would perpetuate that victim mindset rather than assisting Aboriginal people to thrive in the modern world. :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
Thinking about this today, the decision itself more than the arguments for or against, I think a relevant point is victimhood.

Rather a lot of people could legitimately say they've been a victim of something at some point in their lives. Divorce, burglary, death in the family, having a serious illness, being involved in an accident, serious things like being assaulted, whatever.

Initially a process of grieving is the expected and normal response along with anger and perhaps genuine dismay and not understanding "why me?".

Ultimately though what separates those who succeed from those who fail is getting up and getting on with it. A point comes where grieving moves from being the expected response to the problem to becoming the problem itself if it's still ongoing. Even if you perceive a major injustice has been done and that the decision made was absolutely wrong, it's in your own interests to find a way forward.

Most of us have either been there ourselves or know someone who has, it's a situation most can relate to.

If we look at the specific disadvantage and problems faced by Aboriginal people as raised by Voice advocates, it's a reality that the solution to most of them is in the mind. It's not a physical problem needing to be overcome, it's not a disability or a lack of some specific physical thing, it's a mindset problem with failing to grab the future with both hands and make it work.

Now where the problem with the Voice arises is that the strongest and most visible advocates for it are those who extensively play the victim card, indeed they actively keep Aboriginal people down by keeping them in that victim mindset rather than turning their focus toward the future.

I think deep down that's part of the reason for the No vote prevailing. An underlying thought that the Voice would perpetuate that victim mindset rather than assisting Aboriginal people to thrive in the modern world. :2twocents
Click to expand...
And the very reason Jacinta Price has risen from the wreckage of the debate.
Rather than perpetuating and encouraging the victim mentality, she has taken it upon herself to promote a positive mindset for aboriginal people.
As I said after hearing her address the press club, she is destined for great things IMO.
She is exactly what is required, if Australia is to overcome the aboriginal disadvantage issue IMO.
 
sptrawler said:
From the result of the vote, he has appeased his voter base in Melbourne / Sydney/ Canberra.
Click to expand...
That's true but it's also reinforced the view of many, that was an issue repeatedly raised before the last election and thus isn't directly linked to the Voice, that Labor is a party focused on minority groups and the elite residents of the big cities.

They're really going to have to bend over backwards to shake that image before the next election in my view. :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
That's true but it's also reinforced the view of many, that was an issue repeatedly raised before the last election and thus isn't directly linked to the Voice, that Labor is a party focused on minority groups and the elite residents of the big cities.

They're really going to have to bend over backwards to shake that image before the next election in my view. :2twocents
Click to expand...
So true, the voice has just reinforced the issue Labor faces, the people they are attracting are historically Liberal voters, rich inner city dwellers and the voters turning against them are the working class.
The only thing that will hold Labor in office IMO, is an extremely poor opposition led by a person with as much charisma as a door stop.
If that changes Labor is toast, which IMO is unfortunate as I feel Australia needs another term of Labor, to sort out the NDIS and the education system.
The other issue Labor faces is the backlash against mass immigration, which hasn't happened yet, the voice has kept that out of the news, so far.
 
sptrawler said:
So true, the voice has just reinforced the issue Labor faces, the people they are attracting are historically Liberal voters, rich inner city dwellers and the voters turning against them are the working class.
The only thing that will hold Labor in office IMO, is an extremely poor opposition led by a person with as much charisma as a door stop.
If that changes Labor is toast
Click to expand...
All started in earnest with Hawke reasoning that the unionised working class vote was a given and that being so, appealing to inner city electorates pretty much guaranteed Labor would be elected.

It worked the first time around and it worked the second time but as the list of mines, factories and of course dams in regional areas not built in order to appease "urban greens" as they were known at the time grew, meanwhile union membership shrank along with manufacturing, and then the recession hit, Labor's traditional support base was rapidly eroding.

At this point that transition is basically complete. Look at the last election results and Labor's a city party, it holds very few seats outside the cities, and finds itself in government despite receiving only 32.58% of the primary vote. That situation occurs despite widespread dissatisfaction with the Coalition at the time.

If they're not careful then they'll blow themselves to pieces politically. :2twocents
 
The main reason for the loss is obvious: it was a flawed proposal, raising grave doubts about constitutional principle and governance practicality. Yet all such warnings were dismissed, almost with contempt.​

Albanese’s test: to unite us in our great divide

It is a time to pause, heal and repair. Many Indigenous Australians will feel rejected and aggrieved by the vote against the voice. Every leader should make clear this was not a vote against reconciliation, against Indigenous peoples or against Closing the Gap.
The nation now moves past the debate about the national voice. There should be no triumphalism from the No side. It is understood there will be acrimony. Recovery will take time and patience. There will be a heavy responsibility on both Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton to rebuild a basis for bipartisanship.

It is surely correct that a majority of people, whether voting Yes or No, want to see the divide being bridged. The idea of a national voice is finished. That is the finality of referendums. In truth, it was always the likelihood from this referendum.

Albanese and Dutton must repudiate any notion this was a vote for the status quo. It wasn’t. That means new efforts and pathways to address Aboriginal disadvantage.

But this must navigate the erupting legacy of Indigenous political dispute between the anti-separatist agenda of Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price leading the No case and the Aboriginal leaders who championed the Yes side.

This referendum was Albanese’s decision and responsibility. It will be seen as a misjudgment of astonishing dimensions, given warnings about the contentious nature of the proposal were issued at the outset.

The main reason for the loss is obvious: it was a flawed proposal, raising grave doubts about constitutional principle and governance practicality. Yet all such warnings were dismissed, almost with contempt.

Given the Yes vote will be around 38 per cent, it is most unlikely the voice would have passed even with formal bipartisanship.

That Albanese declined any constitutional convention suggests he was ready to gamble bipartisanship was not necessary. Yet Labor, to an extent, engaged in the massive delusion that Dutton might support from opposition a proposal the Coalition had repeatedly rejected in office. This was never likely.

The referendum vote doesn’t translate into a party vote. But it constitutes a leadership failure for Albanese and will raise the question post-voice: how effective is Albanese’s leadership on the pressing challenges such as cost-of-living, power prices, the renewables transition, real wages, living standards and national security.

Albanese needs to show the voice is a leadership aberration for him, not the new normal.

For Albanese, that’s the test.

The result is a substantial victory for Dutton. It consolidates his leadership. It shows Dutton’s forte is pitching to the sources of Australian conservatism, regionalism and to suburban apprehensions.

But it suggests the Dutton party remains a forlorn force in the teal-held former Liberal seats. It is a mistake for the Liberals to think the No vote in Labor seats means replication at an election.

The vote means that historic constitutional recognition of the Indigenous peoples – despite being the policy of both major parties – will be many years away. Future agreement over the form of recognition will be an improbable venture.

The size of the voice’s rejection affirms the iron law of referendums – they will only pass when politically uncontentious and gifted with bipartisanship. Labor’s decision to prioritise the voice over the republic means another republican referendum is most unlikely during the next 20 years.

The baby-boom generation is destined not to witness an Australian republic.

The vote revealed the Australian instinct for equality and unity, lessons Labor needs to absorb. It exposed the unhealthy fracture of our society into two camps — the high-income, tertiary-educated progressives who have power, and the majority in the suburbs and regions, preoccupied by daily pressures, suspicious of major changes and wary of progressive patronage.

Albanese accepted responsibility for the referendum. In calling upon all people to respect the result with “grace and humility”, Albanese knows his task is to reunite the country.

It won’t be easy. He will face heavy criticism from Dutton and needs to ensure he doesn’t get sucked into an ongoing squabble about the defeat.

The Prime Minister’s message to Indigenous Australians was to “maintain your hope and know that you are loved”. Albanese said he honoured his promise by putting the referendum. It showed that he “will always be ambitious” for the country. That’s good.

Yet this referendum divided Australia. The result proves it should never have been put in these terms. Dutton’s critique on this precise point is correct. On this issue, Albanese misjudged middle Australia — a warning for Labor.

Senator Price, however, delivered the big message. She invested the referendum result with a profound meaning.

“I think it’s time for a new era in Indigenous policy, in the Indigenous narrative,” she said. “We have to step away from grievance. It’s time to accept that we are all part of the fabric of this nation, that Indigenous Australians are also Australian citizens.”

Price repudiates the norms of Aboriginal leadership in this nation. She believes the voice was not just a mistake but reflected a misguided Indigenous ideology.

“It is a time for a change,” Price said. “It is time to apply more accountability to those who are responsible for the lives of the most marginalised.”

This is destined to become the most contentious legacy of the referendum. Its most influential politician wants a fundamental change to the vision and policies defining Aboriginal advancement.

That will challenge Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, all of us.

PAUL KELLY
EDITOR-AT-LARGE
Click to expand...
 
sptrawler said:
And the very reason Jacinta Price has risen from the wreckage of the debate.
Rather than perpetuating and encouraging the victim mentality, she has taken it upon herself to promote a positive mindset for aboriginal people.
As I said after hearing her address the press club, she is destined for great things IMO.
She is exactly what is required, if Australia is to overcome the aboriginal disadvantage issue IMO.
Click to expand...

Price isn't talking to Aboriginals', if you believe her BS saying wide Aboriginal support for the No vote when in fact in her own electorate it was clearly the complete opposite at most Aboriginal communities polling booths have shown overwhelming support.

Keep cheering her on she will keep telling you what you like to hear it's like being in the 60's, great politician and Price will need to be living in the vipers nest called the Nationals.
 
Lingiari, the electorate covering Alice Springs and remote areas of the Northern Territory, voted 58% against the voice to 42% in for​

The Australian Electoral Commission has responded after the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, questioned the impartiality of the commission’s delivery of remote polling.

Price also suggested people handing out how-to-vote cards “overpower vulnerable Aboriginal communities”, when seeking to counter the fact many Indigenous communities had voted yes to a voice to parliament.

The leading no campaigner Warren Mundine defended Price’s remarks with an extraordinary spray at the media to “wake up to yourselves and start asking real questions and making governments accountable”.

On Saturday evening the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, told reporters in Canberra that “if you look at the Indigenous-dominated booths in places like Lockhart River, Palm Island, Mornington Island, Goodooga … overwhelmingly they voted yes in the referendum”.

Lingiari, the electorate covering Alice Springs and remote areas of the Northern Territory, voted 58% against the voice to 42% in favour but the yes vote won in all but one remote mobile voting team.

Asked before those results had been returned if Indigenous Australians from remote booths that Price represents as a Northern Territory senator would vote yes or no, Price told reporters in Brisbane “it will be interesting to see”.

Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup
“One thing we do know is the way in which Indigenous people in remote communities are exploited for the purpose of somebody else’s agenda,” she said.

“I think we probably need to look at the way the AEC, the [Northern Territory Electoral Commission], conduct themselves when it comes to remote polling at elections, at referendums.

“I think we should take away those who come in with their how-to-votes, unions that come in and overpower vulnerable Aboriginal communities.

“There is a lot that goes on in remote communities that the rest of Australia doesn’t get to see. If we had cameras in those remote communities, at those polling booths, Australia would see what goes on in within those communities. There’s a lot of manipulation.”

www.theguardian.com

AEC responds after Jacinta Nampijinpa Price questions ‘conduct’ in Indigenous communities that voted yes

Price claimed there was ‘manipulation’ in remote communities but electoral commission says ‘ability to campaign at any polling place … was the same for everyone’
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
 
IFocus said:
Price isn't talking to Aboriginals', if you believe her BS saying wide Aboriginal support for the No vote when in fact in her own electorate it was clearly the complete opposite at most Aboriginal communities polling booths have shown overwhelming support.

Keep cheering her on she will keep telling you what you like to hear it's like being in the 60's, great politician and Price will need to be living in the vipers nest called the Nationals.
Click to expand...
Where's the breakdown of individual polling booths? I imagine that most of the remote communities would have been coaxed into voting yes by the govt funded 'yes' team. How many of those people would even know how our political system works, let alone who the prime minister is?

1697420380664.png
 
I find it laughable that people from the Yes side are blaming everyone else but themselves. If they bothered to read a little history, they would have seen that no referendum has won without bipartisan support between the two major parties. The Prime Minister and his advisors thought that the majority of Australian people would vote Yes, without sharing the full outcome of what a Voice would mean. Two heads are better than one, if the PM had had fair and open discussions with the opposition leader there would have been a lot more trust from Australian.

This referendum has been the most divisive issue i have seen in my 36 years of adult life. Every Yes campaigner should be ashamed of themselves for their continuing bad behaviour.

Voice recriminations begin: Nasty stoush erupts between TV star Narelda Jacobs, Warren Mundine and Marcia Langton - as Anthony Albanese's own Indigenous advisors turn on HIM

Voice tensions have boiled over with TV host Narelda Jacobs brutally shutting down No campaigner Warren Mundine after he unleashed on Yes campaigner Marcia Langton.

Fireworks erupted during Indigenous broadcaster NITV's coverage of the Voice referendum results on Saturday night, with a furious Ms Jacobs slamming Mr Mundine for 'twisting' Professor Langton's words - and jumping to her defence as a 'national treasure'.

Some of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's closest advisers on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament turned on him and Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney last night - with one calling his speech after the Voice vote 'insulting'.

Last night's ugly stoush on NITV's The Point show began when Mr Mundine claimed that the Yes camp had failed to show voters how the Voice would fix issues facing Aboriginal Australians.

'They couldn't see anything, no one gave them details about how it was going to fix anything. It was almost like a magic wand,' he said.

That sparked protest from Jacobs, who argued that Ms Langton had 'given the detail everybody needed' in the Calma-Langton report.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Anthony Albanese's Indigenous advisers turn on him and Linda Burney

Just hours after the historic Indigenous Voice to Parliament faced a crushing defeat at the polls, tensions have boiled over live on air between prominent No and Yes campaigners.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A fair explanation of the Yes campaign.

Eight reasons why the Yes case failed

This is not an account of why the No case won the referendum. That will be written, triumphantly, by others. This is the story of why the Yes case was lost. It needs to be told now, while the disaster is fresh, if supporters of Indigenous recognition are to profit from our mistakes. Otherwise, excuses and distortions will cover the truth.

It is quite straightforward to trace the causes for the implosion of the Yes case. Tragically, all were or should have been known to its leaders. But they were denied, derided or discounted.

There were eight fundamental reasons for failure.

1.​

THE FIRST was endemic overconfidence. The leaders for Yes – including Anthony Albanese – were simply convinced victory was inevitable. They would hear no contradiction. They were told repeatedly that history showed referendums were hard, and those on controversial topics – such as Indigenous recognition – were especially difficult. They reacted with contempt. This referendum was special. It would win at a canter. Indeed, it was said, the answer was so obvious there wouldn’t even be a No case.

2.​

THE SECOND problem was an absolute dismissal of bipartisanship, especially by the Prime Minister, but also by other Yes protagonists. At one level, bipartisanship simply was unnecessary when there was only one answer.

But it went further. It was clear that, especially in the case of Albanese, a partisan referendum was the desired scenario. This would give him an unprecedented victory, placing him in the progressive pantheon. His conservative enemies, especially Peter Dutton, would be crushed.

It simply is not true to say Dutton was solely responsible for a partisan referendum.

He was never consulted, as opposed to being told what was happening. The PM’s offers to consider changes to words or content were not real. Dutton was meant to oppose. Eventually, as a matter of politics, he did. But before that, there was an opportunity to at least persuade him towards only modest contradiction, with conscience votes and moderate arguments. This possibility was spurned.

3.​

THE THIRD reality was that the advice being received by the PM was appalling. The vast majority of Indigenous leaders around him confirmed his view that this was a cakewalk. He could not lose.

Further, it was made clear to him that unless they got exactly what they wanted in a referendum package, they would walk. He would be left holding the squalling baby of the voice.

The government had structured its process for formulating the voice proposal in a way that reinforced exactly this tendency. By creating an Indigenous Working Group to vet the details of the amendment, a veto was created. As this group was dominated by Indigenous people at the activist end of the spectrum, this veto was enthusiastically applied.

Many of these activists were young, inexperienced, radical and employed in organisations that only reinforced their own views. If current Indigenous leaders do step aside for this doctrinaire younger generation – as suggested by Noel Pearson – both recognition and reconciliation will collapse as popular causes.

The non-Indigenous advisers were just as problematic. They were equally convinced the poll was a foregone conclusion and ridiculed anyone who dared disagree with the process or drafting as troglodyte conservative stooges. Any voice of dissent was constitutionally cancelled.

Both groups were deluded. They said, for example, the No machine was so old and hopeless it simply wouldn’t be able to mount a social media campaign. They dismissed media critics by saying no one read them, listened to or watched them.

There were honourable exceptions to all this self-congratulation. Pearson, Sean Gordon of Uphold and Recognise, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and Albanese’s chief of staff, Tim Gartrell, were hopeful but always realistic.

4.​

THE FOURTH disaster was the failure to disclose the architecture for the voice. This was a direct result of the campaign’s massive overconfidence. Given the Yes case was so obvious, people would vote for it without detail. Even as it became abundantly clear this was not happening, the mantra droned on.

5.​

THE FIFTH failure was the drafting. The amendment was formulated in secret. There was no input from constitutional conservatives, whose support for the draft during the referendum would be crucial. There was an absolute refusal to consider meaningful amendments. The inevitable result was an exhausting debate around drafting.

6.​

THE SIXTH disaster was a truly appalling Yes campaign. This was mind-boggling, as the Yes case had at least $20m to spend. They promised a media blitz, a stunning social media campaign and thousands of appealing on-the-ground campaigners.

It was like one of those predicted Russian tank columns that never arrived at Kyiv. The media advertising was more talked about than actually aired. When it was aired, it was calculated to appeal to those already voting yes.

As the campaign wore on, it was obvious the No camp was dominating social media. As for the foot campaign, the polls still steadily worsened, polling booths were well manned by No supporters, and the Yes effort was most obvious in places such as Newtown that were already voting for the voice.

But the entire strategy was flawed. First, it was run like an election campaign, so there would be a Mediscare-type blitz in the last month. But by then, most people had already made up their mind. Bad as it was, the campaign was made even worse by unqualified Yes bosses meddling in the work of campaign professionals. Second, it never recognised the referendum would be won or lost in western Sydney and regional Queensland. The campaign reverberated in Mosman and Camberwell, but in places dominated by “ordinary” Australians with mortgages and without doctorates, it flopped. As predicted by outlawed Yes dissenters, negative voting patterns exactly followed the republic referendum.

7.​

THE SEVENTH enemy of Yes was condescension. Whatever the Yes campaign said, it seemed to believe any ordinary Australian who was not convinced was a cretin. The electorate hated it.

The Yes side complained constantly of “misinformation”. There were untruths on each side, but the proponents of the referendum eventually were condemning every argument against the voice not merely as wrong but as deliberate duplicity. This again suggested to the electorate that they were too stupid to sift fact from fiction.

8.​

THE EIGHTH and final failure was the ineffectiveness of the political artillery on the Yes side. The Prime Minister was pinned down by his own platitudes, unable to advance beyond a “modest measure” and a “gracious request”. For whatever reason, Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney was never more than a faltering presence. Against the thundering of Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, there was no contest.

All of this is a sad retrospective. The real question now for supporters of recognition is where to from here? Any possibility of actual formal constitutional amendment is now in the remotest, unpredictable future. Realistically, there needs to be deep thought as to what real, meaningful recognition would look like in the absence of changing the Constitution. This will require imaginative co-operation between supporters – not mutual heckling.

But the post-mortem needs to begin now. If delayed, reality will be obfuscated by excuses, slick explanations and deflections. This process has already begun. The call by the Yes campaign for a week’s silence is disingenuous. It is an attempt to isolate future discussion from the reality of self-inflicted defeat.

The implausible lines of defence are being drawn. It was all Dutton’s fault. Australians were tricked by misinformation and lies. Anyway, it was an uplifting experience that brought Indigenous Australian to the fore. In reality, we of the Yes lost a referendum that has broken Indigenous hearts. We can at least do them the courtesy of admitting it.

Greg Craven is a constitutional lawyer and former vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University.
Click to expand...
 
Will Marcia Langton go ahead with her vow to abstain from conducting Welcome to Country ceremonies? I hope so, especially as she gave her word.

The embers from the recent referendum on the Voice are yet to cool, but the fallout is already stirring heated discussions. One of the key figures in the debate, Marcia Langton, a Voice architect, has sparked controversy with her vow to abstain from conducting Welcome to Country ceremonies if the referendum didn’t swing in favor of the Voice.

Langton’s Bold Stand​

Marcia Langton’s stand is not just a personal decision, but a statement that echoes with profound implications. Her declaration, made back in April, hinted at a deep shame non-Indigenous Australians might feel in asking traditional owners to perform the ceremony. The intricacies of this stance stem from the long-standing struggle for recognition and respect towards Indigenous Australians.

The Voice and Its Repercussions​

Langton’s stance was met with mixed reactions, with some No voters celebrating the potential end of Welcome to Country ceremonies, viewing them as divisive. The key point of contention being the perception that these ceremonies have become mere virtue signaling for non-Indigenous people. The rejection of the Voice in the referendum has amplified these sentiments, possibly marking a shift in attitudes towards these traditional ceremonies.

The Impact on Indigenous Representation​

But not everyone is cheering. Supporters argue that ceasing these rituals would have negative repercussions, making it harder for Langton and others to be invited to speak at conferences. These ceremonies are not just traditional rituals, they are platforms for Indigenous voices and perspectives, offering an avenue for them to be integrated into mainstream dialogues.


A Deeper Divide or a Step Forward?​

While the debate surrounding Welcome to Country ceremonies was not a central theme in the referendum campaign, it was certainly a subtext in the larger narrative. Critics argue that the constant use of Welcome to Country ceremonies can indeed be divisive. However, others view this as a necessary discomfort, a small price to pay in the long journey towards reconciliation. As Australians grapple with these complex issues, the debate rages on. Will the cessation of these ceremonies lead to a deeper divide, or could it paradoxically pave the way for genuine integration and understanding? Only time will tell.

Click to expand...
 
JohnDe said:
I find it laughable that people from the Yes side are blaming everyone else but themselves. If they bothered to read a little history, they would have seen that no referendum has won without bipartisan support from the two major parties. The Prime Minister and his advisors thought that the majority of Australian people would vote Yes, without sharing the full outcome of what a Voice would mean. Two heads are better than one, if the PM had had fair and open discussions with the opposition leader there would have been a lot more trust from Australian.

This referendum has been the most divisive issue i have seen in my 36 years of adult life. Every Yes campaigner should be ashamed of themselves for their continuing bad behaviour.
Click to expand...
Most of the complaining Yes side are the hard lefties from what I've seen on other sites but not sure how they can believe their own lies. Behind the excuses, most of them hide their labor vs liberal theme while they ignore the main facts of the actual referendum. I believe the big turning point for the yes vote was the Uluru statement was more than just one page and the indiginous elite calling the rest of Australia racists.
 
IFocus said:

Kimberleys had the same result​

​

NT records No vote on Voice to Parliament, despite remote communities favouring Yes​


www.abc.net.au

The NT voted No to the Voice, but results show remote communities backed Yes

Results so far show that voters in the territory's Indigenous remote communities voted heavily in favour of yes. So what happens now?
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...

NT might have been lopsided because of the size of the military based there. It's about 10% of the pop and they all would have voted No.

Not sure why you're so concerned about these numbers, the national vote killed it in the first place and in a democracy sausage that's all the No side needed.

It's good to see the No side being respectful, mostly. This was nothing to celebrate. It was entirely ill conceived and had no mandate. Albo had a chance to cancel it and save $400m, but went bloody mindedly forward anyway. A bit like General Hague and his tactics during WW1. Dumb.

Shouldn't you be taking a week off to morne?
 

Similar threads

R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Top