Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Voice

Jump to new
JohnDe said:
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.​
Click to expand...
From the article linked:
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.
Click to expand...

Where the media's going wrong is failing to grasp that the response from most to that comment would be "who cares?"

Those with wealth and living in the inner city might but the rest will say yeah, republic whatever, now let's talk about housing, food prices, utility bills, the cost of petrol, healthcare, education and so on.

It's not Black versus White, it's not rich versus poor, it's not young versus old and it's not blue collar versus white collar which are the ways the media likes to portray the divide. In truth it's the ACT plus the inner suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne versus everyone else and in particular those involved with the political, activist, media and academic establishment which seems hell bent on focusing on anything other than the actual priorities for the rest of the population. :2twocents
 
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...
Unfortunately IFocus, you tend to personifi why Labor and the union movement are in decline, you perpetuate the idea it is your way or the highway, that your beliefs and answers to all questions are the correct ones and everyone else is an idiot.

Those days are gone, you need to get over it and so does Labor, telling people what to do is a bygone era, today's youth ask why, they don't just blindly do as they are told. You have to stop hating people who disagree with you, it isn't healthy.

Albos got two ears and one mouth, he needs to use them accordingly, or he is toast IMO.
 
Last edited:
sptrawler said:
Unfortunately IFocus, you tend to personifi why Labor and the union movement are in decline, you perpetuate the idea it is your way or the highway, that your beliefs and answers to all questions are the correct ones and everyone else is an idiot.

Those days are gone, you need to get over it and so does Labor, telling people what to do is a bygone era, today's youth ask why, they don't just blindly do as they are told. You have to stop hating people who disagree with you, it isn't healthy.

Albos got two ears and one mouth, he needs to use them accordingly, or he is toast IMO.
Click to expand...

Not at all just stating the bleeding obvious watch Prices speech to the IPA its cringe worthy which is fine she is a politician in a tough position of survival but see it for what it is.

As for decline note the Teal seats all pretty much voted yes how will that help Dutton?
 
Smurf1976 said:
From the article linked:


Where the media's going wrong is failing to grasp that the response from most to that comment would be "who cares?"

Those with wealth and living in the inner city might but the rest will say yeah, republic whatever, now let's talk about housing, food prices, utility bills, the cost of petrol, healthcare, education and so on.

It's not Black versus White, it's not rich versus poor, it's not young versus old and it's not blue collar versus white collar which are the ways the media likes to portray the divide. In truth it's the ACT plus the inner suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne versus everyone else and in particular those involved with the political, activist, media and academic establishment which seems hell bent on focusing on anything other than the actual priorities for the rest of the population. :2twocents
Click to expand...

As I have said earlier surely much higher suicide rates, higher incarceration rates, much lower average life span etc is a priority over fuel and food prices etc?
 
Sean K said:
The Australian has been pretty balanced. Given equal time to both sides. Kenny the most prominent but everyone’s had a say.

The majority of yes voters probably haven’t met an Aboriginal. I lived in Darwin for 3 years and led an Army health team into a community so I have my own perspective. Yes, I’ve actually met one.

The solution to closing the gap is the money actually getting to the coal face and delivering programs. Not multiple levels of bureaucracy siphoning off the funds on the way down. Classic example is the half a billion given to Pearson related projects in Cape York for about 3000 aboriginals. Seems to have disappeared with zero results according to him.
Click to expand...

You mention Pearson and the $ note you missed Mundine $300 mil + flowed through his companies etc he has been on the teat for a very long time there will be no light shone on these now, business as usual.

Carry on.
 
IFocus said:
Not at all just stating the bleeding obvious watch Prices speech to the IPA its cringe worthy which is fine she is a politician in a tough position of survival but see it for what it is.

As for decline note the Teal seats all pretty much voted yes how will that help Dutton?
Click to expand...
I never said the coalition were any better, only that Labor need to be more open to options, rather than jumping in feet first every time.
SInce Hawke, they have never had a long enough run in office, to introduce a programme and then develop, adapt and hone the programme.
That is usually because they rush in and have no plan B, I don't think they will lose the election, but I do hope they have learnt something.
Also as I said before the referendum, I would be surprised if places like Fitzroy Crossing didn't vote yes and they did as they should.
That doesn't mean it is the best or only way forward, it just means they would be looking a gift horse in the mouth, if they voted No.
It isn't just about the aboriginals, it is also about the other 24 million people who live with them and help fund these things.
 
TimeISmoney said:
Roughly a total of 63% from the NT remote mobile teams got a yes vote, hardly the 80% that labor is claiming.
Click to expand...
Roughly?? 63%????
Show us your math.

Mine looks like this...

21 remote booths percentage total; YES 1524.3 ........ 72.5%
No 575.7 ........ 27.4%



Maybe spend 'some time'n money' on learning to count.
 
IFocus said:
You mention Pearson and the $ note you missed Mundine $300 mil + flowed through his companies etc he has been on the teat for a very long time there will be no light shone on these now, business as usual.

Carry on.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, wouldn't it be wise to clean up the mess that exists, before adding to it?
 
IFocus said:
As I have said earlier surely much higher suicide rates, higher incarceration rates, much lower average life span etc is a priority over fuel and food prices etc?
Click to expand...
Put yourself in the shoes of the average Australian.

They're struggling with reality that it's entirely possible to be employed full time and also homeless in Australia in 2023. They've seen the circumstances of the average worker progressively deteriorate over and extended period with the trend still in progress.

On the other hand those they see as largely responsible for their plight now propose to fix the circumstances faced by Aboriginal people, but they're unwilling to say how they'll do it beyond "trust me".

Why would they trust the same broad group that's so comprehensively failed on other issues and which won't answer the question as to how they're going to fix it for Aboriginals? As I've said many times, the public have substantially lost faith in the entire concept of government as a solution to problems.

Personally I've encountered plenty of people who've succeeded despite various setbacks and I've likewise encountered those who are perpetually down. I can tell you exactly what separates them - it's not race, it's not gender, it's not even education. It's outlook. Seeking a way out of the mess and being open to all options versus seeking to wallow in it and finding a reason to not pursue every suggestion put forward. That's what separates those who succeed from those who fail.

Worst thing you can do to anyone who's struggling is tell them they're a victim. All that does is keep them down, keep them in the cycle of doom and to be blunt it's a form of abuse in itself. Rather, if the aim is to help then they need to come to a point of seeking a way forward, a way out of the mess, and accepting that they're going to have to make it work. That is, shifting the focus from the past to the future.

That's not some radical idea of my own. It's just the stages of grief:

1. Shock and denial

2. Pain and guilt

3. Anger and bargaining

4. Depression

5. The upward turn

6. Reconstruction and working through

7. Acceptance and hope.

Aboriginal people collectively seem stuck at (4) and have been so for a very long time and if there's to be a way forward, it involves moving them onto (5) then (6) and finally (7). That won't happen if there's a victim mentality - the aim is to end that seeing themselves as victims, and instead embrace the possibilities for the future.

Take for example someone who's just turned 18 years old. Quite simply there's no fundamental reason why they ought not be in comparable circumstances to any other 18 year old and if they aren't then that's the fault of adults who've done bad things to them since 2005 not back in 1788. There's no fundamental reason why they can't have achieved what others have achieved - if they haven't then we need to look at the adults around them.

In short the cycle needs to be broken. It might not be practical to fix things for older Aboriginal people but we can and must fix it for the coming and future generations.

I won't claim to have all the answers but I do know that any real solution involves moving the focus forward. It involves shifting the conversation from "land was stolen" to "we want to succeed in mainstream society".

I'm not the right person to change that mindset, I sure wouldn't nominate myself for the job, but the Voice didn't seem to be either, it seemed far too focused on "pay the rent" rather than "focus on the future" and of particular note, the idea that it was to be permanent implied it was never expected to succeed.

There are people who do know how to go about this sort of thing, how to shift attitudes, and they're the people who need to be involved. They're the ones who need to be doing what it takes to shift the mindset to one of wanting to succeed in mainstream society, which then makes it relatively straightforward for government, business and others to do the physical things to make it happen.

Aboriginal people need the equivalent of former Tasmanian premier Jim Bacon. A man who came in and abruptly shifted the mindset of the people from the problems to the solutions. The change was dramatic - an extended period of doom, gloom and wallowing swept away almost in an instant and it all came down to the energy he had, the language he used and his focus on shifting the mindset or the people from "how we got into this mess" to "how we're getting out of the mess" then delivering. He was only premier for 5.5 years, resigning due to health, but his lasting legacy was that of a changed mindset, one focused on looking forward not looking back.

Shift the mindset to one that wants success then the rest becomes simply a case of doing it.

As for the other issues, well the basic problem isn't Aboriginal suicides versus housing but rather that the working class has been waiting a rather long time now and throughout that time there's always been some excuse, some other issue that government found more pressing. If it's not Aboriginals then it's climate change, if it's not that then it's a pandemic, or it's a budget deficit, or it's a war, or it's a drought, or it's redeveloping land in inner Sydney, or it's some international issue, or it's conservation, or it's pre-mixed drinks, or it's tax evasion, or it's government itself, or it's.....

Tell someone they need to wait and the first time they'll likely say OK, the other thing seems really important so I'll wait. After 40 years that's worn very thin however, very thin and Labor plausibly is on its last roll of the dice here.

I say that because it's come to the point where 87.5% of workers aren't members of a union, it's reportedly over 90% in the private sector, and less than a third of voters voted Labor at the last federal election. Indeed the Coalition still gained a higher primary vote than Labor despite being in obvious disarray. Based on that, Labor's support base is anything but solid - they're in government for no reason other than when forced to make a choice that was limited to Labor or the Coalition, more people thought Labor was less bad. That's all it is though - less than a third actually voted Labor and even some of those would no doubt have been in the "least bad" camp.

If Labor wants to survive politically at the federal level then they've no choice other than to address the problems of those who've been waiting. It's that or it's an extended period in opposition once the Coalition finds themselves a popular leader which they no doubt will at some point. :2twocents
 
Last edited:
orr said:
Roughly?? 63%????
Show us your math.

Mine looks like this...

21 remote booths percentage total; YES 1524.3 ........ 72.5%
No 575.7 ........ 27.4%



Maybe spend 'some time'n money' on learning to count.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected :oops:, must have made a mistake when rounding some of the numbers off. There are actually 22 remote mobile teams. I counted the actual polling numbers 12312 total of 8894 yes 3503 no and 125 donkey votes.

tallyroom.aec.gov.au

Lingiari, NT - AEC Tally Room

Referendum division results
tallyroom.aec.gov.au
 
Another way to put the politics of all this is that if I ask someone for a favour then they probably will agree.

If I keep asking for favour after favour however, while never getting around to the things they're asking for, then a point comes where it's over. They say enough is enough, no more and the relationship breaks down.

Labor's at that point with the working class is my reading of the situation. The goodwill has been used up over an extended period and it's either deliver for the workers and do it now, even if that means total backdowns on ideology in other areas, or the game's up as soon as there's a viable alternative. :2twocents
 
And I also think that favour theme is also true of the 4% aborigineses vs the 96% of the population.
Enough society says
Decades and decades of billions wasted and wasted on people unable to put their fingers out of their ass (as a whole, too many individuals are having constructive lives and not agitating in front of cameras, the silent majority I would dare to say) and just begging then behaving like dog punks beggars insulting the majority of citizens as racists for not throwing more coins in their bowl.
Real issues can be sorted as @Smurf1976 as pointed by stopping the victims story, auditing the corrupt sham corporations sucking us all dry..oops more aborigines in custody...but not the usual lost kids, the boardrooms one..
and moving this into a positive cycle not a welfare death spiral.
Some generations are mainly gone and wasted..I admit but a 5y old born noadays in a remote community should not be subjected to chroming drug sex abuse and an idle smoking alcohol life on welfare
I live on land and nowhere can you be busier.
so many projects to do, returns in self sufficiency, Landcare, pride..but yes you need to work and have ethics and goals aspiration .
Housing issues in the settlement? ..well enough iddle hands there to build repair,and then setup gardens and have proper food ..
Sorting the health gap

But how dare I explain life to the proud owners of the country for the last 60000 years or is it, until they push it again with an extra digit.
I think the worst colonisation did against aborigineses is not the few massacres, the relocations, so called stollen generations, but introducing welfare and locking a whole community into it.
How many millions killed by hand out garbage food,alcohol and drugs in goal-less lives since the mid 1900?
 
For the Labor & Union people trying to pull down what the majority of Australians decided, and trying to find fault with Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price -

What a magnificent referendum that was. No one should crow, nor screech; most people on both sides acted from goodwill. But No case advocates shouldn’t don sackcloth and ashes.​
​
Their arguments were vindicated by a staggering 62 per cent of the Australian electorate (the likely figure when all the votes are counted), including tens of thousands of Indigenous Australians.​
​
The No vote represents a magnificent assertion of universal citizenship. It’s a decision not only to protect the Constitution. It’s an act of love for Indigenous Australians, a determination they shouldn’t be imprisoned in an identity politics category. Instead, as individuals they’re integral to Australian life, with all the rights and obligations all citizens share.​

Australians shouldn’t recoil from historic No triumph

eb1c4ca57d553cc161e299ebc6e543f4.jpg


What a magnificent referendum that was. No one should crow, nor screech; most people on both sides acted from goodwill. But No case advocates shouldn’t don sackcloth and ashes.

Their arguments were vindicated by a staggering 62 per cent of the Australian electorate (the likely figure when all the votes are counted), including tens of thousands of Indigenous Australians.

The No vote represents a magnificent assertion of universal citizenship. It’s a decision not only to protect the Constitution. It’s an act of love for Indigenous Australians, a determination they shouldn’t be imprisoned in an identity politics category. Instead, as individuals they’re integral to Australian life, with all the rights and obligations all citizens share.

This wasn’t a vote against Indigenous Australians or closing the gap. It was a vote of inclusion. But there was also this message: Australians support equality, they don’t support identity politics and racial essentialism. Indigenous advancement won’t come through the Constitution. Activist leaders massively overreached. In doing so, they unintentionally did harm.

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, the referendum’s central figure, rightly argues Indigenous advancement will come from cultural change, education, employment, ending family abuse and the like. Much Aboriginal policy has been effective and good. A lot has been ineffective or worse. Some 55 per cent of our continent has been granted to native title, but this hasn’t led to all those living on this land finding productive lives.

Some years ago I spent a few days visiting a big Indigenous community, a million acres of wilderness, Aboriginal land as far as the eye could see. Yet an Indigenous family wanting to own their own home has to move to a nearby town, not on Aboriginal land, because native title can’t be alienated. No one, including Aboriginal people, can own it. Aboriginal people can be land-rich and dirt-poor. This kind of policy doesn’t bring Indigenous Australians productive lives, it locks them out of the good life readily available to everybody else.

What else does this referendum tell us? In many Western nations the progressive left, on those rare occasions it lets voters have a say, often loses the vote but wins the post-vote contest of narratives and undemocratically imposes policies furiously rejected by voters.

Australians refused to inject racial classifications into the Constitution by an almost identical margin, 62 to 38 (when all votes are counted), by which they embraced same-sex marriage, 62-38. No campaigners must take this welcome rejection of identity politics forward. It’s a base for productive change along the lines advocated by Price.

The Constitution doesn’t mention any race, including Indigenous Australians. It did before 1967, but this was removed at that referendum. The Constitution does have a race power, under which very few laws have been passed.

Rejecting measures to constitutionally enshrine race doesn’t mean governments can’t do special things for Aboriginal people.

Governments do different things for different people routinely. Doctors and lawyers have professional rights other folks don’t, single parents get financial payments, cancer patients get expensive treatments. Others don’t. These address need or responsibility, not race, and there’s no need to have them in the Constitution.

As I say, I believe the No vote was a vote of love for Aboriginal people: you are part of Australia, not to be imprisoned forever in a category of separateness.

The referendum has other lessons. Take Canberra. It’s a lovely small city situated close to a fascinating foreign country, Australia. Canberra was the only state or territory to vote Yes. It voted Yes by about the same margin the rest of the nation voted No.

Elites versus ordinary folks? Does it occur to anyone that it’s a little subprime, so to speak, to have the bureaucratic and academic elite at the heart of national power aligned in social policy outlook only with the richest plutocrats and the densest inner-city soviets, while in furious, complete, social and ideological contradiction of the rest of the society it misrules and doesn’t understand?

Anthony Albanese made much of the institutional support for Yes – the richest corporations, trade unions, elite sports codes, ethnic leaders, the ABC and SBS (the Prime Minister didn’t put them on the list but they were certainly there), Christian leaders and other religious leaders.

Here’s a wonderful thing. Our glorious immigrants came to this country for many reasons, but one, often, was to escape policies of racial distinction. That most high-migrant electorates voted No shows that our newest citizens have become dinky-di Aussies. Like the rest of us, they’re naughty voters. They don’t do as they’re told and they mostly recognise public policy foolishness, what colloquially used to be termed ratbaggery, when they see it.

Ethnic leaders, whose job is to get on with the government in the interest of securing key priorities for their community, as well as a share of grants, overwhelmingly backed the government on a matter of not much importance to them. But their ability to influence the voting behaviour of the individuals in the communities they purport to represent turned out to be near enough to zero.

The same was true with Christian bishops. Most bishops in the end didn’t make a formal vote recommendation. The Catholic bishops indicated broad support for a voice before there was any detail. But the Catholic Weekly conscientiously ran pro-Yes and pro-No pieces in a good balance. Finally the bishops just asked people to take the matter seriously.

The nation’s most influential Anglican, the impressive Sydney Archbishop Kanishka Raffel, expressed his personal sympathy for the voice proposition but never instructed Anglicans how to vote. His Anglican synod in Sydney asked Anglicans to consider the matter prayerfully but stated no voting preference.

However, some bishops did campaign for Yes. People who regularly attend Christian churches in Australia are significantly older and more conservative than the Australian average. Conservative older folks voted No overwhelmingly. Even bishops couldn’t sell this racial proposition to their most faithful followers.

The Yes campaigners are saying reconciliation is damaged. Who knows what they mean by that, except that their own political programs have been set back. If reconciliation means raising remote community Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander life expectancy, health outcomes, educational achievement to the Australian average, then I’m a million per cent with it.

But if reconciliation involves some metaphysical attribution of virtue or rights to racial background, some nonsense like divided sovereignty or co-sovereignty, or the madness of a modern nation making a treaty with itself, or yet more wasteful expenditure to empower activist elites rather than redress searing disadvantage, then reconciliation itself is the problem.

Australians were not deceived into voting No. Nor are 62 per cent of Australians racist. There is deep wisdom in Australian caution about changing the Constitution, about avoiding extravagant, damaging symbolism. Albanese’s emotional concession speech said nothing to the 62 per cent who voted No. It’s not necessary to have bipartisanism on Indigenous policy. We’ve had too much bipartisanism in support of bad policy, such as constitutional recognition being key to Aboriginal advancement, for too long.

William Buckley Jr famously remarked he’d rather be ruled by the first 10 pages of the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. Hallelujah that our Constitution requires the people be consulted.

Australian voters have demonstrated they know better than their betters. God bless ’em.

GREG SHERIDAN
Click to expand...
 
Smurf1976 said:
Another way to put the politics of all this is that if I ask someone for a favour then they probably will agree.

If I keep asking for favour after favour however, while never getting around to the things they're asking for, then a point comes where it's over. They say enough is enough, no more and the relationship breaks down.

Labor's at that point with the working class is my reading of the situation. The goodwill has been used up over an extended period and it's either deliver for the workers and do it now, even if that means total backdowns on ideology in other areas, or the game's up as soon as there's a viable alternative. :2twocents
Click to expand...
The masses are getting fed up with the smug elites.
What Wally isn't taking into account, is not all rich people are smart, but most rich people never associate or come in contact with aboriginals, therefore it is highly likely their vote was guided by their ignorance and condescending arrogance, ably supported by their never ending smugness.

 
Last edited:
sptrawler said:
The masses are getting fed up with the smug elites.
What Wally isn't taking into account, is not all rich people are smart, but most rich people never associate or come in contact with aboriginals, therefore it is highly likely their vote was guided by their ignorance and condescending arrogance, ably supported by their never ending smugness.

Click to expand...
"Mr Mannoun said “people in western Sydney can smell bulls**t a mile away”.

Most of Australia did fortunately but many people had different reasons why they voted no.

When you use words like 'Makarrata' that aren't even derived from the English language and really have an ambiguous meaning, what do they expect the average Aussie to think?
 
TimeISmoney said:
"Mr Mannoun said “people in western Sydney can smell bulls**t a mile away”.

Most of Australia did fortunately but many people had different reasons why they voted no.

When you use words like 'Makarrata' that aren't even derived from the English language and really have an ambiguous meaning, what do they expect the average Aussie to think?
Click to expand...
What I find interesting and IMO supports the idea that the elites and the media are out of touch with reality, is the fact that now post the vote they are infering the No vote got up because of misinformation and ignorance.

That IMO is amazingly arrogant, when you consider that 60% of the population are being called ignorant and gullible, by three highly concentrated sectors of the population, that on average are wealthy and have the least exposure and interaction with aboriginals.

While the far larger demographic by all other metrics, other than wealth disagree, yet the smaller sector as usual has the most say and has the most vitriol to spray in the media.

It's a weird world that we are becoming, back to the future of Lords and serfs, where the rich have all the say.

They are right about one thing, there is a lot of missinformation and it is sourced through mainstream media written by inner city latte sippers.

Country people prefer a normal cup of coffee, it has less crap on top.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

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