Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,287
- Reactions
- 11,544
Numbers are still pretty high though. But, why wouldn't that all be 100% yes? I doubt they read The Oz or watch Sky News after dark.
Roughly a total of 63% from the NT remote mobile teams got a yes vote, hardly the 80% that labor is claiming.
Don't forget labor had people go out there from the yes vote grants.Numbers are still pretty high though. But, why wouldn't that all be 100% yes? I doubt they read The Oz or watch Sky News after dark.
From the article linked: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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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?
Roughly?? 63%????Roughly a total of 63% from the NT remote mobile teams got a yes vote, hardly the 80% that labor is claiming.
If that is the case, wouldn't it be wise to clean up the mess that exists, before adding to it?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.
Put yourself in the shoes of the average Australian.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?
I stand correctedRoughly?? 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.
Australians shouldn’t recoil from historic No triumph
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
The masses are getting fed up with the smug elites.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.
"Mr Mannoun said “people in western Sydney can smell bulls**t a mile away”.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.
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."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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?