The Voice

[rederob]

It goes a lot further than that, and you know it, so don't try to whitewash (or blackwash) the issue.

You have proven yourself clueless on this issue.
Yes, in recognising first nations peoples it creates a Voice that can provide advice.
You cannot show how this Voice differs from the voice you and I have to advise government, except that it will be enshrined in the Constitution.
You cannot show what's wrong with recognising first nations peoples, or what's wrong with them being able to give advice.

@Smurf1976 believes we should be "wary." What is it about providing advice that makes it somehow dangerous?

Never in this thread have I seen a credible case for voting "no." Instead the "no" voters have to invent reasons, or in the case or @JohnDe borrow someone else's ideas, that have nothing to do with the referendum question and it's "why."

 

[JohnDe]

You have proven yourself clueless on this issue.
Yes, in recognising first nations peoples it creates a Voice that can provide advice.
You cannot show how this Voice differs from the voice you and I have to advise government, except that it will be enshrined in the Constitution.
You cannot show what's wrong with recognising first nations peoples, or what's wrong with them being able to give advice.

@Smurf1976 believes we should be "wary." What is it about providing advice that makes it somehow dangerous?

Never in this thread have I seen a credible case for voting "no." Instead the "no" voters have to invent reasons, or in the case or @JohnDe borrow someone else's ideas, that have nothing to do with the referendum question and it's "why."

Keep it up, you're doing a wonderful job.

Yes vote’s core support is crumbling

Anthony Albanese’s already faltering political strategy on getting the referendum on the Indigenous voice to parliament passed now faces an even bigger threat.

In the face of falling public support and increasingly divisive and personal attacks within the debate on the voice, Labor is being forced to reset the campaign and take back lost momentum.

The imperative for a new push is because there is actually worse political news in the latest Newspoll on the voice than just the brutal numbers showing a referendum-killing double blow of no majority of people nor a majority of states for the voice.

The latest and largest shifts against the voice are coming from the groups the government is banking on to hold firm and, indeed, reverse the trend of falling support: Labor voters and the young.

A Yes to Indigenous Voice march. Picture: Kevin Farmer

What’s more, the Newspoll figures in the past two surveys show the growing opposition comes directly from people who were in the Yes camp moving into the No camp. The government previously had argued the No vote was growing because of people moving from the “don’t know/unsure” band in the middle.

The headline numbers from the Newspoll taken last week are that there are now 47 per cent of people against the voice and 43 per cent for the proposal, with four states – Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania – against.

But what will strike fear into the hearts of referendum supporters is that the breakdown of the decline in support since the Newspoll survey of June 4 shows the net support for the voice among Labor supporters is 31 per cent – down 8 percentage points in three weeks.

Among 18 to 34-year-olds, the net support is 34 per cent – down 10 points; and among 35 to 49-year-olds it is just 2 per cent – down 14 points.

Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney addresses the media with other Yes campaigners. Picture: Getty Images.

These demographic groups – apart from Greens supporters – are the guts of the support for the referendum and the hope of the future. But they are bleeding, and bleeding profusely.

Anthony Albanese remained optimistic in the face of the Newspoll, arguing that people haven’t focused on the referendum question yet and the momentum will change when sporting groups, corporations and religious groups start to campaign.

“As business and unions and faith groups and sporting codes all go out there campaigning, talking to people, having a look at what the actual question is that is being asked here, I believe that a majority of Australians will come to the view that I have come to, which is that we will give greater respect to Indigenous Australians but we will also enrich and lift up our nation,” the Prime Minister said on Monday.

-- Senator Jana Stewart wears a gown embroidered with the Uluru Statement from the Heart urging people to vote Yes in the referendum before the Midwinter Ball. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Tanya Plibersek said it was “a really good thing that we’ve got months to go before the referendum” because there will be “an opportunity of countering the scare campaign”.

But, having lost momentum, especially among those who are being relied upon most to support the Yes campaign, and having those moving directly from Yes to No, makes shifting an entrenched trend difficult to say the least.

According to Murray Goot, emeritus professor at politics at Macquarie University, the rise in the No vote in the polling is because the “strongly” committed Yes supporters are becoming strongly committed No voters.

The Newspoll shows that the switch is occurring increasingly in groups vital for success of the Yes vote.

DENNIS SHANAHAN​

 

[JohnDe]

 

[IFocus]

There were quite a few others that I've seen and have been removed also, but it's pretty sad when you have to make a monetary offer to underprivileged people to vote against their will. And BTW there's no such thing as racism in Australia, what race are Australians? Maybe the word you're after is 'discrimination'.


Community groups supportive of the Voice to Parliament will be eligible for grants of thousands of dollars from the Yes campaign.
Yes23, the campaign pushing for the constitutional change, will donate one-off payments of between $1000 and $15,000 to facilitate local events around the continent.

The Yes campaign is keen to leave Canberra behind, as the No vote pulls ahead for the first time​

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Elders from Qld, Far North Qld, SA, NSW, WA, Vic and regional Vic share their perspectives on the Voice. None of them were consulted and they all say NO to the Voice. This video was blocked by govt within hours of publishing so share it far and wide from this platform."

Elders?

Maybe one of those may have done law the rest look urban to me (happy to be corrected) without law elders.... not in a serious sense.

 

[Tisme]

If the Voice is "enshrined" in the constitution:-

1) will the Consitituion become a sacred artifact
2) will any futher proposed ammendments to the consitution require assent from the advisory body
3) is there a get out of jail free card if the whole thing goes pear shaped with misuse
4) is it actually a wedge tool to gain more compensation, favour and reward
5) will it sow the seed of aggrievement, envy and discontent in the layman of now and in the future (as witnessed in Canada and USA)

 

[SirRumpole]

If the Voice is "enshrined" in the constitution:-

1) will the Consitituion become a sacred artifact
2) will any futher proposed ammendments to the consitution require assent from the advisory body
3) is there a get out of jail free card if the whole thing goes pear shaped with misuse
4) is it actually a wedge tool to gain more compensation, favour and reward
5) will it sow the seed of aggrievement, envy and discontent in the layman of now and in the future (as witnessed in Canada and USA)

3. I can't see an escape route unless there is another referendum.

4. Quite possibly yes.

5. I think it's already sowing the seeds of discontent by the possibility of having one group better off under the Constitution than everyone else.

 

[Smurf1976]

@Smurf1976 believes we should be "wary." What is it about providing advice that makes it somehow dangerous?

It's not the advice that's the problem, it's the entrenchment of a group as representative of others.

We already have examples of that going horribly wrong.

Unions set up to benefit workers which end up wrecking the entire industry and putting them out of a job. Plenty of examples of that over the years. Bearing in mind I'm not ideologically opposed to unions as such, they've done some good certainly, but there's two sides to them most definitely. They're the ultimate example of "some is good, too much will kill you".

Progressivism in general terms has changed from "it's a fundamental right for consenting adults to do as they wish so long as others aren't involved" 25 years ago to "we know best" today. It's a very stark change there.

It could also be said there's more than a few highly competent women and ATSI of all genders who are less than impressed with the constantly repeated notion they need some sort of handicap in order to succeed. They find it condescending at best, outright offensive at worst since they're more than capable of succeeding on equal terms and have done so. They want the table to be level, they don't want it tilted in their favour.

All are examples of some group or movement entrenched as representing others having started out doing good things, bringing about change to whatever problematic situation existed, then keeping going too long and ending up a hindrance to the very people they purport to represent.

 

[rederob]

It's not the advice that's the problem, it's the entrenchment of a group as representative of others.

That's what representation is about! It's a basic tenet of democracies that elect people to act on their behalf, so it's a seriously confused comment from you.

We already have examples of that going horribly wrong.

Why recommence another straw man argument?
You need to make a case based on equivalence and you have not.
What on planet earth does your scenario have to do with a body whose only power is to offer advice?
As I said, there has never been a valid case for "no" because they fail to deal with the simple proposition being put to a vote.

 

[Tisme]

For truth, will we need to change the title to erase the word "Commonwealth" in the "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act" ?

Surely this change makes a mockery of the supremacy being vested in the people and the compact with elected govt for the common (read equal) good.

​

 

[rederob]

It's pretty funny that you rely on the continued ignorance of others to post.
Let's take just a few points.
Senator McDonald want's all the details of how the Voice will operate, as distinct from what the Voice will do. As a Senator she should know that Parliament can effect changes to how the Voice may operate at its will, irrespective of which government is in power. That's aside from the fact that there's a roadmap of intentions for how the Voice will operate already laid out. So on this point McDonald's argument is pure distraction, having nothing to do with what the Voice aims to achieve.
On another point she references indigenous "no" voters in Cairns swaying that way because they believe their local concerns won't get heard. However, the Voice is predicated on grass roots concerns being addressed by local communities precisely because broad brush policy has failed ATSI peoples. In other words McDonald is totally clueless on what and how the Voice intends to make a difference.

I won't go further as McDonald wasted 15 minutes of her time due to her total ignorance of the Parliamentary process she is part of and the topic she spoke to.

 

[JohnDe]

It's pretty funny that you rely on the continued ignorance of others to post.

Which union are you part of?

Unions will campaign for an Indigenous voice to parliament online and in workplaces​

​

Trade unions – including the union of Indigenous land rights activist Eddie Mabo - are vowing to mobilise their members and actively campaign for a voice to parliament across social media, workplaces, universities and neighbourhoods, amid falling support for the advisory body.​

 

[SirRumpole]

Which union are you part of?

Unions will campaign for an Indigenous voice to parliament online and in workplaces​

​

Trade unions – including the union of Indigenous land rights activist Eddie Mabo - are vowing to mobilise their members and actively campaign for a voice to parliament across social media, workplaces, universities and neighbourhoods, amid falling support for the advisory body.​

I think this sort of thing will only harden opposition to TV.

Are people really going to let unions or sports clubs telling them what to think ?

Pretty arrogant of those bodies to try and dictate the people's opinions.

 

[rederob]

I think this sort of thing will only harden opposition to TV.

Are people really going to let unions or sports clubs telling them what to think ?

Pretty arrogant of those bodies to try and dictate the people's opinions.

Is there a reason you and @JohnDe continue with distractions?
You clearly don't know much about the Voice beyond your mostly baseless beliefs, and now you show your ignorance of a democratic process, namely how voting intentions are influenced by various players.
In the case of "yes" proponents you get a reason for why it will be beneficial
In the case of "no" proponents you get excuses, distraction and misinformation. This is best demonstrated in this thread with the many posts I have shown that fail any test of reasonableness. Even @Smurf1976 is now posting false equivalences to defend his views.

 

[TimeISmoney]

Elders?

Maybe one of those may have done law the rest look urban to me (happy to be corrected) without law elders.... not in a serious sense.

The Uluru statement was falsely signed by elders that never even signed it and the other half didn't know what they signed. Anyone that stands up to the yes mob gets verbally or physically assaulted like Jancida Price's grandmother, I've seen all the removed social media posts.
Australians have every bit to be alarmed at passing a referendum that they don't understand the full consequences of.


Numerous signatories of the Uluru Statement from the Heart were ‘surprised’ to see their names on the document that calls for an indigenous voice to parliament and ‘unhappy’ to be seen as endorsing the statement. In a trip to Uluru last week, Liberal senator and indigenous woman, Kerrynne Liddle, was told by numerous Central Australian indigenous leaders that the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Voice to parliament that it called for were causing nothing but “trouble”.





.

 

[SirRumpole]

Is there a reason you and @JohnDe continue with distractions?

Not necessarily distractions.

Why should sporting bodies (like the AFL) who have repeatedly demonstrated racism themselves and tried to cover it up have any credibility when it comes to The Voice ?

This is a matter for individuals to decide .

 

[moXJO]

On the treaty there would be some thinking the Voice is a starting point but reality is a treaty has no hope in Australia, seeing the colonial racism around (here) and any migrant including yourself against the Voice plus the utter and total BS posted here treaty...nah never.

On the constitutional changes the wording was done with all sides of the political spectrum involved (horse trading) the only disagreement was wording concerning advice to the executive level of government.

Note all the conservatives involved will vote yes note just how nasty the Coalition is running the No vote such is politics

Thats where divisions exist typically Pauline Hanson scub bag territory

Treaty eventually needs to come. Aboriginals can't just be left out on the fringes being thrown scraps.

I think the way the Voice has been presented has failed everyone.
It being enshrined in the constitution wasn't the only option.
The Fact is, no one trusts white progressives due to their track record. It's abysmal. It's often a partial truth that ignores the bigger reality.
They need to be very clear about outcomes. This whole thing is not about aboriginals as a whole. But about another layer of political wankery being installed.

 

[Tisme]

The Uluru statement was falsely signed by elders that never even signed it and the other half didn't know what they signed. Anyone that stands up to the yes mob gets verbally or physically assaulted like Jancida Price's grandmother, I've seen all the removed social media posts.
Australians have every bit to be alarmed at passing a referendum that they don't understand the full consequences of.


Numerous signatories of the Uluru Statement from the Heart were ‘surprised’ to see their names on the document that calls for an indigenous voice to parliament and ‘unhappy’ to be seen as endorsing the statement. In a trip to Uluru last week, Liberal senator and indigenous woman, Kerrynne Liddle, was told by numerous Central Australian indigenous leaders that the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Voice to parliament that it called for were causing nothing but “trouble”.





.

It was signed by 300 of the same people who came up with Statement on behalf the rest of the mob who didn't get a look in. Caesar judging Caesar media driven event.

 

[wayneL]

I don't know how true all this is, but it does tick some boxes:

Josephine is an Aboriginal lawyer Fwiw

Thread:

 

[rederob]

Not necessarily distractions.

How exactly are your comments relevant to the referendum question?

Why should sporting bodies (like the AFL) who have repeatedly demonstrated racism themselves and tried to cover it up have any credibility when it comes to The Voice ?

You don't know much about voting processes so post a non sequitur. Your logic processes are not good.

This is a matter for individuals to decide .

But by your reckoning its wrong for organistations to be involved in saying which side of the fence they sit on, and why!

 

[SirRumpole]

But by your reckoning its wrong for organistations to be involved in saying which side of the fence they sit on, and why!

Have they taken a vote of their members ?

We only get the opinions of the hierarchy who like virtue signalling for commercial reasons.