Hey so there’s this idea people sometimes react with that if someone who is stupid or evil or whatever has some idea, then the opposite of that idea must be a good idea.
This is not a good way to think. While if you find yourself on the same side of an issue as your political enemies you should probably reflect over whether you’re being manipulated it is not necessarily true that you are.
Clive Palmer opposes this bill sure, he says for various reasons. That doesn’t mean those reasons are bad reasons to oppose the bill, or that the bill is good. LibLab are using the threat of billionaires interferring in elections to try push this through, if they are so confident it is a good bill why are they rushing it through and why do they both agree with it?
It is worth examining how this bill will function and whether the good bits are worth the side effects. LibLab are not champions of democracy, they fucking hate it lmao and they have enormous contempt for the public and minor parties so we should not assume they think this bill will lead to a better democracy.
Hey so there’s this idea people sometimes react with that if someone who is stupid or evil or whatever has some idea, then the opposite of that idea must be a good idea.
This is not a good way to think. While if you find yourself on the same side of an issue as your political enemies you should probably reflect over whether you’re being manipulated it is not necessarily true that you are.
A classic example: Rudd’s climate policy. The LNP opposed it because they’re climate change deniers. The Greens opposed it because Treasury modelling indicated it wouldn’t have any effect for a quarter century, so even now 6 Prime Ministerships later it still would be a decade off having any effect. And the ratchet mechanism would require paying polluters if we upgraded to better climate policy in the future.
Labor wanted (and today still wants) you to think the Greens are to blame for stalling progress and “siding with the LNP”. But pushing for good change in the face of bad change is not the same as saying no change at all is the best.
Side note, I applaud your patience and the eloquence of your response here. Frankly I had written off our interlocutor @yeahiknow3@lemmings.world as a Labor/LNP diehard because everything you said in this comment was…so obvious to me I just assumed not thinking that way must be the work of someone discoursing in bad faith. Especially in light of the way the video linked and my own comments discussing it were framed.
Hey that’s nice to say. I saw how much they were replying and assumed they cared, there’s also a certain amount of theatre in online discourse. While it’s nice to imagine that when you write to someone you could change their mind the reality is that is unlikely, however spectators who are less involved might. I care a lot about democracy, I want good discourse on measures I see as antidemocratic. I don’t think parliament will ever implement democracy, but it sure as hell could make it a lot harder to at a future date.
I don’t want to spruke the australian government (frankly I find it fucking infuriating when people dismiss criticisms of this society by going "Yeah but at least we’re not the USA) however our parliaments function quite differently. I would not exactly call them democratic but they are closer to a democracy than the government you are likely familiar with. Unfortunately we don’t have multimember seats in the lower house so you have completely disgusting stuff like the greens getting ~18% of the popular vote but only having like 1/151 seats. I’m sure you can relate to that sort of frustration.
Recently, particularly in the senate which does have multimember seats, minor party influence has been growing. LibLab fucking hate this, so goddamned much. They have pushed through a series of electoral reforms (some decent I will give them that) with the goal of restricting the influence of minor parties. A recent one which disgusts me is requiring a degree of membership in order to run on the ballot as a party and not independents which would require something like running in 6 or 7 seats (keep in mind there are 151 seats overall, that’s a large number) before the members:seats ratio approached the current members:seats ratio of labor. A party with a like 120 year history that runs everywhere.
That’s a completely absurd requirement that absolutely scuttles the ability of an interest group representing say an area of a city from running as a clearly identifiable party.
I am deeply sceptical of their reforms for reasons like this.
you have completely disgusting stuff like the greens getting ~18% of the popular vote but only having like 1/151 seats
At the 2022 election the Greens actually received 12.25% of the popular vote, and won 4 seats. That’s 2.6% of seats, so still a pretty awful under-representation. And after the Qld State election last month I’m very worried that they’re going to drop back down to 1.
Did you even read the link they posted? This is pretty bloody convincing evidence, researched by an independent and trustworthy body not influenced by fuckos like Palmer:
Have you not watched any news on American politics? A two-party system is a cancer to freedom and democracy. All we would be doing is trading one problem, for another much larger problem. The major parties are terrified of the rise of minor parties in the last ~15 years. Neither has held a majority in the Senate since Howard, 2004-2007. That is a good thing.
What you’re suggesting is to throw the baby out with the bath water.
You’re right the bill does not do that. The point I’m making is that the way in which you remove money from politics is important, not just the removal of it. If the bill essentially removed the ability for any other group to run other than the two major parties then it’s not a good bill.
Do you think that donations are the only way of biasing a party or candidate? How many have gone to work for consultants afterwards?
It occurs to me that your response is identical to that of the evil billionaire Clive Palmer.
Hey so there’s this idea people sometimes react with that if someone who is stupid or evil or whatever has some idea, then the opposite of that idea must be a good idea.
This is not a good way to think. While if you find yourself on the same side of an issue as your political enemies you should probably reflect over whether you’re being manipulated it is not necessarily true that you are.
Clive Palmer opposes this bill sure, he says for various reasons. That doesn’t mean those reasons are bad reasons to oppose the bill, or that the bill is good. LibLab are using the threat of billionaires interferring in elections to try push this through, if they are so confident it is a good bill why are they rushing it through and why do they both agree with it?
It is worth examining how this bill will function and whether the good bits are worth the side effects. LibLab are not champions of democracy, they fucking hate it lmao and they have enormous contempt for the public and minor parties so we should not assume they think this bill will lead to a better democracy.
A classic example: Rudd’s climate policy. The LNP opposed it because they’re climate change deniers. The Greens opposed it because Treasury modelling indicated it wouldn’t have any effect for a quarter century, so even now 6 Prime Ministerships later it still would be a decade off having any effect. And the ratchet mechanism would require paying polluters if we upgraded to better climate policy in the future.
Labor wanted (and today still wants) you to think the Greens are to blame for stalling progress and “siding with the LNP”. But pushing for good change in the face of bad change is not the same as saying no change at all is the best.
Side note, I applaud your patience and the eloquence of your response here. Frankly I had written off our interlocutor @yeahiknow3@lemmings.world as a Labor/LNP diehard because everything you said in this comment was…so obvious to me I just assumed not thinking that way must be the work of someone discoursing in bad faith. Especially in light of the way the video linked and my own comments discussing it were framed.
Hey that’s nice to say. I saw how much they were replying and assumed they cared, there’s also a certain amount of theatre in online discourse. While it’s nice to imagine that when you write to someone you could change their mind the reality is that is unlikely, however spectators who are less involved might. I care a lot about democracy, I want good discourse on measures I see as antidemocratic. I don’t think parliament will ever implement democracy, but it sure as hell could make it a lot harder to at a future date.
Fair enough. Thank you for the explanation! I’m not from Australia and I could only dream to have a bill like this in the US.
I don’t want to spruke the australian government (frankly I find it fucking infuriating when people dismiss criticisms of this society by going "Yeah but at least we’re not the USA) however our parliaments function quite differently. I would not exactly call them democratic but they are closer to a democracy than the government you are likely familiar with. Unfortunately we don’t have multimember seats in the lower house so you have completely disgusting stuff like the greens getting ~18% of the popular vote but only having like 1/151 seats. I’m sure you can relate to that sort of frustration.
Recently, particularly in the senate which does have multimember seats, minor party influence has been growing. LibLab fucking hate this, so goddamned much. They have pushed through a series of electoral reforms (some decent I will give them that) with the goal of restricting the influence of minor parties. A recent one which disgusts me is requiring a degree of membership in order to run on the ballot as a party and not independents which would require something like running in 6 or 7 seats (keep in mind there are 151 seats overall, that’s a large number) before the members:seats ratio approached the current members:seats ratio of labor. A party with a like 120 year history that runs everywhere.
That’s a completely absurd requirement that absolutely scuttles the ability of an interest group representing say an area of a city from running as a clearly identifiable party.
I am deeply sceptical of their reforms for reasons like this.
At the 2022 election the Greens actually received 12.25% of the popular vote, and won 4 seats. That’s 2.6% of seats, so still a pretty awful under-representation. And after the Qld State election last month I’m very worried that they’re going to drop back down to 1.
I am exposed as a hack and a fraud.
Did you even read the link they posted? This is pretty bloody convincing evidence, researched by an independent and trustworthy body not influenced by fuckos like Palmer:
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/new-polling-reveals-overwhelming-opposition-to-rushing-through-political-donation-laws/
I see, I see. But isn’t everyone in agreement that political campaigns should be publicly funded? What is there to be upset about?
Would it be a good bill if donations were banned but only the two major parties get public funding?
I don’t believe the bill is doing that, but yes. I’d sacrifice my left nut to get money out of politics.
Have you not watched any news on American politics? A two-party system is a cancer to freedom and democracy. All we would be doing is trading one problem, for another much larger problem. The major parties are terrified of the rise of minor parties in the last ~15 years. Neither has held a majority in the Senate since Howard, 2004-2007. That is a good thing.
What you’re suggesting is to throw the baby out with the bath water.
You’re right the bill does not do that. The point I’m making is that the way in which you remove money from politics is important, not just the removal of it. If the bill essentially removed the ability for any other group to run other than the two major parties then it’s not a good bill.
Do you think that donations are the only way of biasing a party or candidate? How many have gone to work for consultants afterwards?
I’m still trying to figure out why people in this thread are defending much, much higher caps on donations.
They’re not. We—I—have been very clear.
But that must not come at the expense of transparency and proper procedure, or at the ability for minor parties and independents to be competitive.