TOPIC:

mikeh wrote:

Bazza wrote: With an 80% participation rate I think it was a huge success and a good example of direct democracy , something that should be used more into the future. Its clear Australians like the idea of direct democracy.

Rubbish. This plebiscite was all about an impotent PM bending over to the religious right to shore up his position, at a cost of 100 million. This is something that could have easily been done by the parliament that has been elected to make decisions like this. That 100 million would have been handy for Education, Health or even bringing the budget closer to surplus. Abbotts cronies are not finished with this yet either proposing legislation that will make it lawful to actively discriminate against same sex couples in the name of "Human Rights"

Mikeh, that may be the case but Abbott, Bernardi & others at the extreme loony right wont have the numbers in either house to force many if any changes to the proposed legislation. All of Labor and all of the greens plus half the libs and indies will support it in both houses. Just get on with it, it should never have been more than a bit of minor legislation to correct a long standing bit of discrimination.

BC wrote:

Bazza wrote: With an 80% participation rate I think it was a huge success and a good example of direct democracy , something that should be used more into the future. Its clear Australians like the idea of direct democracy.

Agree Baz...and it's probably because we don't trust our politicians to make decisions in the best interests of your average punter or to accurately represent the mood of the electorate. I for one, think pollies look after themselves before they consider the general public...and that goes for both sides of the political spectrum.

with the advent of more and more technology, direct democracy is going to become far more accessible and cheaper, what this shows overwhelmingly is that despite all the nay sayers saying it would never work - it did and in overwhelming numbers - with some sort of internet polling system direct democracy on major issues could make parliament and pollies largely irrelevant going into the future.

Id love to see a vote on Border Protection and Immigration numbers...

Bazza wrote:

MarkOlsen wrote: the issue is with all the people in the Liberal party that didnt support the Yes vote, not Malcolm Turnbull, they cant agree on a position as a party and are all trying to undermine each other.

Results from NSW Labor-held electorates:

BARTON - Linda Burney 56.4% NO

BLAXLAND - Jason Clare 73.9% NO

CHIFLEY - Ed Husic 58.7% NO

FOWLER - Chris Hayes 63.7% NO

GREENWAY - Michelle Rowland 53.6% NO

McMAHON - Chris Bowen 64.9% NO

PARRAMATTA - Julie Owens 61.6% NO

WATSON - Tony Burke 69.6% NO

WERRIWA - Ann Stanley 63.7% NO

go watch a replay of 4 Corners from Monday night and you will understand the issue a bit better.

Senior Seagull wrote:

mikeh wrote:

Bazza wrote: With an 80% participation rate I think it was a huge success and a good example of direct democracy , something that should be used more into the future. Its clear Australians like the idea of direct democracy.

Rubbish. This plebiscite was all about an impotent PM bending over to the religious right to shore up his position, at a cost of 100 million. This is something that could have easily been done by the parliament that has been elected to make decisions like this. That 100 million would have been handy for Education, Health or even bringing the budget closer to surplus. Abbotts cronies are not finished with this yet either proposing legislation that will make it lawful to actively discriminate against same sex couples in the name of "Human Rights"

Mikeh, that may be the case but Abbott, Bernardi & others at the extreme loony right wont have the numbers in either house to force many if any changes to the proposed legislation. All of Labor and all of the greens plus half the libs and indies will support it in both houses. Just get on with it, it should never have been more than a bit of minor legislation to correct a long standing bit of discrimination.

What about the fact that the strongest No Vote came from Labor Seats?

MarkOlsen wrote:

Bazza wrote:

MarkOlsen wrote: the issue is with all the people in the Liberal party that didnt support the Yes vote, not Malcolm Turnbull, they cant agree on a position as a party and are all trying to undermine each other.

Results from NSW Labor-held electorates:

BARTON - Linda Burney 56.4% NO

BLAXLAND - Jason Clare 73.9% NO

CHIFLEY - Ed Husic 58.7% NO

FOWLER - Chris Hayes 63.7% NO

GREENWAY - Michelle Rowland 53.6% NO

McMAHON - Chris Bowen 64.9% NO

PARRAMATTA - Julie Owens 61.6% NO

WATSON - Tony Burke 69.6% NO

WERRIWA - Ann Stanley 63.7% NO

go watch a replay of 4 Corners from Monday night and you will understand the issue a bit better.

I did - what's your point...clearly you don't have to be a Liberal not to support SSM

Btw the highest votes were all in Blue Ribbon Lib seats Wentworth and Curtin for example, Rich White dudes saved Labors cause...

what about the 75% of Tony Abbot's electorate voting Yes, is he going to represent the views of his electorate now or continue with his own views on things ?

mikeh wrote:

Bazza wrote: With an 80% participation rate I think it was a huge success and a good example of direct democracy , something that should be used more into the future. Its clear Australians like the idea of direct democracy.

Rubbish. This plebiscite was all about an impotent PM bending over to the religious right to shore up his position, at a cost of 100 million. This is something that could have easily been done by the parliament that has been elected to make decisions like this. That 100 million would have been handy for Education, Health or even bringing the budget closer to surplus. Abbotts cronies are not finished with this yet either proposing legislation that will make it lawful to actively discriminate against same sex couples in the name of "Human Rights"

Your all over the place, on one hand your saying trust parliament as they have been elected and on the other hand your saying you cant trust them because of legislation you don't like might get passed...talk about rubbish -you need to sort it out.

MarkOlsen wrote: what about the 75% of Tony Abbot's electorate voting Yes, is he going to represent the views of his electorate now or continue with his own views on things ?

I would hope so just as I would expect Tony Burke to vote no as his electorate did...lol fat chance of that.

which gets back to the issues the Liberal party faces as outlined on 4corners.
one side has the union influence and the other the Christian influence.

Bazza wrote:

mikeh wrote:

Bazza wrote: With an 80% participation rate I think it was a huge success and a good example of direct democracy , something that should be used more into the future. Its clear Australians like the idea of direct democracy.

Rubbish. This plebiscite was all about an impotent PM bending over to the religious right to shore up his position, at a cost of 100 million. This is something that could have easily been done by the parliament that has been elected to make decisions like this. That 100 million would have been handy for Education, Health or even bringing the budget closer to surplus. Abbotts cronies are not finished with this yet either proposing legislation that will make it lawful to actively discriminate against same sex couples in the name of "Human Rights"

Your all over the place, on one hand your saying trust parliament as they have been elected and on the other hand your saying you cant trust them because of legislation you don't like might get passed...talk about rubbish -you need to sort it out.

No what I am saying is that there is a group of politicians who want to frustrate and delay the will of the people which has been expressed via this plebiscite and countless surveys which could have been used to test public opinion for much less cost. The problem with this plebiscite is that it is non binding so the parliament can do what they like really. We are back to where we were 12 months ago but poorer for running this waste of money survey.