29 August 2013

Simon Sheikh, Greens for the Senate, Candidate Questionnaire, Election ’13

| Barcham
Join the conversation
73
Sheikh

Greens’ Senate Candidate Simon Sheikh has sent us these answers to your questions.

Candidates, the readers of RiotACT are your voters and they have questions for you! If you’d like to answer those questions and prove you care what your voters think then email us at contact@the-riotact.com.

You can find the questions here.


1. What are your views on euthanasia?

This is a question of compassion and of dignity. With the appropriate safeguards in place, voluntary euthanasia would allow those with debilitating terminal illness and chronic, intolerable pain to determine when they die. More than 75 per cent of Australians support voluntary euthanasia and the fact that the old parties won’t touch it shows just how out of touch they are. If elected, I’ll vote in favor of a Senate inquiry into voluntary euthanasia in the next parliament, with a view to introducing federal legislation to assist terminally ill patients to die with dignity.


2. Do you support a High Speed Rail Link between Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne?

Yes. High Speed Rail makes economic and environmental sense. It will boost Canberra’s local economy, decrease traffic congestion and accidents on our roads, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. The Greens have championed high speed rail in the Parliament and worked incredibly hard to secure a $20 million feasibility study as part of their agreement with the Government. Now, we’re the only party going to this election with a fully costed plan from the Parliamentary Budget Office that will turn this from a dream into reality. We need 21st century solutions to 21st century problems. Tony Abbott is stuck in the dark ages with his attachment to roads blinding him from supporting sustainable, long-term public transport solutions for Australians.


3. Are you comfortable with the distribution of wealth in modern day Australia?

No.

We’re seeing the gap between the rich and the poor widen. Government has a fundamental role in assisting the most vulnerable and the most disenfranchised people in our society. When we see social polarisation increasing, what we’re witnessing is a failure of government to adequately provide for everyone.

Newstart is a good example of a policy that fails in its objective to support people getting back on their feet and finding work. The single rate of Newstart is just 45% of the minimum wage and leaves people living well under the poverty line. We’re not going to fix the problem of inequality by giving those who are struggling so little that they can barely afford the basics like food and decent accommodation, let alone leave them with enough money to be able to search for work.

The Greens propose increasing Newstart by $50 per week and providing additional support to single parents. A just and fair society doesn’t allow for people to become trapped in cycles of poverty, unemployment and often social exclusion. And on this, we’re on a unity ticket with the Business Council of Australia.


4. Recent polling (Auspoll) shows housing affordability to be a critical issue for a majority of Australians, with 84% of respondents saying it was important to them or their families, putting housing affordability ahead of issues such as education, border security, the NBN and NDIS.

The same poll also revealed that 84% of respondents also believe that Australia is not performing well on housing affordability.

Australian Governments are failing badly on this issue of critical importance to Australians.
What would you do to improve housing affordability?

Having grown up in public housing, I know how important housing accessibility and affordability is. Homelessness has soared in Canberra over the last five years, despite Canberra being one of the most affluent cities in Australia. This level of housing inequality should not sit easily with any of us.

The Greens have a plan to end homelessness by 2020. One in every 200 Australians are homeless. A quarter of them are children under the age of 18. We have committed to doubling funding for homelessness services and providing an additional 7000 new homes by 2020. Currently we rely heavily on emergency services to respond to our homelessness crisis – but this is not only more expensive, it’s not a long-term solution. We have a long-term solution that provides more affordable housing and additional funding for the support services those experiencing homelessness need to get back on their feet.

We’ve also got the most comprehensive affordable housing plan released by any party at this election. You can check it out here: http://www.greens.org.au/housing


5. To me the NBN seems like a great idea, can you tell me why you think it’s ace/a dumb idea.

It’s hard to see a downside to fast and affordable internet for all Australians! Connecting all Australians to high speed internet will create enormous opportunities – especially for those in regional and remote areas. It will fast-track innovation in health care, business and education and will make telecommuting more accessible. It’s worth the investment, so The Greens support the NBN. What’s more, if elected, I’ll campaign to get it rolled out faster across Canberra. It’s pretty unfair that the southside is currently missing out.


6. Do you think cyclists should be registered?!

No. I support making our roads safer for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers but I don’t think bike rego is the way to go. Bike riders already contribute to the construction and maintenance of our roads irrespective of whether we drive or ride on them. Cars pay registration that is in part based on their weight and potential damage they could cause – this measure applied to bikes would result in an almost negligent cost. Making cyclists register would reduce the number of people who could be bothered going through the process, thus leading to more cars on the road and more traffic congestion for little tangible benefit.


7. What is your position on gay marriage?

I have always supported ending marriage discrimination. Equal love deserves equal rights. It’s becoming increasingly clear that politicians who think otherwise are out of step with the Australian people. When I was National Director of GetUp I campaigned actively for marriage equality (check out this video).

The Greens have been backing equality from day one. Christine Milne was at the forefront of gay law reform in Tasmania in the 80s. Sarah Hanson-Young’s first bill in Parliament was for marriage equality. Adam Bandt’s bill to end marriage discrimination was debated in the House earlier this year – though a vote on it was blocked at the last minute.

And its important. This isn’t just about righting a wrong. Suicide rates amongst same sex attracted young people are woeful. When our laws send a message to same sex attracted people that somehow they are different, it legitimises discrimination.


8. Would you be willing to cross the floor on matters of strong personal conscience or of significant concern for your electorate?

Yes. I’ve always stood up to government, big corporations and vested interests. Unlike the old parties, The Greens allow their elected representatives to cross the floor on any issue. The reason I’m running for the Senate is because I believe we need strong voices in Parliament who are willing to stand up for what’s right, not just what’s easy – and, if that requires crossing the floor, then that’s what I’ll do. I was pretty disappointed to hear Zed Seselja attacking Gary Humphries during their preselection fight about the time he crossed the floor.


9. What are your views on the NSA collecting private information of Australian citizens and corporations, of the Australian government’s participation in similar programmes, and of the apparent silence of Australian politicians on the matter?

If we’re doing the right thing, we should have a right to privacy and the freedom to communicate without surveillance. And the reality is, almost all of us aren’t using the internet to do anything sinister! At the moment, Governments are abusing their power without appropriate oversight. That’s why Greens Senator Scott Ludlam introduced the “Get A Warrant” bill which requires that law enforcement agencies and intelligence services need to be granted a warrant before collecting personal information from our online or telecommunication data.

When whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed new and concerning information about how widespread NSA’s PRISM project was in America, our government went quiet on the issue. We should have a right to know whether the Australian government is participating in PRISM or similar programs.

Law enforcement agents should be able to access information when trying to prevent serious crimes. But there is no reason why they shouldn’t get a warrant to do so, just as police have to if they wanted to search your home.


10. We hear so much negativity about the opposition when election time rolls around– what three things do you consider to be positive about any of your opponents and why?

1. The Liberals – He’s not my opponent since the Liberal preselection, but Gary Humphries was a moderate Liberal who many respected. And his replacement, Zed Seselja, has a phenomenal capacity to summarise complex arguments in short sentences, making him a powerful communicator and a tough opponent.
2. Labor – Kate Lundy has shown deep and ongoing commitment to Canberra, having been in the Senate representing our community for 17 years.
3. The Katter candidate, Steven Bailey, also deserves a mention. His campaign manager, a dog called Bruce, livens up all our Senate debates.

Join the conversation

73
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest

c_c™ said :

“If we’re doing the right thing, we should have a right to privacy and the freedom to communicate without surveillance.”

He makes it contingent on the very thing that the measure aims to prove or disprove, which isn’t a very good basis. Because the invariable response to it is “well how do we know you’re doing the right thing or the wrong thing unless we have surveillance?”

It’s simpleton speak, there’s more sophisticated ways to argue for limitations on surveillance.

If you’re doing the wrong thing, there will be evidence of your wrongdoing which will lead to the possibility of getting a warrant to surveil you. This is the way it works for all searches and investigations: unless the authority in question has enough evidence to warrant further investigation. For example a known suspect A made phone calls to previously unknown B, there is evidence for B’s communications to be examined. Or perhaps someone procured (or inquired about procuring) the ingredients and equipment for methamphetamine production (reported to the police by the supplier), meaning that further examination is warranted. Or a woman complains that her estranged husband keeps phoning her with death threats.

So if we’re doing the right thing, there should be no reason for the Government authorities to dig into our phone calls, emails, web history and video conferences. If we’re not doing the right thing, we will produce some evidence sufficient to warrant further probing which would otherwise not be allowed.

This is not “circular thinking,” this is plain and simple due process. The investigation comes after the suspicion, not the other way around. What the Government wants to do is surveil everything all the time, digging into the collected data to find correlations to turn into evidence of crimes.

In a perfect future world, pervasive surveillance might be used to send agents to your door to warn you that a course of action that you are contemplating will lead to a crime being committed. What will more likely happen is that a “pre-crimes tribunal” keen to score some political goals will arrest people on suspicion of planning to commit a crime. Or a corrupt official will concoct evidence to have some inconvenient person gaoled/deported/executed.

All power corrupts. The civil libertarians are arguing that pervasive surveillance is simply too much power for any organisation to handle safely.

thebrownstreak699:49 am 02 Sep 13

davo101 said :

wycx said :

No mention of repealing negative gearing in the Greens Housing policy. No vote for them.

Yes; complete lunacy, no economist would ever agree with that.

It’s unlikely removing negative gearing would achieve much anyway. Prices would reduce temporarily, a few people would buy, then the remaining renters (and there would still be lots) would have to compete for a smaller number of available rentals. Building would slow right down (why buy on the outskirts when you can get something much cheaper in a better location), and so supply would slow down, putting further pressure on the remaining renters.

Given that governments across three levels (fed, state and local) collect well in excess of $40B tax a year from property owners, even including losses from negative gearing, it’s unlikely we’ll see much of a change in this area.

wycx said :

No mention of repealing negative gearing in the Greens Housing policy. No vote for them.

Yes; complete lunacy, no economist would ever agree with that.

Grail said :

c_c™ said :

Answer to #9 is a wonderful example of both circular logic and irrational thought processes.

Can you elucidate upon your comment? How does suggesting that spying on civilians should require a warrant constitute circular logic and irrational thought?

“If we’re doing the right thing, we should have a right to privacy and the freedom to communicate without surveillance.”

He makes it contingent on the very thing that the measure aims to prove or disprove, which isn’t a very good basis. Because the invariable response to it is “well how do we know you’re doing the right thing or the wrong thing unless we have surveillance?”

It’s simpleton speak, there’s more sophisticated ways to argue for limitations on surveillance.

c_c™ said :

Answer to #9 is a wonderful example of both circular logic and irrational thought processes.

Can you elucidate upon your comment? How does suggesting that spying on civilians should require a warrant constitute circular logic and irrational thought?

sien said :

What are his ties with Canberra?

Didn’t the Greens have some locals last time?

His ties to Canberra is that he represents the values that a certain percentage of Canberrans hold. If that percentage is high enough, he’s in the Senate.

The nature of the Senate is such that there’s not a hell of a lot of room for local issues and local pork-barelling to go on, so I have no problem with saying I’d rather have an intelligent, vocally able out of towner who represents my values appearing as a represenative in the Senate rather than a less-competent person who happens to be local.

Answer to #9 is a wonderful example of both circular logic and irrational thought processes.

sien said :

What are his ties with Canberra?

He lives here, and has the support of rusted-on Greens whose grandparents are buried in the local cemetery. Sure, he’s not from ’round ‘ere, but that’s not what you look for in a candidate for parliament. Thinking that being a “true blue local” is important for a local representative or senator gets you voting for Zed for the ACT Legislative … oh sorry, I forgot about that.

justin heywood said :

Sorry to dampen the love-fest, but I think I should point out that the reason the Greens are free to say Yes to everything and generally promise universal peace and happiness is because they know they don’t have to deliver on anything – they know they’ll never actually be in government so they are free to promise anything.

“Everything” is a little more all-encompassing than a few questions on a RiotACT poll, don’t you reckon?

The Greens are saying “NO” to CSG, “NO” to coal ports on the Great Barrier Reef, and “NO” to the racism inherent in a Government and Opposition so focussed on “stopping the boats” by making coming to Australia worse than being stoned to death in Iran.

This isn’t about being “free to promise anything” this is about sticking to their principles, which have been published for a decade and you can read them and the policies that they have spawned over on the Greens web site.

Or you could just be lazy and stick to what you are told by Murdoch and Rinehart.

Doesn’t his partner work at the ANU, I guess that is one of this connections to Canberra. Most of us move here for our work or our partners work don’t we? I would love to know what he plans on doing when he doesn’t get elected, that might show how closely he really is connected to Canberra

Baggy said :

I find it way too difficult to cast my vote for a bloke who blows into town a short while before an election and then purports to represent the community on different matters.

Also, have you seen him drive? I’ve seen him nearly cause 3 collisions since the election campaigning began. Can’t trust a bloke who can’t drive responsibly.

Well, if he can’t drive, then he really must be a Canberran!

What are his ties with Canberra?

Didn’t the Greens have some locals last time?

Masquara said :

Baggy said :

I find it way too difficult to cast my vote for a bloke who blows into town a short while before an election and then purports to represent the community on different matters.

Also, have you seen him drive? I’ve seen him nearly cause 3 collisions since the election campaigning began. Can’t trust a bloke who can’t drive responsibly.

He’s new to driving … he had ALWAYS cycled, before needing to drive because of the campaign … ; )

WOW Masquara being pro cyclist, anything is possible now

He’s my first real vote, want to get a few bonus kicks in first.

Masquara said :

Oh the schadenfreude for relishing for another week! All those Rioters who have been slamming, viciously, anyone like me who refuses to be a rusted-on Labor voter. You’re all sounding so cranky, Old Labor Ruddites, as you get your come-uppance. I’m voting for Sheikh.

Hearing the Laborites bleat just makes them getting spanked all the better.

Masquara said :

He’s new to driving … he had ALWAYS cycled, before needing to drive because of the campaign … ; )

He sounds like the type of guy who would steal a cashmere coat.

Baggy said :

I find it way too difficult to cast my vote for a bloke who blows into town a short while before an election and then purports to represent the community on different matters.

Also, have you seen him drive? I’ve seen him nearly cause 3 collisions since the election campaigning began. Can’t trust a bloke who can’t drive responsibly.

He’s new to driving … he had ALWAYS cycled, before needing to drive because of the campaign … ; )

The polls and the media are predicting a landslide for the Mad Monk, but I seriously wonder how accurate that is. I’ve never seen such expressions of deep dissatisfaction with both parties and I wonder whether that could translate into a dramatic swing to minor parties and independents. I certainly hope so.

I assume the polls all distribute preferences as per party diktat to arrive at their two-party preferred results. Perhaps if both major parties get trounced, we may end up with a government with the balls to abolish above-the-line voting.

I find it way too difficult to cast my vote for a bloke who blows into town a short while before an election and then purports to represent the community on different matters.

Also, have you seen him drive? I’ve seen him nearly cause 3 collisions since the election campaigning began. Can’t trust a bloke who can’t drive responsibly.

Oh the schadenfreude for relishing for another week! All those Rioters who have been slamming, viciously, anyone like me who refuses to be a rusted-on Labor voter. You’re all sounding so cranky, Old Labor Ruddites, as you get your come-uppance. I’m voting for Sheikh.

CraigT said :

Postalgeek said :

Robertson said :

I have been thinking of a question for Simon Sheikh and his advisors that has been puzzling me.

In 1917, the British Royal family (Australia’s heads of state) changed its’ German-sounding name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the name, “Windsor”. I’m sure the reasons for doing this don’t need explaining.

Did it occur to The Greens that after a war pitting Australia and its allies against Iraq, with more wars looming on the horizon in Syria and Iran, do they really think the name “Sheikh” is the best name to be using to try to prise the ACT’s 2nd senate seat off the Libs?

Imagine if he changed his name to “Kelly”, or something?

I’m just guessing here, but I suspect that if you were a voter who found the name “Sheikh” an issue, you probably wouldn’t be voting for the Greens anyway, no matter what their candidates’ names were.

So The Greens have no strategy for attracting votes from the general populace.

Got it.

The Greens have no strategy for attracting the racist vote.

IP

To add, there are two websites purporting to be the ‘real’ Australian democrats.

The one I just linked, and this one: http://australian-democrats.org.au/

The hyphenated page seems to be the Democrats actually running for election and acknowledged by the AEC and the other one seems to be the one with majority support of its members.

davo101 said :

housebound said :

Pity he’s a Green. Meredith Hunter and her friends showed a side of the Greens I don’t want to elect ever again. Where are the Democrats when you need them?

You don’t remember? They compromised their values in order to co-operate with the government of the day and their voters turned away. It’s the problem every minor party has; while you are too small to matter you can be a pure and clean as you want but once you’re big enough to play with the boys you have to start to make compromises. For some reason Australian voters don’t seem to like their minor parties to actually participate in the political process.

There’s also the slight matter of their civil war which has completely destroyed any chance on them returning as a force in Australian politics.

http://www.australiandemocrats.org.au/preference_and_candidates?recruiter_id=12

CraigT said :

johnboy said :

and look how we’ve all grown up since 1917

Yep, so grown up we’re about to vote in Tony “Science is Crap” Abbott as our next PM.

I can’t think of a bigger retard ever having been PM since Federation. Curtin was afraid of flying, Whitlam was a disaster, but none of them could hold a candle to Abbott in terms of sheer retardedness.

Which would therefore indicate that there are countless retards who identify with the Abbot(t) and or are totally disillusioned with Labor who have been woeful much to my chagrin.

Postalgeek said :

Robertson said :

I have been thinking of a question for Simon Sheikh and his advisors that has been puzzling me.

In 1917, the British Royal family (Australia’s heads of state) changed its’ German-sounding name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the name, “Windsor”. I’m sure the reasons for doing this don’t need explaining.

Did it occur to The Greens that after a war pitting Australia and its allies against Iraq, with more wars looming on the horizon in Syria and Iran, do they really think the name “Sheikh” is the best name to be using to try to prise the ACT’s 2nd senate seat off the Libs?

Imagine if he changed his name to “Kelly”, or something?

I’m just guessing here, but I suspect that if you were a voter who found the name “Sheikh” an issue, you probably wouldn’t be voting for the Greens anyway, no matter what their candidates’ names were.

So The Greens have no strategy for attracting votes from the general populace.

Got it.

johnboy said :

and look how we’ve all grown up since 1917

Yep, so grown up we’re about to vote in Tony “Science is Crap” Abbott as our next PM.

I can’t think of a bigger retard ever having been PM since Federation. Curtin was afraid of flying, Whitlam was a disaster, but none of them could hold a candle to Abbott in terms of sheer retardedness.

wycx said :

No mention of repealing negative gearing in the Greens Housing policy. No vote for them.

Needs to be reduced by 1 property per year to a maximum of 2 or 3 I think.

The Greens solution to affordable housing is to give everyone public housing. Except those rich people who earn 60k a year, they can all battle over the few remaining houses costing 1M+ each.

No mention of repealing negative gearing in the Greens Housing policy. No vote for them.

Grail said :

I’ve been helping out with Simon’s campaign, so of course I’m going to vote for the joker 🙂

I’d like to hear more about watto23’s ideas of how the Greens aren’t sensible with money while the Liberal & Labor parties are! Perhaps he is one of the filthy rich fat cats that Canberra is supposed to have, and wants us to fork out the $75k the Liberals will give him and his wife for having a baby that a poor couple will only get paid a few thousand for?

No i definitely oppose the liberals rort of a maternity leave scheme. I am definitely a swinging voter.

I believe the ETS is a good idea and so is the mining tax, but the greens would be happy to tax some industries a lot more, which sounds great in principle but could cause a lot of harm. On their website they say increase spending in education by 10%. But we need to make that money to spend it. A lot of what the Greens would like to do, I agree with, but often they don’t convince me on how it will be funded.

Socially though most greens policies i agree with. I’m certainly of the belief that our current boat people policies are ridiculous wastes of money by labor and liberal, all aimed at winning seats in places like western sydney. I’ve also been appalled by the views of some in the rise up candidates answers. I can’t see why people should not be treated equally.

That said I’m a big fan of the NBN which the greens obviously support. I was in full agreeance with the coalition that a cost benefit analysis should be done, and then the libs went and decided to throw 5 billion a year at a wasteful maternity leave scheme. They also want to get rid of bonus super for low income earners. Great more people living on a pension later in life!

bundah said :

poetix said :

Agree with many of the policies, don’t like the candidate. Particularly his tendency to refer to his humble background a little too frequently. Reminds me of Uriah Heep in David Copperfield.

That’s interesting for I find the humble background quite endearing and prefer that to those born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

I certainly agree that a diversity of backgrounds is good, and something that we don’t see in Parliament.

I really hope that people don’t vote for these rockefeller sponsored communist greens.
I was doing some work the other day at the NFSA and noticed that this organization seems to be a haven for these communist type sheikh supporters-some lady was singing the praises of the greens, and shoving communist ideology down some poor souls throat.
Another so-called “audio engineer” in the basement was too busy looking at facebook, and ebay to be getting any work done, mind you he was using government computers and resources(i’ll be letting intact know), and was too busy listening to some loud music to notice my presence.
Out in the courtyard some hippy was singing protest songs, instead of working.
These are the wasteful public servants that hopefully will lose their jobs come sept 7.
I really hope people wake up to these commies the greens and send them to the gulag.

IrishPete said :

Stevian said :

Looks like a landslide win for the Greens

Scary

Why does democracy scare you?

IP

Democracy scares me because my fellow humans scare me, by their thoughts and actions. I believe it was Winston Churchill who said “Democracy may not be perfect, but it’s better than the alternative” I paraphrase slightly. So I’m scared but I live with it as a part of the human condition

‘Our community’? Simon, you actually need to live in a place for more than 5 minutes before claiming to be a member of a community. Daft blow-in, go back to Melbourne already.

Robertson said :

I have been thinking of a question for Simon Sheikh and his advisors that has been puzzling me.

In 1917, the British Royal family (Australia’s heads of state) changed its’ German-sounding name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the name, “Windsor”. I’m sure the reasons for doing this don’t need explaining.

Did it occur to The Greens that after a war pitting Australia and its allies against Iraq, with more wars looming on the horizon in Syria and Iran, do they really think the name “Sheikh” is the best name to be using to try to prise the ACT’s 2nd senate seat off the Libs?

Imagine if he changed his name to “Kelly”, or something?

I’m just guessing here, but I suspect that if you were a voter who found the name “Sheikh” an issue, you probably wouldn’t be voting for the Greens anyway, no matter what their candidates’ names were.

Robertson said :

I have been thinking of a question for Simon Sheikh and his advisors that has been puzzling me.

In 1917, the British Royal family (Australia’s heads of state) changed its’ German-sounding name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the name, “Windsor”. I’m sure the reasons for doing this don’t need explaining.

Did it occur to The Greens that after a war pitting Australia and its allies against Iraq, with more wars looming on the horizon in Syria and Iran, do they really think the name “Sheikh” is the best name to be using to try to prise the ACT’s 2nd senate seat off the Libs?

Imagine if he changed his name to “Kelly”, or something?

Ridiculous, he’s not running for One Nation. Nobody who would vote for Simon cares what his surname is.

davo101 said :

housebound said :

Pity he’s a Green. Meredith Hunter and her friends showed a side of the Greens I don’t want to elect ever again. Where are the Democrats when you need them?

You don’t remember? They compromised their values in order to co-operate with the government of the day and their voters turned away. It’s the problem every minor party has; while you are too small to matter you can be a pure and clean as you want but once you’re big enough to play with the boys you have to start to make compromises. For some reason Australian voters don’t seem to like their minor parties to actually participate in the political process.

Yeah it can be a real pain in the rear when your ideology smacks into reality.

I have been thinking of a question for Simon Sheikh and his advisors that has been puzzling me.

In 1917, the British Royal family (Australia’s heads of state) changed its’ German-sounding name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the name, “Windsor”. I’m sure the reasons for doing this don’t need explaining.

Did it occur to The Greens that after a war pitting Australia and its allies against Iraq, with more wars looming on the horizon in Syria and Iran, do they really think the name “Sheikh” is the best name to be using to try to prise the ACT’s 2nd senate seat off the Libs?

Imagine if he changed his name to “Kelly”, or something?

and look how we’ve all grown up since 1917

Darkfalz said :

johnboy said :

Darkfalz I think you’ve come badly detached from reality.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2013/08/senate-preferences-act.html

Cleared it up for me. Too bad.

You should be hoping that Abbott won’t get the senate – this will restrict him from going the full-loon on us and destroying the Libs’ long-term support.

As it is, it’s hard to see Abbott holding on for even a full term, let alone any additional one(s).

Chop71 said :

Yup, this is the same Simon who couldn’t remember if/when he was a paid up member of the labour party.

I would have thought that would be something quite “Simple” hey Simon?

I was a member of the British Labour party in the late 1990s, but wouldn’t have a clue of the dates, and would have thrown out the paperwork years ago (probably a ceremonial bonfire when I realised how far to the Right Tony Blair had moved the party).

I think you have to be reasonable about these things.

IP

housebound said :

Pity he’s a Green. Meredith Hunter and her friends showed a side of the Greens I don’t want to elect ever again. Where are the Democrats when you need them?

You don’t remember? They compromised their values in order to co-operate with the government of the day and their voters turned away. It’s the problem every minor party has; while you are too small to matter you can be a pure and clean as you want but once you’re big enough to play with the boys you have to start to make compromises. For some reason Australian voters don’t seem to like their minor parties to actually participate in the political process.

Stevian said :

Looks like a landslide win for the Greens

Scary

Why does democracy scare you?

IP

Yup, this is the same Simon who couldn’t remember if/when he was a paid up member of the labour party.

I would have thought that would be something quite “Simple” hey Simon?

Darkfalz said :

johnboy said :

Darkfalz I think you’ve come badly detached from reality.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2013/08/senate-preferences-act.html

Cleared it up for me. Too bad.

The polls are obviously lying, that’s not the result I get when I talk to people at the bowls club after the Rise Up Australia party meeting.

Looks like a landslide win for the Greens

Scary

johnboy said :

Darkfalz I think you’ve come badly detached from reality.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2013/08/senate-preferences-act.html

Cleared it up for me. Too bad.

Darkfalz said :

johnboy said :

A quota of votes doesn’t mean what you might think it does.

In the ACT we have a bit of an abomination in that a system optimised for electing 12 senators is trying to pick 2.

Basically if you can get 1/3 of the votes +1 you’re an ACT senator. Rinse and repeat allocating preferences until the second horse also gets 1/3 +1.

I don’t care much for “Senator Zed” but he should be safe. Lundy/Sheikh deathmatch for second spot it looks like. Lundy deserves to go for her “blackest day in sports” beat up.

Wishful thinking.

Best answers to #10 yet.

Pity he’s a Green. Meredith Hunter and her friends showed a side of the Greens I don’t want to elect ever again. Where are the Democrats when you need them?

johnboy said :

A quota of votes doesn’t mean what you might think it does.

In the ACT we have a bit of an abomination in that a system optimised for electing 12 senators is trying to pick 2.

Basically if you can get 1/3 of the votes +1 you’re an ACT senator. Rinse and repeat allocating preferences until the second horse also gets 1/3 +1.

I don’t care much for “Senator Zed” but he should be safe. Lundy/Sheikh deathmatch for second spot it looks like. Lundy deserves to go for her “blackest day in sports” beat up.

Darkfalz I think you’ve come badly detached from reality.

poetix said :

Agree with many of the policies, don’t like the candidate. Particularly his tendency to refer to his humble background a little too frequently. Reminds me of Uriah Heep in David Copperfield.

That’s interesting for I find the humble background quite endearing and prefer that to those born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

Agree with many of the policies, don’t like the candidate. Particularly his tendency to refer to his humble background a little too frequently. Reminds me of Uriah Heep in David Copperfield.

So many things to like about the Sheikh. Senator Simon Sheikh sounds sensational..

Jim Jones said :

Darkfalz said :

Frightening to think this clown could get a say in any real policy.

Gold!

Possibly the most incisive political analysis you’ve ever presented. Clowns! Ah, it’s just comedy gold.

It wouldn’t bother me if he took Lundy’s seat. 🙂 The senate system uses “quotas” similar to the ACT state election does it not? I should read up on it.

A quota of votes doesn’t mean what you might think it does.

In the ACT we have a bit of an abomination in that a system optimised for electing 12 senators is trying to pick 2.

Basically if you can get 1/3 of the votes +1 you’re an ACT senator. Rinse and repeat allocating preferences until the second horse also gets 1/3 +1.

Thanks for the free garden stakes Simon

Darkfalz said :

Frightening to think this clown could get a say in any real policy.

Gold!

Possibly the most incisive political analysis you’ve ever presented. Clowns! Ah, it’s just comedy gold.

Interestingly, we’ve seen fewer political sycophants posting on RA this time around.

And by this, I don’t mean regulars, but blow-ins who suddenly appear usually around election time and then disappear forever.

Then again, we still have another week to go.

Thankfully the astroturfers are all busy retweeting each other.

justin heywood7:14 am 30 Aug 13

Sorry to dampen the love-fest, but I think I should point out that the reason the Greens are free to say Yes to everything and generally promise universal peace and happiness is because they know they don’t have to deliver on anything – they know they’ll never actually be in government so they are free to promise anything.

I find Sheikh a totally unconvincing chancer, but each to their own.

Grail said :

I’ve been helping out with Simon’s campaign, so of course I’m going to vote for the joker 🙂

I’d like to hear more about watto23’s ideas of how the Greens aren’t sensible with money while the Liberal & Labor parties are! Perhaps he is one of the filthy rich fat cats that Canberra is supposed to have, and wants us to fork out the $75k the Liberals will give him and his wife for having a baby that a poor couple will only get paid a few thousand for?

Maybe you could have proof-read his answers for him? “Negligent cost”? And I think posting a GetUp video is probably blurring the line between the two Gs a little more than is wise. And the NBN is “worth the investment” even though there has been no cost benefit analysis?

Though I am a dyed in the wool Greens member and voter, I really wish we could be more professional. Particularly when it comes to money matters, though I think we have improved hugely in recent years.

IP

Frightening to think this clown could get a say in any real policy.

Simon sounds like a great candidate. Has he considered putting out any signs?

Simon, followup question: do you think a high speed rail should terminate at Canberra Airport or at a railway station in Civic? If your answer is better than Andrew Leigh’s, then my voting intention will shift!

Grail said :

I’ve been helping out with Simon’s campaign, so of course I’m going to vote for the joker 🙂

I’d like to hear more about watto23’s ideas of how the Greens aren’t sensible with money while the Liberal & Labor parties are! Perhaps he is one of the filthy rich fat cats that Canberra is supposed to have, and wants us to fork out the $75k the Liberals will give him and his wife for having a baby that a poor couple will only get paid a few thousand for?

Especially since Society will benefit more from additional monies paid to raise the poor child.

I’ve been helping out with Simon’s campaign, so of course I’m going to vote for the joker 🙂

I’d like to hear more about watto23’s ideas of how the Greens aren’t sensible with money while the Liberal & Labor parties are! Perhaps he is one of the filthy rich fat cats that Canberra is supposed to have, and wants us to fork out the $75k the Liberals will give him and his wife for having a baby that a poor couple will only get paid a few thousand for?

After reading this, I’m glad I voted for him.

watto23 said :

Codders111 said :

First preference from me too. The only ‘major’ (using the term loosely) party with an ounce of sense.

And that sense IMO is often not there for things requiring money, but thats what the two major parties are for, so i feel comfortable with greens having the balance of power. Prefer the democrats though. Natasha Stott Despoja and the Democrats would still get my vote, if they were on the ticket in Canberra (they have one in the seat of Fraser)

I respected the democrats too. Probably still do, but I haven’t heard much about what they’re up to these days.

I like how he has just answered the questions, often with a clear yes or no. Many of the others are trying to spin or obfuscate their way around these things.

No 1 for me too.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd6:32 pm 29 Aug 13

IN B4 MINDLESS LIBERAL HALFWITS AND THE MORON ARAB SHEIK CROWD!!!

I think sheik is getting my vote.

Woody Mann-Caruso6:24 pm 29 Aug 13

And that sense IMO is often not there for things requiring money

Things like what? Based on what?

Codders111 said :

First preference from me too. The only ‘major’ (using the term loosely) party with an ounce of sense.

And that sense IMO is often not there for things requiring money, but thats what the two major parties are for, so i feel comfortable with greens having the balance of power. Prefer the democrats though. Natasha Stott Despoja and the Democrats would still get my vote, if they were on the ticket in Canberra (they have one in the seat of Fraser)

First preference from me too. The only ‘major’ (using the term loosely) party with an ounce of sense.

I heard Simon Sheikh on the radio yesterday arvo and he seriously impressed me with his persona on radio. I was going to put the greens somewhere in the middle but maybe he will get my first vote in the senate now.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.