Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Tax time headache?
Let us crunch the numbers

Think very hard about your Senate vote

By johnboy 6 September 2013 128

senate

We’re not in the business of telling our readers how to vote.

But we do share information which may colour that decision.

Canberra voters can usually be taken for granted to deliver one Liberal Senator and two Labor MP’s and one Labor Senator.

But with Tony Abbott so far ahead in this race that he’s putting policy lead in his saddlebag just to carry it over the line you all need to at least consider your Senate vote. (The strange birth and death of the internet filter being an illuminating case in point.)

If the ACT were to reject Zed Seselja in favour of Simon Sheikh it would very likely rob the Coalition of control in the Senate.

This website asks exactly one thing of Candidates for elections. That they take the time to answer ten questions put by our readers.

You can see the answers from candidates of all hues who respect you enough to have done so.

According to Google we had 173,287 unique visitors in the last month, almost all of them from the ACT.

screenshot

A candidate that does not take the opportunity to address, in as much length and detail as they choose, this audience is, in my opinion, treating the ACT electorate with contempt.

And remember, voting for a minor party will not waste your vote in Australia.

The Canberra Times has a much more long winded editorial on the subject if you’d like more detail:

The upper-house election gives Canberrans another opportunity to disrupt political norms. Psephologist Malcolm Mackerras said last month that a Senate vote in the ACT might be ”the most valuable vote in the country”; the only ballot that has the potential to prevent Mr Abbott from wielding complete power. At the same time, Canberrans will lose an experienced senator and proud advocate for the ACT, Gary Humphries, who was defeated in a messy and controversial preselection. He was the only Liberal to vote against the Howard government on a party-mandated ballot (on the matter of same-sex civil unions), because he refused to violate the ACT’s rights.

With Senator Humphries’s departure, Canberrans now have the perfect opportunity to break up the ACT’s cosy Labor-Liberal duopoly in the upper house, and in doing so place a cautionary brake on a likely Abbott government. A lack of a Senate majority is no barrier to good government; indeed, Mr Abbott must embrace compromise if he is to lead well.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
128 Responses to
Think very hard about your Senate vote
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
7
Roundhead89 7:32 pm 10 Sep 13

Robertson said :

Ah you have to laugh…

Darkfalz said :

Robertson said :

Darkfalz said :

You can find studies to support anything you believe in.

Except climate change denial – there are no studies that give any support for that, just cranky rants by loons and paid disinformation from political lobbies.

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

You want a study to prove the climate isn’t changing?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html#ixzz2eR98YdEn

…and he provides the Daily Mail.

Any idea what a “study” is, Darkfalz?

Hint: Science isn’t advanced by tabloid rags.

This is the final word on global warming/climate change or whatever the lefties are calling it this week. Other intellectuals such as Alan Jones have also exposed the climate change hoax:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ice_grows_in_arctic_which_the_abc_warned_would_be_ice_free/

Climate change ended last Saturday, it is now time to put it behind us and concentrate on restoring the jobs lost because of Labor and The Greens taking it seriously. Putting climate change behind us will lower electricity bills by scrapping so-called renewable energy and expanding coal mining. We have plenty of coal to last hundreds of years.

Thankfully our children have not been brainwashed beyond mental recovery and we can reflect on just how badly we were conned by the loony left and their moronic cargo culting and gravy trainism.

DrKoresh 5:07 pm 10 Sep 13

johnboy said :

Alright Darkfalz,

Like every under-socialised nutcase you’re badly offtopic because your deranged mind conflates every issue with the only issues you’ve been doing selective reading on.

If you wish to be heard further I suggest you remain on the topics at hand.

I’m sure there are plenty of nutcase sites for you to be in furious agreement with your fellow mental patients.

Just another example of the liberal-media conspiracy to silence people who are just trying to communicate the truth about global warming.

Nah, jks, it needed to be done 😀

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 4:57 pm 10 Sep 13

johnboy said :

Alright Darkfalz,

Like every under-socialised nutcase you’re badly offtopic because your deranged mind conflates every issue with the only issues you’ve been doing selective reading on.

If you wish to be heard further I suggest you remain on the topics at hand.

I’m sure there are plenty of nutcase sites for you to be in furious agreement with your fellow mental patients.

Thank you.

Robertson 3:18 pm 10 Sep 13

Ah you have to laugh…

Darkfalz said :

Robertson said :

Darkfalz said :

You can find studies to support anything you believe in.

Except climate change denial – there are no studies that give any support for that, just cranky rants by loons and paid disinformation from political lobbies.

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

You want a study to prove the climate isn’t changing?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html#ixzz2eR98YdEn

…and he provides the Daily Mail.

Any idea what a “study” is, Darkfalz?

Hint: Science isn’t advanced by tabloid rags.

poetix 2:36 pm 10 Sep 13

The Senate deserves the Mully.

Matt_Watts 1:58 pm 10 Sep 13

Grail said :

Matt_Watts said :

I’m sorry I don’t fawn over your comments as much as you’d like, yet I already covered this and, you’re right, it’s there for all to see. I clearly stated that being “in the tent” allows for better communication.

Being “in the tent” (i.e.: having Liberal reps and senators) doesn’t enhance communication, it means we have no voice in a party which prohibits crossing the floor. To get better communication, we’d have to kick both Liberal and Labor out by hair-thin margins. At that point, both major parties would be paying us so much attention that we’d probably be having too much communication!

Matt_Watts said :

Whilst the intent to govern for *all* Australians exists, not having any ACT representation in the Australian Government would clearly hamper the effectiveness of decisions. It’s common sense. Stop inventing conspiracies.

Who had more power when Stephen Fielding was the “+1 person” the Government needed to get majority: the party or the independent?

Being a Liberal candidate I can understand that you have an unusually skewed view of the world due to the gravitational lensing of your own ego, but at some point you have to acknowledge that marginal seats get more communication from Government, and independents that are required to form Government get much more decision making power than the homogenous blue-tied masses of The Party.

The Liberal party generally does allow crossing the floor; the obvious exemption to that is cabinet (or shadow cabinet) solidarity. Don’t forget, Gary Humphries crossed the floor in support of the ACT’s right to pass its own legislation.

The ALP automatically kicks out any MP or Senator who crosses the floor.

There might be a tendency for parties to pay more attention to marginal seats… surely you’re not suggesting the Liberal hold on the Senate seat is safe…?!

davo101 1:15 pm 10 Sep 13

Darkfalz said :

Since you asked for it though:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

Interesting article; they don’t go into too much detail about how they corrected for confounding variables. One of the clearest things that stands out is that the children of wealthy parents do better as adults than those from poor parents. In this study the hetro still living together group is the richest and the lesbian couples are the poorest; unsurprisingly these are the two extreme groups in terms of outcomes as adults.

Darkfalz 1:14 pm 10 Sep 13

Robertson said :

Darkfalz said :

You can find studies to support anything you believe in.

Except climate change denial – there are no studies that give any support for that, just cranky rants by loons and paid disinformation from political lobbies.

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

You want a study to prove the climate isn’t changing? I agree, there is no such study. The argument is over whether it is man made, and how man-made it is, and what will happen to the planet as a result.

And you believe the billions in grants for various studies and research don’t motivate the warmists?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html#ixzz2eR98YdEn

Here are the ice caps that Gore said would be gone by 2013, for example. I don’t mind the studies into it, even if they are clearly motivated by the dollar. But can they at least stop with the alarmist nonsense as well as blaming weather events that have been common for the duration of human history on the planet on AGW?

    johnboy 1:18 pm 10 Sep 13

    Alright Darkfalz,

    Like every under-socialised nutcase you’re badly offtopic because your deranged mind conflates every issue with the only issues you’ve been doing selective reading on.

    If you wish to be heard further I suggest you remain on the topics at hand.

    I’m sure there are plenty of nutcase sites for you to be in furious agreement with your fellow mental patients.

Robertson 12:45 pm 10 Sep 13

Darkfalz said :

You can find studies to support anything you believe in.

Except climate change denial – there are no studies that give any support for that, just cranky rants by loons and paid disinformation from political lobbies.

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

Darkfalz 10:52 am 10 Sep 13

Stevian said :

Do you have any evidence for that assertion, not anecdotes, evidence

You can find studies to support anything you believe in. This is especially true of this debate, where candidates are found advertising in LGBT literature leading to obvious cherry picking. Notice they tend to focus on children of lesbian parents, who were able to select the sperm they wanted (from what I’ve seen mostly from successful, high IQ Northern Europeans).

For this reason I don’t put much faith in these studies, for or against. I put more faith in evolution and biology and human nature, the desire to protect your progeny and see it flourish. Of course, where children are born out of trysts and poor relationships, the results are likely to be poor for the children, even though their parents are obviously not gay. This is the entire point behind strengthening the institution of marriage rather than undermining it.

Since you asked for it though:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

Stevian 10:35 am 10 Sep 13

Darkfalz said :

BimboGeek said :

The only way marriage equality could threaten your traditional hetero marriage is if you really want to be married but you have secret yearnings for the company of other men. So you settled for a traditional marriage with a woman you kind of get along with but who doesn’t turn you on in the way you wish, and you don’t want to be tempted to the dark side…

Trite. Maybe it’s not about me? I want to preserve the encouragement (not enforcement) of the best working model for the upbringing of children, namely with their mum and dad. That’s all it is. I respect the opinions of those looking for a change, and a further weakening of the traditional family unit, but I don’t agree with it.

Do you have any evidence for that assertion, not anecdotes, evidence

Darkfalz 9:18 am 10 Sep 13

DrKoresh said :

Darkfalz in the closet? Never!

When you run out of things to say, try the “you must be gay yourself” approach. Which is, of course, denigrating the very thing you’re trying to promote as normal and healthy.

Darkfalz 9:17 am 10 Sep 13

BimboGeek said :

The only way marriage equality could threaten your traditional hetero marriage is if you really want to be married but you have secret yearnings for the company of other men. So you settled for a traditional marriage with a woman you kind of get along with but who doesn’t turn you on in the way you wish, and you don’t want to be tempted to the dark side…

Trite. Maybe it’s not about me? I want to preserve the encouragement (not enforcement) of the best working model for the upbringing of children, namely with their mum and dad. That’s all it is. I respect the opinions of those looking for a change, and a further weakening of the traditional family unit, but I don’t agree with it.

Darkfalz 8:44 am 10 Sep 13

watto23 said :

Hang on thats exactly what i’m saying. You’d be upset if the muslims had there way, but apparently its ok for catholics (and other religions of similar beliefs) to have there way.

With one major difference. Marriage has been this way since our country and democracy began. I want to keep it, you want to change it. I want to keep what works within the overall context of the family and society.

They were only altered when certain activists began contesting what was previously thought, for over a century, common sense.

I will also say if it indeed the law gets overturned some day, while I will reserve my own private opinion of what constitutes a marriage, I wouldn’t openly campaign to have it taken away from people once achieved.

DrKoresh 10:53 pm 09 Sep 13

BimboGeek said :

The only way marriage equality could threaten your traditional hetero marriage is if you really want to be married but you have secret yearnings for the company of other men. So you settled for a traditional marriage with a woman you kind of get along with but who doesn’t turn you on in the way you wish, and you don’t want to be tempted to the dark side…

Darkfalz in the closet? Never!

Grail 5:12 pm 09 Sep 13

Matt_Watts said :

I’m sorry I don’t fawn over your comments as much as you’d like, yet I already covered this and, you’re right, it’s there for all to see. I clearly stated that being “in the tent” allows for better communication.

Being “in the tent” (i.e.: having Liberal reps and senators) doesn’t enhance communication, it means we have no voice in a party which prohibits crossing the floor. To get better communication, we’d have to kick both Liberal and Labor out by hair-thin margins. At that point, both major parties would be paying us so much attention that we’d probably be having too much communication!

Matt_Watts said :

Whilst the intent to govern for *all* Australians exists, not having any ACT representation in the Australian Government would clearly hamper the effectiveness of decisions. It’s common sense. Stop inventing conspiracies.

Who had more power when Stephen Fielding was the “+1 person” the Government needed to get majority: the party or the independent?

Being a Liberal candidate I can understand that you have an unusually skewed view of the world due to the gravitational lensing of your own ego, but at some point you have to acknowledge that marginal seats get more communication from Government, and independents that are required to form Government get much more decision making power than the homogenous blue-tied masses of The Party.

BimboGeek 5:12 pm 09 Sep 13

The only way marriage equality could threaten your traditional hetero marriage is if you really want to be married but you have secret yearnings for the company of other men. So you settled for a traditional marriage with a woman you kind of get along with but who doesn’t turn you on in the way you wish, and you don’t want to be tempted to the dark side…

watto23 3:28 pm 09 Sep 13

Darkfalz said :

watto23 said :

Apparently according to DarkFalz, that gay marriage ruins the family unit of a man, a woman and children…. yet we are still awaiting how gay marriage affects this, because right now, legally gay people can have children and live together. Just like straight couples don’t have to get married and have children, or single people raise children, some with the help of their parents/siblings. He has some bee in his bonnet and would rather the country became a society of intolerant people quite happy to see others suffer.

Again, disagreeing with someone’s desire to change the law does make one “intolerant” of them.

Do you believe in what Muslims believe? Would you be okay with having Sharia or Sharia type laws introduced here? No? So you’re happy for me to call you a Muslim hating bigot then?

This is essentially the same guilt inducing argument many of you gay marriage proponents are running. I suggest you give it a rest. And if you really think gays who are unable to get a marriage certificate are “suffering” I suggest you look at how they are treated in many parts of the world.

Hang on thats exactly what i’m saying. You’d be upset if the muslims had there way, but apparently its ok for catholics (and other religions of similar beliefs) to have there way. Again there is absolutely no difference to you, if you had gay neighbours who were married or who were not. That is the point, there is NO difference to you other than it violating your own beliefs. Sharia law however could influence you and thus is a different issue.

I’m extremely open minded traveller who has seen some of these places in the world. Trust me Australia isn’t always better…. That said, what happens if allowing gay marriage is used as a trade to get rid of the carbon tax by minor parties…. Now that would be interesting!

Darkfalz 2:23 pm 09 Sep 13

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

– Why would Canberra need a Liberal representative ‘at the table’ to get it?
– If we don’t have a Liberal representative ‘at the table’, in what way will our representation be less than ‘better’, and why is this OK?

I know you’re replying to someone else, but as the Canberra Times said, it’s not so much the idea that having greater Liberal representation in Canberra would help gain favour with a federal Liberal government, it’s that once the Labor party, or any party, is taking your vote for granted – they’ll take liberties with it, as particularly this last Labor government did (with seeming impunity).

Matt_Watts 1:46 pm 09 Sep 13

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Open and accountable discourse was precisely what I was doing.

No. I know Libs like to rewrite history, but here’s what you really did. It’s on the public record, so you can check for yourself:

– dismissed my views out-of-hand because I have an ‘anti-Liberal bias’
– followed up with a ‘whatever’.

What you didn’t do was address the issues I raised. Here, I’ll raise them more slowly, and break them into obvious parts so you can think them through in order:

– What is ‘better representation’, according to the now Liberal government?
– Why would Canberra need a Liberal representative ‘at the table’ to get it?
– If we don’t have a Liberal representative ‘at the table’, in what way will our representation be less than ‘better’, and why is this OK?
– How does this align with Tony Abbott’s claims that a Liberal government will govern for all Australians? Because I missed the bit where he said ‘…though of course, if you have a seat at our table, you’ll get better government than if you don’t.’

I’m sorry I don’t fawn over your comments as much as you’d like, yet I already covered this and, you’re right, it’s there for all to see. I clearly stated that being “in the tent” allows for better communication. Whilst the intent to govern for *all* Australians exists, not having any ACT representation in the Australian Government would clearly hamper the effectiveness of decisions. It’s common sense. Stop inventing conspiracies.

7

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site