2016 Australian election thread

[dankfrank420]

I think several comments here and those I see on Facebook have fallen into the political pattern - they attack the rise of the "far right"  as a "racist" and "xenophobic" backlash. What abc12345j correctly alludes to is not that we should simply shrug our shoulders and say "lol they're just bigots" but examine the why. Why has there seemingly been a resurgence in right wing politics?  You've got Trump, Brexit, Hofer in Austria and now One Nation over here.

The way I see it, this fundamentally comes down to globalization and the spinelessness of politicians to stand up for their country. There is a growing disconnect between the "elites" and the working class in the West. The elites who tell us that "free trade is always good", "diversity is our strength" and so on. Eventually, the working class see their jobs go overseas, their wage growth stagnant and their politicians lack of resolve to tackle immigration/radical Islam (these issues are undoubtedly intertwined). They turn around and think "hey, maybe these guys who I've been voting for for 30 years aren't looking out for my best interests?"

Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting Trump or Pauline in any way. While I'm sympathetic to some aspects of their cause (Anti-TPP, less involvement in overseas wars) they clearly lack any polish or political nous. All I'm saying is that what people like Swakadaktal (who I know IRL is a very smart kid) fail to understand is that you're playing into their trap by simply labeling them as Islamophobic bigots.

You're further widening the divide between the Elites/Media and their globalization message vs working class nativism.

This is fundamentally what it comes down to - globalization vs nationalism, and what you're seeing is that nationalism is swinging back hard due to the mass migration imposed by the elites on the working class.

It's very easy for us university students and well-off people to sit in our ivory towers and sneer at those "racist peasants" in the working class. You've got to understand their grievances and try to accommodate them, or all I see happening is that the nativist movement will only continue to grow in the West.

[HopefulLawStudent]

From the mouths of some Hanson voters.

"I think other politicians have done a rotten job so far, so we should give her a go,"

"She's the only one to have the guts to get things done," he said.

"With any luck, it can't get any worse. Everyone else already makes it worse, why not give her a turn?"

"A lot of them think she supports the people, not like politicians supporting themselves. They say she's more interested in the people than the position."

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/07/04/queensland-voters-explain-why-they-backed-pauline-hanson-in-the/

Evidence that Australians are disillusioned with politicians.

It's not the pejoratives thrown by the elitist that cause this division, but rather the years of racism and intolerance which has been brewing under the surface.

Why can't it be a culmination of both? Y'all seem to be suggesting that it's either one or the other that has caused this, but I personally feel that it's not as clear cut as that (cos, y'know, life never is   )

---

Topic change cuz I have a question:

Turnbull was going around before the election promising no one will pay more to see the doctor because of the extended freeze on medicare rebates. Can someone please explain how a medicare freeze + not paying more is sustainable/logical? Won't doctors be ultimately forced to charge some copayment to meet the rising costs associated with running a medical practice?

[vox nihili]

Turnbull was going around before the election promising no one will pay more to see the doctor because of the extended freeze on medicare rebates. Can someone please explain how a medicare freeze + not paying more is sustainable/logical? Won't doctors be ultimately forced to charge some copayment to meet the rising costs associated with running a medical practice?

It's not

[slothpomba]

I think i'll try nail two issues at once (only briefly skimmed over everything).

People say the Greens got Pauline Hanson elected because they changed the senate voting system. This is utterly false slander by those with a desperate crabs in a bucket mentality. The new senate voting changes mean that parties can't negotiate lists in secret and without the input of the voters, lists which in the past have gotten total wild cards elected (Jackie Lambie, Ricky Muir, The LDP). In some aspects, these people are as extreme as Pauline Hanson

So, it's clear our voting system can produce unexpected outcomes. The new changes put the power of the preference flow back into the hands of the people rather than arcane "preference whisperers".

Here's the real reason Pauline Hanson got elected - because people voted for her. There was no Greens, Liberal or Labor tricks, no party is to blame. She recieved 9% of the vote, almost 1 out of every 10 voters preferenced her first. 

Democracy is not to produce good outcomes, democracy is outcome neutral. All democracy is designed to do is represent the will of the people and by Pauline Hanson getting elected, the will of that 9% is represented, this outcome is democratic. The attack arguments Labor is running against The Greens are anti-democratic in that they think that if 1 in 10 people vote for someone, somehow, its a mistake that person gets a spot.

I hate many of Pauline Hansons policies but to ignore the fact people voted for her is a total fantasy. These people voted for her for a reason. Something the main parties aren't addressing, a fear, an idea, a belief. If the major parties (or indeed, *all* parties or society as a whole) doesn't address the concerns of these people, forces like Pauline Hanson will grow and grow.

We're seeing it all over the political world with people like Trump. Trump, however, predates the wider movement we saw even earlier in places like Greece (Golden Dawn) or many other European nations where the top two parties of the previous 50 years are no longer the top two, because they felt establishment, they ignored fears and concerns people were voicing. The major parties need to start listening to 9% that voted for Pauline Hanson and figure out what to do with them, to simply ignore them is a very dangerous thing indeed.

[vox nihili]

I think i'll try nail two issues at once (only briefly skimmed over everything).

People say the Greens got Pauline Hanson elected because they changed the senate voting system. This is utterly false slander by those with a desperate crabs in a bucket mentality. The new senate voting changes mean that parties can't negotiate lists in secret and without the input of the voters, lists which in the past have gotten total wild cards elected (Jackie Lambie, Ricky Muir, The LDP). In some aspects, these people are as extreme as Pauline Hanson

So, it's clear our voting system can produce unexpected outcomes. The new changes put the power of the preference flow back into the hands of the people rather than arcane "preference whisperers".

Here's the real reason Pauline Hanson got elected - because people voted for her. There was no Greens, Liberal or Labor tricks, no party is to blame. She recieved 9% of the vote, almost 1 out of every 10 voters preferenced her first. 

Democracy is not to produce good outcomes, democracy is outcome neutral. All democracy is designed to do is represent the will of the people and by Pauline Hanson getting elected, the will of that 9% is represented, this outcome is democratic. The attack arguments Labor is running against The Greens are anti-democratic in that they think that if 1 in 10 people vote for someone, somehow, its a mistake that person gets a spot.

I hate many of Pauline Hansons policies but to ignore the fact people voted for her is a total fantasy. These people voted for her for a reason. Something the main parties aren't addressing, a fear, an idea, a belief. If the major parties (or indeed, *all* parties or society as a whole) doesn't address the concerns of these people, forces like Pauline Hanson will grow and grow.

We're seeing it all over the political world with people like Trump. Trump, however, predates the wider movement we saw even earlier in places like Greece (Golden Dawn) or many other European nations where the top two parties of the previous 50 years are no longer the top two, because they felt establishment, they ignored fears and concerns people were voicing. The major parties need to start listening to 9% that voted for Pauline Hanson and figure out what to do with them, to simply ignore them is a very dangerous thing indeed.

I agree with your point that the new system is fairer and is more likely to deliver a senate of a complexion that actually represents how people voted, but I would counter the implication that the changes the Greens did support helped One Nation get elected. It looks as though One Nation will pick up as many as three senate seats, which would have been far less likely under the old system. Group ticket voting, by and large, did ensure that One Nation failed to pick up seats in the Senate, because preference flows to them were always so poor. Abolishing group ticket voting, supported by the Greens, has made a huge contribution to the election of One Nation senators (except for Pauline herself of course, who did manage to pick up a full quota).

Also worth noting that One Nation only got 1.3% of the first preference vote in the house and only 4.3% in the senate nationally.
In NSW and WA, where they're also likely to pick up senate seats, they only got 4.13% and 3.86% respectively. Pretty hard to run the argument that Australia has voted to mandate the kind of hateful crap that bunch bring to parliament, especially given the power that comes with controlling those three seats.


On a happier note, One Nation's vote was lowest in the Victorian senate (excluding the territories).