"So, I'm a dog then."
The NBN Will Remain an Issue into the Next Election
The NBN will live on. Despite the Coalition winning government with the ex-National Party Independents support, the National Broadband Network will remain with Labor at the next election. Indeed, they will win and put Australia on a path to a better future. There is no way the Australian people will accept "the private sector will provide" because it certainly won't. Telstra is only interested in market share. Hope lies in Telstra investing heavily and freezing out small telcos. This is its long term plan. Faster broadband is needed now, however, for medicine, education and scientific endeavours.
As a voter said in Bob Katter's electorate, God help Bob if he supports a Labor government. He will try to keep broadband. Tony Abbot will refuse and Bob will give in to his own deep conservative emotions. Like the Green who has already said he will support Labor. Eighty percent of Green voters used to vote for Labor. Even Bob Brown the Green leader openly prefers Labor over the Coalition. He has already warned that not much will get through the upper house.
The Coalition has not faced a hostile Senate before. It will be tough going for Tony Abbot. He is not a man for compromise. He has his own opinions and he wants his own way. The maternity leave issue is a case in point. Hardly any Coalition members want this. They don't want a heavier burden placed on business. The mining tax is not over yet either. It will be almost impossible for any government to balance the books without savage cuts much like the cuts in the UK. Like the problem government in the UK which will see the Liberal Democrats blamed for "sleeping with the enemy" and slaughtered at the next election, so the Independents here who go in with either party will face termination at the future poll in Australia.
As a voter said in Bob Katter's electorate, God help Bob if he supports a Labor government. He will try to keep broadband. Tony Abbot will refuse and Bob will give in to his own deep conservative emotions. Like the Green who has already said he will support Labor. Eighty percent of Green voters used to vote for Labor. Even Bob Brown the Green leader openly prefers Labor over the Coalition. He has already warned that not much will get through the upper house.
The Coalition has not faced a hostile Senate before. It will be tough going for Tony Abbot. He is not a man for compromise. He has his own opinions and he wants his own way. The maternity leave issue is a case in point. Hardly any Coalition members want this. They don't want a heavier burden placed on business. The mining tax is not over yet either. It will be almost impossible for any government to balance the books without savage cuts much like the cuts in the UK. Like the problem government in the UK which will see the Liberal Democrats blamed for "sleeping with the enemy" and slaughtered at the next election, so the Independents here who go in with either party will face termination at the future poll in Australia.
Australia's Voting System is Quite Straightforward
Voting informal just because you don't understand the Australian voting system is not a smart thing to do. Admittedly, the way Australians elect representatives is a bit odd, but other countries have idiosyncratic election methods as well. The US collegial way is considered far too complicated to explain to an outsider. Though quite simple, the British process of first past the post tends to favor a choice between two parties. It was unusual for the third party, the Liberal Democrats, to win so many seats as in the last election.
The Australian voting system is not that complicated. In Britain votes going to a third party are lost, totally. Just remember that in Australia a vote to a weaker party is counted as a full vote to the first or second party leading in the count. It doesn't matter where you put the major parties in your numbered list on the voting paper. What does count is which of these parties appears higher in your list. The party highest, i.e., closer to number "1", in your list is allocated your vote. That about sums it up.
Voting for the Senate is ordinary proportional voting with an Australian twist. The number of Senate seats is six for each state and two per territory. For a double dissolution 12 seats in each state are up for grabs plus two for each territory. If candidates were elected by voters selecting only one prospective Senator the result would be much the same as Australia's proportional system.
The voting paper has a horizontal line drawn across it. To vote below the line, number all of the squares next to candidates, "1", "2", "3"... and so on until you reach the total number of candidates - choosing the most favored candidate as "1" then allocating accordingly. Voting above the line is known as a "ticket vote". If you put number "1" in one of the squares in the top section your votes are "preallocated" by the party you chose as "1", as if you filled out all squares below the line.
All the number "1" votes are counted by party. In each state, if a party has 14.3% of number "1" votes (a quota) the party has a Senator elected. Two Senators get up when more than 28.6% "formal" votes are gained. A ridiculous complex mathematical formula is used to determine the remaining one or two of the six Senate seats not achieving a quota in each state. Basically, selection is worked out based on highest preference by the numbers on the ballot papers.
Considering ticket votes comprised nearly 95% of all Senate votes in the 2001 election it is time for a review of the system. As noted, the way selection is carried out is ridiculous.
As long as you remember the forgoing explanation voting is quite straightforward.
The Australian voting system is not that complicated. In Britain votes going to a third party are lost, totally. Just remember that in Australia a vote to a weaker party is counted as a full vote to the first or second party leading in the count. It doesn't matter where you put the major parties in your numbered list on the voting paper. What does count is which of these parties appears higher in your list. The party highest, i.e., closer to number "1", in your list is allocated your vote. That about sums it up.
Voting for the Senate is ordinary proportional voting with an Australian twist. The number of Senate seats is six for each state and two per territory. For a double dissolution 12 seats in each state are up for grabs plus two for each territory. If candidates were elected by voters selecting only one prospective Senator the result would be much the same as Australia's proportional system.
The voting paper has a horizontal line drawn across it. To vote below the line, number all of the squares next to candidates, "1", "2", "3"... and so on until you reach the total number of candidates - choosing the most favored candidate as "1" then allocating accordingly. Voting above the line is known as a "ticket vote". If you put number "1" in one of the squares in the top section your votes are "preallocated" by the party you chose as "1", as if you filled out all squares below the line.
All the number "1" votes are counted by party. In each state, if a party has 14.3% of number "1" votes (a quota) the party has a Senator elected. Two Senators get up when more than 28.6% "formal" votes are gained. A ridiculous complex mathematical formula is used to determine the remaining one or two of the six Senate seats not achieving a quota in each state. Basically, selection is worked out based on highest preference by the numbers on the ballot papers.
Considering ticket votes comprised nearly 95% of all Senate votes in the 2001 election it is time for a review of the system. As noted, the way selection is carried out is ridiculous.
As long as you remember the forgoing explanation voting is quite straightforward.
Memories Are Not Real
Childhood memories are figments of your imagination. If you believe that you'll believe anything. Children in the UK were asked to recall memories of things their parents said didn't happen. But how do we know if children were trying to please their parents? Most children live in a dream land anyway. So asking them to recall seeing Santa Claus is just "baiting". And asking them about flying through the air is "hypnotising" for dream recall.
If you broke your leg as child you certainly remember that, and whether the sun was out when it happened. The pain makes it stay in your mind. One thing that really remains is the care one receives from others. You remember things done with grandma because she was always kind and forgiving. Furthermore, really horrible events like being involved in a road accident and then taken to hospital remain as clear as the day they occurred.
We wouldn't have an identity without memories. We are the sum of our experiences. Taking that away from someone is condemning that person to live in the forever "now". Debate is rife about whether learning is anything of value. For example, a day after taking exams most of it is forgotten. But a university degree or any other academic test is something the individual values and society values. Whether you actually remember things taught is quite irrelevant. You have gone down that road and reached the destination. Surely, that is what life is about: having experiences, chronologically, with the past leading to the present and into the future and remembering certain milestones.
If you broke your leg as child you certainly remember that, and whether the sun was out when it happened. The pain makes it stay in your mind. One thing that really remains is the care one receives from others. You remember things done with grandma because she was always kind and forgiving. Furthermore, really horrible events like being involved in a road accident and then taken to hospital remain as clear as the day they occurred.
We wouldn't have an identity without memories. We are the sum of our experiences. Taking that away from someone is condemning that person to live in the forever "now". Debate is rife about whether learning is anything of value. For example, a day after taking exams most of it is forgotten. But a university degree or any other academic test is something the individual values and society values. Whether you actually remember things taught is quite irrelevant. You have gone down that road and reached the destination. Surely, that is what life is about: having experiences, chronologically, with the past leading to the present and into the future and remembering certain milestones.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
