Australian Politics Forum - Should the TPP be put to a plebiscite?

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Should the TPP be put to a plebiscite?
Reply #60 - Oct 21^st, 2015 at 12:10pm

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 10:42am:

I'd be happy with a plebiscite, as long as voting was restricted to those holding degrees in Law, Economics as well as an MBA.
They are the only people who would understand it, if and when they get to see it in its entirety and can spend weeks studying it.

It would just be a joke to put it to a vote by the general public.

So then we can take it that you only want climate scientist to set Australia's climate change policy.

Politicians are constantly voting on issues in which they have no or very little expertise. Indeed that's the way the system is meant to work. Experts advise the politicians of the complications in relation to a particular issues and then the politicians set the policy. A direct democracy would do the same where the Public service of experts advise the people and then the people decide and set the policy. Julie bishop had no foreign policy experience before they made her Minister for foreign affairs (just one of many examples). BTW the people were telling Howard not to go to war in Iraq but he knew better and created the impossible mess we're in today. So much for your naive proposition.

Back to top

IP Logged

bogarde73

Gold Member

Offline

Anti-Global & Contra Mundum

Posts: 18443
Gender: male

Re: Should the TPP be put to a plebiscite?
Reply #61 - Oct 21^st, 2015 at 1:58pm

But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite.

The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up.

That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose.

Back to top

Know the enemies of a civil society by their public behaviour, by their fraudulent claim to be liberal-progressive, by their propensity to lie and, above all, by their attachment to authoritarianism.

IP Logged

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Should the TPP be put to a plebiscite?
Reply #62 - Oct 21^st, 2015 at 2:22pm

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 1:58pm:

But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite.

The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up.

That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose.

Take a bow Mr Bogarde

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Should the TPP be put to a plebiscite?
Reply #63 - Oct 21^st, 2015 at 2:49pm

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 1:58pm:

But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite.

The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up.

That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose.

And I submit to you that you are very very wrong about that and that's from years of experience observing this first hand. Most politicians voting on a Bill will rarely if ever read the materials provided to them on a bill and when they do they devote so little time and effort to the exercise (because there too busy on things more directly related to their re-election, if there not just down right lazy as many are) that they don't understand any of it in any meaningful way. You want to think of people as just acting like a mob because it justifies your need for a nanny to make decisions for you but the reality is that when people believe that they are actually playing a genuine role in the decision making process they behave much more responsibly and conscientiously and with much more common sense and wisdom then the nanny representatives you need to wipe your nose.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Should the TPP be put to a plebiscite?
Reply #64 - Oct 21^st, 2015 at 2:53pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 2:49pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 1:58pm:

But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite.

The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up.

That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose.

And I submit to you that you are very very wrong about that and that's from years of experience observing this first hand. Most politicians voting on a Bill will rarely if ever read the materials provided to them on a bill and when they do they devote so little time and effort to the exercise (because there too busy on things more directly related to their re-election, if there not just down right lazy as many are) that they don't understand any of it in any meaningful way. You want to think of people as just acting like a mob because it justifies your need for a nanny to make decisions for you but the reality is that when people believe that they are actually playing a genuine role in the decision making process they behave much more responsibly and conscientiously and with much more common sense and wisdom then the nanny representatives you need to wipe your nose.

And you think 15million busy voters are going to read everything and understand it? I bet you would change your tune if it were a plebiscite on the carbon tax and in fact, you did just that!

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Should the TPP be put to a plebiscite?
Reply #65 - Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:07pm

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 2:53pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 2:49pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 1:58pm:

But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite.

The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up.

That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose.

And I submit to you that you are very very wrong about that and that's from years of experience observing this first hand. Most politicians voting on a Bill will rarely if ever read the materials provided to them on a bill and when they do they devote so little time and effort to the exercise (because there too busy on things more directly related to their re-election, if there not just down right lazy as many are) that they don't understand any of it in any meaningful way. You want to think of people as just acting like a mob because it justifies your need for a nanny to make decisions for you but the reality is that when people believe that they are actually playing a genuine role in the decision making process they behave much more responsibly and conscientiously and with much more common sense and wisdom then the nanny representatives you need to wipe your nose.

And you think 15million busy voters are going to read everything and understand it? I bet you would change your tune if it were a plebiscite on the carbon tax and in fact, you did just that!

If my answer was that the people would be no more conscientious then the politicians then you lose the argument anyway because why have them. But IMHO people are far more honest, conscientious, responsible and well intentioned (when they know that they are actually deciding something instead of that BS "vote" they get every 3 years) then their politician counterparts and would spend more time thinking about "what is best for the society" then "what is best for me". OH yes, there is no comparison IMHO. DD is far superior to the sh!t system we live with that they laughingly call a democracy. As to the issue of the carbon tax I'm not clear what you are trying to say but I can assure you that I have every expectation that will often take a different view to the majority but in saying that most people accept the reality of AGW and will vote to do something meaningful about it. (none of this direct action scam).

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Should the TPP be put to a plebiscite?
Reply #66 - Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:19pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:07pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 2:53pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 2:49pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 1:58pm:

But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite.

The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up.

That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose.

And I submit to you that you are very very wrong about that and that's from years of experience observing this first hand. Most politicians voting on a Bill will rarely if ever read the materials provided to them on a bill and when they do they devote so little time and effort to the exercise (because there too busy on things more directly related to their re-election, if there not just down right lazy as many are) that they don't understand any of it in any meaningful way. You want to think of people as just acting like a mob because it justifies your need for a nanny to make decisions for you but the reality is that when people believe that they are actually playing a genuine role in the decision making process they behave much more responsibly and conscientiously and with much more common sense and wisdom then the nanny representatives you need to wipe your nose.

And you think 15million busy voters are going to read everything and understand it? I bet you would change your tune if it were a plebiscite on the carbon tax and in fact, you did just that!

If my answer was that the people would be no more conscientious then the politicians then you lose the argument anyway because why have them. But IMHO people are far more honest, conscientious, responsible and well intentioned (when they know that they are actually deciding something instead of that BS "vote" they get every 3 years) then their politician counterparts and would spend more time thinking about "what is best for the society" then "what is best for me". OH yes, there is no comparison IMHO. DD is far superior to the sh!t system we live with that they laughingly call a democracy. As to the issue of the carbon tax I'm not clear what you are trying to say but I can assure you that I have every expectation that will often take a different view to the majority but in saying that most people accept the reality of AGW and will vote to do something meaningful about it. (none of this direct action scam).

Nice try for a deflection, but a fail just the same. Repeated polls found people rejected the Carbon tax in a comfortable absolute majority. So if you want plebiscites, you need to realise that the majority of the electorate are conservative and will disappoint you more often that government does now. Let's have a plebiscite on increasing the GST. Without the ideological baggage of an election, that would probably pass.

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Should the TPP be put to a plebiscite?
Reply #67 - Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:29pm

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:19pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:07pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 2:53pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 2:49pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 1:58pm:

But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite.

The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up.

That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose.

And I submit to you that you are very very wrong about that and that's from years of experience observing this first hand. Most politicians voting on a Bill will rarely if ever read the materials provided to them on a bill and when they do they devote so little time and effort to the exercise (because there too busy on things more directly related to their re-election, if there not just down right lazy as many are) that they don't understand any of it in any meaningful way. You want to think of people as just acting like a mob because it justifies your need for a nanny to make decisions for you but the reality is that when people believe that they are actually playing a genuine role in the decision making process they behave much more responsibly and conscientiously and with much more common sense and wisdom then the nanny representatives you need to wipe your nose.

And you think 15million busy voters are going to read everything and understand it? I bet you would change your tune if it were a plebiscite on the carbon tax and in fact, you did just that!

If my answer was that the people would be no more conscientious then the politicians then you lose the argument anyway because why have them. But IMHO people are far more honest, conscientious, responsible and well intentioned (when they know that they are actually deciding something instead of that BS "vote" they get every 3 years) then their politician counterparts and would spend more time thinking about "what is best for the society" then "what is best for me". OH yes, there is no comparison IMHO. DD is far superior to the sh!t system we live with that they laughingly call a democracy. As to the issue of the carbon tax I'm not clear what you are trying to say but I can assure you that I have every expectation that will often take a different view to the majority but in saying that most people accept the reality of AGW and will vote to do something meaningful about it. (none of this direct action scam).

Nice try for a deflection, but a fail just the same. Repeated polls found people rejected the Carbon tax in a comfortable absolute majority. So if you want plebiscites, you need to realise that the majority of the electorate are conservative and will disappoint you more often that government does now. Let's have a plebiscite on increasing the GST. Without the ideological baggage of an election, that would probably pass.

You're like Joe Hockey giving yourself a report card. Carries no weight I'm sorry. Now try to get this in your head. I've said it already once in this thread. Elections do not equate with plebecites. When people vote in an election they vote for a mutitude of reasons none of which any one of us is ever privy and to pretend that the last election says anything about what people want re the carbon tax is absurd.

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Should the TPP be put to a plebiscite?
Reply #68 - Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:31pm

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:19pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:07pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 2:53pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 2:49pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 1:58pm:

But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite.

The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up.

That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose.

And I submit to you that you are very very wrong about that and that's from years of experience observing this first hand. Most politicians voting on a Bill will rarely if ever read the materials provided to them on a bill and when they do they devote so little time and effort to the exercise (because there too busy on things more directly related to their re-election, if there not just down right lazy as many are) that they don't understand any of it in any meaningful way. You want to think of people as just acting like a mob because it justifies your need for a nanny to make decisions for you but the reality is that when people believe that they are actually playing a genuine role in the decision making process they behave much more responsibly and conscientiously and with much more common sense and wisdom then the nanny representatives you need to wipe your nose.

And you think 15million busy voters are going to read everything and understand it? I bet you would change your tune if it were a plebiscite on the carbon tax and in fact, you did just that!

If my answer was that the people would be no more conscientious then the politicians then you lose the argument anyway because why have them. But IMHO people are far more honest, conscientious, responsible and well intentioned (when they know that they are actually deciding something instead of that BS "vote" they get every 3 years) then their politician counterparts and would spend more time thinking about "what is best for the society" then "what is best for me". OH yes, there is no comparison IMHO. DD is far superior to the sh!t system we live with that they laughingly call a democracy. As to the issue of the carbon tax I'm not clear what you are trying to say but I can assure you that I have every expectation that will often take a different view to the majority but in saying that most people accept the reality of AGW and will vote to do something meaningful about it. (none of this direct action scam).

Nice try for a deflection, but a fail just the same. Repeated polls found people rejected the Carbon tax in a comfortable absolute majority. So if you want plebiscites, you need to realise that the majority of the electorate are conservative and will disappoint you more often that government does now. Let's have a plebiscite on increasing the GST. Without the ideological baggage of an election, that would probably pass.

Yes I think the GST should be decided by us but there are a lot more higher priority things first like meaningful action to stop tax cheats

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Should the TPP be put to a plebiscite?
Reply #69 - Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:38pm

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/most-voters-want-carbon-tax-scrapped-poll/story-fn3dxiwe-1229687665089

NO CARBON TAX

http://www.lowyinstitute.org/news-and-media/press-releases/lowy-institute-poll-results-show-public-opposition-carbon-tax

NO CARBON TAX

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poll-finds-support-growing-for-carbon-pricing-laws-20140622-zsi40.html

SUPPORT RISING BUT STILL NO TO CARBON TAX

and here is one that supports your position...

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/most-want-to-keep-carbon-tax-poll-20130713-2px4d.html

and surprise, surprise, it isn't a pure carbon tax poll at all but linked to another question. It is the only way to get a faux result by connecting it to another unrelated question.

Still want plebiscites?

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Should the TPP be put to a plebiscite?
Reply #70 - Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:40pm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-17/davidson-goodbye-to-the-all-pain-no-gain-carbon-tax/5597614

he carbon tax lacked democratic legitimacy, hurt the Australian economy, and did nothing to address global warming. Good riddance, writes Sinclair Davidson.

The carbon tax has been repealed. While there has been a bit of kerfuffle and excitement around the repeal that will keep political junkies talking for some time, the voters will recall a promise made and a promise kept.

The carbon tax was an unpopular impost introduced by an unpopular prime minister.

Immediately prior to the 2010 election, Julia Gillard stared down the camera on Channel Ten and declared, "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead." We can quibble as to what exactly she meant by that but it seems that the electorate had a very specific understanding of her words.

The introduction of the "Carbon Tax" - as it came to be known, despite efforts to recast it as a "price" or whatever - was widely perceived as being a broken promise. In response, the Coalition under Tony Abbott ran a very effective scare campaign against the tax - much as Labor and the unions had run against WorkChoices - and the rest is history.

The repeal of the carbon tax should not be seen as bad politics stymying good policy. No doubt that is what carbon tax supporters will argue, but like WorkChoices before it, the carbon tax was bad policy on many levels. Ultimately both policies suffered from the same defect - a lack of democratic legitimacy.

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Should the TPP be put to a plebiscite?
Reply #71 - Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:50pm

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:38pm:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/most-voters-want-carbon-tax-scrapped-poll/story-fn3dxiwe-1229687665089

NO CARBON TAX

http://www.lowyinstitute.org/news-and-media/press-releases/lowy-institute-poll-results-show-public-opposition-carbon-tax

NO CARBON TAX

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poll-finds-support-growing-for-carbon-pricing-laws-20140622-zsi40.html

SUPPORT RISING BUT STILL NO TO CARBON TAX

and here is one that supports your position...

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/most-want-to-keep-carbon-tax-poll-20130713-2px4d.html

and surprise, surprise, it isn't a pure carbon tax poll at all but linked to another question. It is the only way to get a faux result by connecting it to another unrelated question.

Still want plebiscites?

Yes absolutely because I'm a democrat and the polls you cite are not the only polls during the relevant period and I am personally confident that people would vote for genuine action on climate change esp after a proper information campaign on both sides of the debate, unclouded by a wider discussion about who will govern for the next 3 years etc

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Should the TPP be put to a plebiscite?
Reply #72 - Oct 21^st, 2015 at 5:01pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:50pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:38pm:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/most-voters-want-carbon-tax-scrapped-poll/story-fn3dxiwe-1229687665089

NO CARBON TAX

http://www.lowyinstitute.org/news-and-media/press-releases/lowy-institute-poll-results-show-public-opposition-carbon-tax

NO CARBON TAX

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poll-finds-support-growing-for-carbon-pricing-laws-20140622-zsi40.html

SUPPORT RISING BUT STILL NO TO CARBON TAX

and here is one that supports your position...

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/most-want-to-keep-carbon-tax-poll-20130713-2px4d.html

and surprise, surprise, it isn't a pure carbon tax poll at all but linked to another question. It is the only way to get a faux result by connecting it to another unrelated question.

Still want plebiscites?

Yes absolutely because I'm a democrat and the polls you cite are not the only polls during the relevant period and I am personally confident that people would vote for genuine action on climate change esp after a proper information campaign on both sides of the debate, unclouded by a wider discussion about who will govern for the next 3 years etc

You are not even close to a democrat. You want plebiscites on topic you think you can win but when you talk about things you will lose you obsfucate - like with the carbon tax. A true democrat would accept that democracy has a right to disagree and rule against you. YOU DONT.

Back to top

IP Logged

Johnsmith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4716
Gender: male

Re: Should the TPP be put to a plebiscite?
Reply #73 - Oct 21^st, 2015 at 5:09pm

Bam wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:15pm:

If the current government has a policy of putting same-sex marriage to the people in a plebiscite, why not also refer the Trans-Pacific partnership (TPP) agreement to the people? It is more likely to impact on our lives than same -sex marriage, so why can't the people have a direct say on it?

yes

Back to top

When politicians offer you something for nothing, or something that sounds too good to be true, it's always worth taking a careful second look.
(Malcolm Turncoat)

IP Logged

Johnsmith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4716
Gender: male

Re: Should the TPP be put to a plebiscite?
Reply #74 - Oct 21^st, 2015 at 5:16pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 2:22pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 1:58pm:

But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite.

The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up.

That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose.

Take a bow Mr Bogarde

http://media.giphy.com/media/mDtdH6h0HuYkU/giphy.gif

don't agree ... it's up to the politicians read the fine print and then to sell it to us one way or the other. If it will benefit us the people will vote for it, if they're doing it for their own self interests instead of the countries, there is less likelihood they'll be able to sell it.

Back to top

When politicians offer you something for nothing, or something that sounds too good to be true, it's always worth taking a careful second look.
(Malcolm Turncoat)

IP Logged