To be fair he looks so old he was probably the one who nailed Jesus to the crossOriginally Posted by kingwally
I disagree that there was no information but do you really think misinformation is far better??
To be fair he looks so old he was probably the one who nailed Jesus to the cross
Wait until you hear about the last guy we had who came up with this scheme called robodebt and also oversaw 38 billion dollars in payments to business owners who didn’t need it and was never recovered
Cant imagine a worse mistake than disappointing our indigenous brothers so incompetently by convincing the majority of the country to vote against an indigenous voice, when 12 months ago everyone was willing to vote Yes
But you are correct, the robodebt scandal is a close second
So any ideas how to rid ourselves of all these incompetent leaders in government?
Maybe we ought to explore "technocracy" instead of "representative democracy".
Decision makers in government would then need to be technically skilled to be able to take a position, not just be able to win popular votes and get elected like it is now.
For example, someone like Brad Hazzard would never have gotten the Minister of Health job if we were a technocracy. The guy was a solicitor, doesn't make sense to let him make decisions pertaining to healthcare. Instead, an elected Pollie with a background in healthcare, like a doctor, would get the job.
Although, I have no idea how a PM would be chosen using that kind of system.
Well you could've voted yes.
And 38 billion dollars to companies who didn't need it! 38 BILLION!!! Imagine the possibilities! we could've had more than 80 referendums in one year!
I did vote Yes, and curiously so did the majority of my safe Liberal electorate. It seems a bit counter-intuitive...many of the safe Liberal seats voted Yes, and nearly all of the safe Labor seats voted No, apart from Albo's.
I think the overwhelming No vote was because people can't see how the Voice would actually improve anything on the ground.
I agree that the referendum should have been 2 questions: 1 for constitutional recognition and 1 for the Voice proposal.
Constitutional recognition is really only symbolic but emotional symbolism is a powerful thing that could be harnessed to improve a lot of lives.
You actually believe this?? Misinformation is better than no information?
Yes. The feedback from the majority of the voting population on Saturday was that there was not enough information provided
And as history showed, the majority of the population voted No for not enough information. Thats what happened
But even if you think that, how the fuck is misinformation better??
This is what history shows. This is what happened.
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%...10-p5e3fu.html
Does this article lay the blame on the referendum failure mainly on Mr Albanese or does it blame Murdoch ? I doubt many people get their news from newspapers anymore
I mean you could read it. And I don't know why you're so protective of Murdoch.
Quote from the article:
"Inglis told supporters that phone canvassing – using a tool called CallHub employed by successful campaigns in Europe and the United States – was integral to Advance’s efforts.
If 250 people attend a phone calling session, Inglis said, they could reach 15,000 so-called “soft” voters yet to make a firm decision."
No campaign focused mainly on this and social media.
Seriously though?
I do seriously doubt that the 1946 referendum would pass today. It passed then on the end of a world war and the depression. People still remembered what it was like to be destitute and how easy it was for them to become so. They realised that THEY needed a safety net and so voted it in.
Since then we have had decades of (relative) economic security and politicians on both sides (but mostly the coalition) demonising "dole bludgers" and welfare "rorters". Today those fallicies still run deep with many people and this would count against an affirmative vote. People tend to only vote yes if they believe it won't harm or effect them if it is about a group of "other" people. That is why it always easier to argue a no case in a debate.
Yep. And they didn't have social media or hyper-partisanship. We're all done for...
You can analyse, discuss, debate and assess 'misinformation' and 'disinformation', but 'no information' now that's fucken hard to wrap your head around!
Exactly. The majority of Australians voted No. That tells you No information was a bigger issue than Misinformation
The PM has accepted the responsibility for the failure, he acknowledges that his lack of proper information and proper consultation was a fatal blow to his rushed referendum
How would anyone know there was mis information if there was no information.
Good point!
The concept of dis, mis and no information can be quite confusing and in punting terms I'll use Mimi @ Burwood as an example.
Disinformation:
Mimi is back, working from her old place at Burwood, and now offers full service
Misinformation:
Mimi said she might be coming back to Sydney in Nov-Dec.
No Information:
Mimi...
And I guess this is why the referendum failed.
Posting Permissions
|
|
|
|