Man Arrested!

[Schu]

I think there was a lot of fear when Abbott won the election and I'd identify several reasons:

Certainly people who are dole bludgers are going to vote ALP (if they vote at all) because they believe they will lose their "cushy" life under the Liberals. But there are also a lot of hard working Australians who live on the edge and struggle to make ends meet, plus pensioners - people who worked hard all their lives in a period of time where that led to a pension so they can't be blamed for circumstances changing - and people genuinely and reasonably reliant on welfare. And these people do worry that they will really suffer under a Liberal government, not just relative suffering but actual suffering - not being able to eat, get medical care for their kids, struggle to pay the rent. Whether they are correct or not, that's the fear.

These groups were scared towards the end of Howard's era, particularly by WorkChoices, and I think they also feared policies like that coming back.

I also think there was a fear from some quarters particularly about Abbott because of his religious background and associated prejudices. Whilst I am not afraid of this, I do have an issue with a leader in a secular country so overtly stating his values based on religious beliefs. They should be completely out of the equation. But there would have been women and some minority groups concerned about whether this would impact their place and rights in society.

[IQS.RLOW]

I actually prefer my elected leaders to not be a declared atheist. A declared atheist has little morals to be judged on and no other code to answer to.

They are untrustworthy.

[Rorschach]

Backing Thomson was all about the numbers

I don't think that makes sense. I did so did many other commentators. She couldn't allow her numbers to be weakened.

Gillard, for all her faults, isn't an idiot. It was obvious to people far less experienced than her that allowing Thomson to remain part of the ALP was going to cause problems. yet it really didn't. They were always going to have to do something, which is what happened in the end. After she removed Slipper from the count. In the meantime, it provided endless fodder for the media and the Liberal Party, at best distracting the ALP from policy and at worse making a mockery of them. It also damaged ALP support from the Independents. No it didn't, they stood by Gillard, want me to quote dopeshott for you? So why wait to do the inevitable and suffer those consequences? they did wait and there was no consequences Thomson kept voting for Labor.

The only reason I can see for that is if there was something else in the way of them immediately disassociating themselves from Thomson.

[Schu]

" not just relative suffering but actual suffering - not being able to eat, get medical care for their kids, struggle to pay the rent. Whether they are correct or not, that's the fear."

Well to be honest that is just your take on that. The same with work choices. The beat up over that was ridiculous. Sure bludgers would have to actually work and the unions were screwed. Boo hoo for the unions/mafia. No more striking boyz boo hoo.

"I also think there was a fear from some quarters particularly about Abbott because of his religious background and associated prejudices."

And what was the fear exactly ?

I have no problem with people having religious beliefs at all. In fact athiesm is just a belief in itself anyway. Every person has their own ethics and beliefs regardless of even mentioning a religion. Our entire government is based on beliefs and most wars fought over them. They are inherently a part of the system. Why should it be totally out of the equation at all. I fail to see the drama over it.

If I was a woman in a minority group I'd be more worried about the lefties like Labor and Looney Greens swinging open the multicultural door for muslims to just walk straight in the back door of this country and set up shop and making taxpayers pay for them all. Stats show 80% end up on welfare. I certainly wouldn't be worried about Tony Abbott believing woman should be treated with love.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough. I wasn't saying the fears were necessarily real (some of them might have been, but as I don't fall into the categories I am talking about, I haven't examined them closely enough). Fear can be based on perception, and I was highlighting the perception that people had.

I think it's fair to say that most people don't really understand politics, policies or political parties with any real depth so they often make judgements about matters based on the sound-bites, the slanted media reporting and the stereotypical image of parties.

Regarding beliefs, I wasn't saying that leaders aren't entitled to their beliefs but that those should be kept a private matter and that goes for whatever their position. We are a stated secular society and that means that those beliefs have no place in government. I'd extend my point further and say that any personal positions on matters should be kept completely out of the equation. Politicians are elected to represent the people not impose their views on the people.

As for the issue of multiculturalism, I think that is more complicated than what you have said there. I think we have a tendency to be tolerant to the point of accepting alternative cultural values that are really unacceptable, and I don't agree with that. In fact I would advocate a system that provides a higher penalty for those who commit crimes for cultural reasons. We have race hate crimes, so I see no issue with the reverse.

On the issue of muslims, I think singling out that one group as problematic is disingenuous for several reasons. First, the issue of their religion and any subsequent welfare they receive are not necessarily directly related. Second, there are other religions/cultures that draw welfare. Third, there are muslims who come here as legal immigrants to work and also as students.

[Schu]

I did so did many other commentators. She couldn't allow her numbers to be weakened.

Saying that a number of people have a particular point of view doesn't, in my book, give it credibility. People are wrong.

yet it really didn't.

I disagree on that point. It caused problems for Gillard that the ALP was seen to be propping up an individual who had caused harm to some of the lowest paid workers in the country and who make up a proportion of their voter base. It was also an "on principle" issue for some people. The fact that it dominated the media for weeks at the expense of policy discussion was also detrimental to the ALP because any other work that was being done wasn't getting noticed.

After she removed Slipper from the count.

I'm not saying the numbers weren't important, but that the numbers weren't the only reason. With the support of the Independents and Greens, the government could have survived until they had manoeuvred Slipper into place. So the fact that they didn't indicates to me that there was some other reason they didn't remove Thomson straight away.

But also, the Slipper manoeuvre wasn't particularly bright. I can't believe that they didn't anticipate the Liberals retaliating. His appointment to me suggests there were more agendas at play within the ALP as well.

No it didn't, they stood by Gillard, want me to quote dopeshott for you?

I possibly didn't articulate that well enough. I am well aware they didn't lose the direct voting support of the Independents, but there were concerns amongst the Independents about the fact that they were keeping Thomson. Support isn't just direct voting support, but also the more general behind the scenes support.

they did wait and there was no consequences Thomson kept voting for Labor.

Like the time he crossed the floor and Abbott & Pyne raced for the doors?

[Rorschach]

I did so did many other commentators. She couldn't allow her numbers to be weakened.

Saying that a number of people have a particular point of view doesn't, in my book, give it credibility. People are wrong. Then I suggest as you are people chances are you are.

yet it really didn't.

I disagree on that point. It caused problems for Gillard that the ALP was seen to be propping up an individual who had caused harm to some of the lowest paid workers in the country and who make up a proportion of their voter base. It was also an "on principle" issue for some people. The fact that it dominated the media for weeks at the expense of policy discussion was also detrimental to the ALP because any other work that was being done wasn't getting noticed. You have to remember how long it went on for and what information came out when etc, etc, etc...I don't feel inclined to draw a timeline for you.

After she removed Slipper from the count.

I'm not saying the numbers weren't important, but that the numbers weren't the only reason. With the support of the Independents and Greens, the government could have survived until they had manoeuvred Slipper into place. So the fact that they didn't indicates to me that there was some other reason they didn't remove Thomson straight away. Oh so now you agree with me about the Independents.

But also, the Slipper manoeuvre wasn't particularly bright. I can't believe that they didn't anticipate the Liberals retaliating. His appointment to me suggests there were more agendas at play within the ALP as well. Yes it was all about shoring up the numbers... Slipper's appointment took 1 from the Coalition.

No it didn't, they stood by Gillard, want me to quote dopeshott for you?

I possibly didn't articulate that well enough. I am well aware they didn't lose the direct voting support of the Independents, but there were concerns amongst the Independents about the fact that they were keeping Thomson. Support isn't just direct voting support, but also the more general behind the scenes support. Had no effect, in weakening the support of the Greens or the Independents as you just stated.

they did wait and there was no consequences Thomson kept voting for Labor.

Like the time he crossed the floor and Abbott & Pyne raced for the doors? 1 vote does not a pattern make... quite likely it was a stunt to embarrass the Opposition... and it worked.

[Schu]

Then I suggest as you are people chances are you are.

My point was that it adds nothing to a debate to suggest that certain people agree with different sides because any of those people could be wrong. I've never suggested that this is anything more than my opinion, just as your view is nothing more than yours.

You have to remember how long it went on for and what information came out when etc, etc, etc...I don't feel inclined to draw a timeline for you.

I don't need a timeline; I'm very familiar with the events. They support what I am saying as much as you believe they support yours.

Oh so now you agree with me about the Independents.

No, you misinterpreted what I said at the beginning. I specifically did not use the word "votes" and instead used the word "support" because I did not mean "votes" and in fact meant "support". I am quite happy to debate, argue and passionately argue, but I can't stand it when people put words in my mouth. I use my words carefully on forums because the only form of communication is via words. I will correct myself if I have mistakenly used a word. But I believe it is incumbent upon people engaging in debate to respond to what is said directly, not impose an interpretation based on what they decide a person meant.

Yes it was all about shoring up the numbers... Slipper's appointment took 1 from the Coalition.

It makes no sense that they would shore up the numbers with an individual they knew was going to come back and bite them.

Had no effect, in weakening the support of the Greens or the Independents as you just stated.

It had no effect on votes, but it did have an impact on the support of the Independents, who were unhappy with the ALP's support of Thomson.

1 vote does not a pattern make... quite likely it was a stunt to embarrass the Opposition... and it worked.

So now you're shifting the goalposts. You said there were "no consequences" and that he "never voted" and now you're saying "no pattern". There's a massive difference between the two. He does it once, for whatever reason, he could do it again and if it was merely a stunt then that's still a consequence. As much as Abbott and Pyne looked silly that day, so too did others place the blame squarely at the ALP's feet.

[Rorschach]

1 vote does not a pattern make... quite likely it was a stunt to embarrass the Opposition... and it worked.

So now you're shifting the goalposts. You said there were "no consequences" and that he "never voted" and now you're saying "no pattern". There's a massive difference between the two. He does it once, for whatever reason, he could do it again and if it was merely a stunt then that's still a consequence. As much as Abbott and Pyne looked silly that day, so too did others place the blame squarely at the ALP's feet.

Nope.... never did.
I was aware it happened and didn't think anyone would try to make an issue of it when it was a one and only and many thought it was a stunt used to embarrass the Opposition which it did.
Which is pretty much what I stated.
The stupidity of saying someone's vote is tarnished and can't be accepted when they are still an elected representative is IMO foolish... they were made to look foolish and immature.

[Rorschach]

Rorschach wrote:
Oh so now you agree with me about the Independents.

No, you misinterpreted what I said at the beginning. Nope. I specifically did not use the word "votes" and instead used the word "support" because I did not mean "votes" and in fact meant "support". One shows ones support in parliament through votes... I am quite happy to debate, argue and passionately argue, but I can't stand it when people put words in my mouth. I use my words carefully on forums because the only form of communication is via words. I will correct myself if I have mistakenly used a word. But I believe it is incumbent upon people engaging in debate to respond to what is said directly, not impose an interpretation based on what they decide a person meant.

Look Ma no words....

[Schu]

1 vote does not a pattern make... quite likely it was a stunt to embarrass the Opposition... and it worked.

So now you're shifting the goalposts. You said there were "no consequences" and that he "never voted" and now you're saying "no pattern". There's a massive difference between the two. He does it once, for whatever reason, he could do it again and if it was merely a stunt then that's still a consequence. As much as Abbott and Pyne looked silly that day, so too did others place the blame squarely at the ALP's feet.

Nope.... never did.
I was aware it happened and didn't think anyone would try to make an issue of it when it was a one and only and many thought it was a stunt used to embarrass the Opposition which it did.
Which is pretty much what I stated.
The stupidity of saying someone's vote is tarnished and can't be accepted when they are still an elected representative is IMO foolish... they were made to look foolish and immature.

Let's be clear: you said "no consequences" and "never voted" and now you are backpeddling. Perhaps be more careful in the future about speaking in absolutes. It changes the scope of the discussion and it also changes the complexion of the issue. In this case that complexion is directly relevant to the points be made.

Which are that it did in fact have a negative impact on the ALP. It didn't just embarrass the Opposition, it embarrassed the ALP as well because they too were seen to be engaging in childish stunt plays and questions were again raised as to why they had not put pressure on Thomson to resign. Had the ALP gotten rid of Thomson earlier and put pressure on him to resign that stunt would never had occurred.