I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,299

Quote: Raymond Terrific @ September 8 2013, 12:55 PM BST

I haven't heard an argument for compulsory voting that wasn't obviously complete bollocks, it's amazing that it's an actual thing.

View original

He's gone. I think he is a moderate Kevin Rudd supporter. I hadn't meant to upset him but nothing on earth would have got me to vote for either of them. We probably won't hear now what that would have meant in practice. I'll have to Google. Not that I feel it is needed but I should confirm that I am not at all anti Australia. Their politics just seem to be another indication of the way politics has gone beyond acceptability.

Quote: Horseradish @ September 8 2013, 12:37 PM BST

Under compulsory voting, do you have a "None of the Above" box or is it a case of having to spoil your ballot paper? On Rudd, the swearing is trivial. Weirdo swearing is more concerning. Sadly, both of the contenders in your election appear to be not only creepy but downright peculiar.

View original

It's a bit complicated. Essentialy unless you live in their seat- you don't vote for either of them personally (although we forget that most of the time here). In Kevin Rudd's case, he has won his local seat and so can still be in Parliment. Likewise it would have been possible that Tony Abbotts party could have won Government, but he lost his local seat- meaning he would not be in politics anymore.

So for the office of Prime Minister you are given a green piece of paper with peoples names and the party they represent with a box next to each name. The names on the paper depends on what electroate you live. I think you say constituency in UK. Basically you put a number 1 in the box for the party you want to vote for. If you want to you can then number all the other boxes in order of preference. In each eloctrate there will usually be one lnp (abbotts party) and one Labour (Rudd) candidate as they are the two major parties. The other candidates will be from minor parties or independents but essentially no one from those has a chance of becoming Prime Minister.

You have to know a bit if you elect to number every box- because if it is not clear on first preferences it goes to no 2 votes and so on but because the minor parties can not form Government they give preferences to the two majors.

Really haven't explained that very well.

Quote: reds @ September 8 2013, 1:02 PM BST

It's a bit complicated. Essentialy unless you live in their seat- you don't vote for either of them personally (although we forget that most of the time here). In Kevin Rudd's case, he has won his local seat and so can still be in Parliment. Likewise it would have been possible that Tony Abbotts party could have won Government, but he lost his local seat- meaning he would not be in politics anymore.

So for the office of Prime Minister you are given a green piece of paper with peoples names and the party they represent with a box next to each name. The names on the paper depends on what electroate you live. I think you say constituency in UK. Basically you put a number 1 in the box for the party you want to vote for. If you want to you can then number all the other boxes in order of preference. In each eloctrate there will usually be one lnp (abbotts party) and one Labour (Rudd) candidate as they are the two major parties. The other candidates will be from minor parties or independents but essentially no one from those has a chance of becoming Prime Minister.

You have to know a bit if you elect to number every box- because if it is not clear on first preferences it goes to no 2 votes and so on but because the minor parties can not form Government they give preferences to the two majors.

Really haven't explained that very well.

View original

No, that's fine. Many thanks. Here, Cameron represents Chipping Norton. Theoretically, he could lose his seat and his party could still get the most seats. They would form a Government but they would need someone else to be PM. In practice, he gets in because it is a safe seat. No one else can win there. We have just one vote but we know about preference voting because that applies in the European elections.

I suppose in many of your seats it would have been possible just to place a "1" against a minority candidate. Say, Independent. But it still leaves the question about not wanting to buy in to the system one year because of disillusionment or whatever. I do feel that is an important right that should not incur a penalty.

Quote: Horseradish @ September 8 2013, 1:09 PM BST

No, that's fine. Many thanks. Here, Cameron represents Chipping Norton. Theoretically, he could lose his seat and his party could still get the most seats. They would form a Government but they would need someone else to be PM. In practice, he gets in because it is a safe seat. No one else can win there. We have just one vote but we know about preference voting because that applies in the European elections.

I suppose in many of your seats it would have been possible just to place a "1" against a minority candidate. Say, Independent. But it still leaves the question about not wanting to buy in to the system one year because of disillusionment or whatever. I do feel that is an important right that should not incur a penalty.

View original

As far as seats go it sounds sort of the same then. You are correct that you can give number 1 to whoever you like. In the last election we had a hung Parliment. So even after preference no one party was a clear winner. It came down to 3 or 4 indpendents who had one their local seats decing which party to side with. I think that is one thing that always annoyed people about Julia Gillard- she claimed to be leader elected by the Australian people- but really she was the leader elected by four guys.

As I said if you don't want to vote you can get your name marked off and just muck up or submit a blank form. The alternative is to not get marked off and risk getting a fine. Voting might be complusary but at least we are free to vote for who we like. Personally I think that if you don't vote- then you don't get to complain if you think they are doing are bad job.

The one good thing is that Abbotts party did not get as many votes in the senate as expected. This is good for bills getting passed perhaps been blocked. It is never good if one party holds to much power.

Quote: reds @ September 8 2013, 1:28 PM BST

As far as seats go it sounds sort of the same then. You are correct that you can give number 1 to whoever you like. In the last election we had a hung Parliment. So even after preference no one party was a clear winner. It came down to 3 or 4 indpendents who had one their local seats decing which party to side with. I think that is one thing that always annoyed people about Julia Gillard- she claimed to be leader elected by the Australian people- but really she was the leader elected by four guys.

As I said if you don't want to vote you can get your name marked off and just muck up or submit a blank form. The alternative is to not get marked off and risk getting a fine. Voting might be complusary but at least we are free to vote for who we like. Personally I think that if you don't vote- then you don't get to complain if you think they are doing are bad job.

The one good thing is that Abbotts party did not get as many votes in the senate as expected. This is good for bills getting passed perhaps been blocked. It is never good if one party holds to much power.

View original

Thanks again. She is the female equivalent of Dave. He is PM because of a small number of independents led by a geezer called Nick Clegg. That is, though, one step up from the previous situation. Gordon Brown became PM and no one was asked. We all just waited for smoke to appear from the chimney as people do when a new Pope is chosen. Anyhow, at least you have the advantage of an elected second house. We have 800 people over the age of 90 who have been chosen either by Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair.

I don't agree with you on compulsory voting but respect your opinion. I will leave it there for all of our sakes but not without saying that breakfast show host Alan Jones sounds like a "real charmer". Not. But then you also have that strange, controversial football guy. Neither is ABC I hope. I have some time for Mark Scott to the extent that I wanted him to head up the BBC. As it was, he had the good sense to stay at home.

Quote: Horseradish @ September 8 2013, 1:45 PM BST

.

I don't agree with you on compulsory voting but respect your opinion. I will leave it there for all of our sakes but not without saying that breakfast show host Alan Jones sounds like a "real charmer". Not. But then you also have that strange, controversial football guy. Neither is ABC I hope. I have some time for Mark Scott to the extent that I wanted him to head up the BBC. As it was, he had the good sense to stay at home.

View original

Not sure how Alan Jones still has his job. Not sure which strange controversial football guy you mean. There is usually at least someone from one of the various codes doing something.

Quote: reds @ September 8 2013, 1:28 PM BST

Personally I think that if you don't vote- then you don't get to complain if you think they are doing are bad job.

View original

That argument falls down if you don't think any of the other candidates would have done a good job either.

Quote: reds @ September 8 2013, 1:58 PM BST

Not sure how Alan Jones still has his job. Not sure which strange controversial football guy you mean. There is usually at least someone from one of the various codes doing something.

View original

Rex Hunt.

(Sorry, over to Raymond)

Quote: Horseradish @ September 8 2013, 2:02 PM BST

Rex Hunt.

View original

He hosted a fishing show when I was a kid. I didn't know he was a footballer in the past or on radio now.

Quote: reds @ September 8 2013, 2:04 PM BST

He hosted a fishing show when I was a kid. I didn't know he was a footballer in the past or on radio now.

View original

Yes - fishing. Also colourful football commentary. Much loved, it has to be said. I'm off to the shops now.

Quote: sootyj @ September 8 2013, 12:51 AM BST

The issue is more that child pornography by its definition is images of people being abused. So you're paying and encouraging the commission of a crime.

Maybe there's an argument for some sort of academic library of images, for people doing research?

Personally I think the more child abuse is treated like a crime and nothing more, the more likely it is there'll be more convictions. The moral panic makes victims think they'll be morally stained, that and it'll make them more willing to press charges against their abuser. Someone they may have very complex feelings about.

View original

The moral panic is very worrying and points to a larger malaise in how we perceive innocence and experience. Fundamentally we still aspire to not knowing anything about the world and fetishise the child's ignorance as a holy state.

If we can move on to conceptualise living as something other than sinning we might one day cease to view the penis as a weapon.

The fetishising of children's innocence is damaging. Not least of all because of the effect it has on the victim.

I'm not sure we look on living as sinning in these bachanealean times.

I think one of the saddest things is the hopeless, emotionally abusive parent. Who's one saving grace in their own view is they hate paedophiles.

Heres a thought.

Within the decade the technology will exist to create cost-effective 100% life-like 3-d animation of whatever we want.
So what will we do then?
Will watching an animated (but thoroughly life-like) film of these sort of acts be illegal?
People are already realistically murdering people for fun in Grand Theft Auto.
How will we square that circle?
Will it become a 'thought' crime?

Every new communication technology has been hijacked by the porn industry.

I think until you kill sentience self awareness it won't be murder.

Quote: Godot Taxis @ September 8 2013, 4:06 PM BST

The moral panic is very worrying and points to a larger malaise in how we perceive innocence and experience. Fundamentally we still aspire to not knowing anything about the world and fetishise the child's ignorance as a holy state.

If we can move on to conceptualise living as something other than sinning we might one day cease to view the penis as a weapon.

View original

Intelligence is vastly overrated and largely about the adult ego. Innocence, as in the sense of an absence of knowledge, does not need to be holy to be of merit. I do not have an ability to describe a geographical terrain scientifically. That there are ox-bow lakes. That cloud formations supposedly have names. That there are specific parts of a tree. So what? Words do not necessarily enhance my experience of any of them. They are just ways of turning everything artificially into partial human form, much like empire building.