zaph

Same sex marriage

11 posts in this topic

Couldn't find an existing thread...

 

Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus earlier this week accused Mr Turnbull of pushing the plebiscite into "the never never" after the Prime Minister conceded a vote may be delayed until early next year, a change from previous assurances that it would be one of the first orders of business for a returned Coalition government.

The Australian Electoral Commission has said it needs as long as 29 weeks to prepare for a plebiscite, which would mean enabling legislation would need to be put forward in the first week of Parliament from August 30.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poll-questions-level-of-community-support-for-samesex-marriage-plebiscite-20160720-gq9wed.html

 

What a massive steaming pile of dung. As I recall it doesn't take the AEC more than six months to arrange an election. Is a plebiscite more complicated? Dogs!!! Directed by the liberal/national/LNP.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poll questions level of community support for same-sex marriage plebiscite

 

 

Less than half of Australians want a plebiscite on same-sex marriage, a poll has found, with support for a national vote plummeting once voters are aware that the Turnbull Government's proposal will cost $160 million but not compel members of Parliament to respect the result.

 
Support for a plebiscite appears to have softened since it became a battleground issue during the election, with Opposition Leader Bill Shorten mocking it as a "$160 million taxpayer-funded opinion poll"....

 

IMO, if you're going to spend $160m, make it a real vote with a binding outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the wards here have gotten bored with the government and just declared gay marriage legal in their wards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poll questions level of community support for same-sex marriage plebiscite

 

 

IMO, if you're going to spend $160m, make it a real vote with a binding outcome.

Even the Brexit vote wasn't binding. You need support for a mandate. Most people are unaware of this. Anything else is blah blah blah to pollies (unless it impacts their re-election chances).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the Brexit vote wasn't binding. You need support for a mandate. Most people are unaware of this. Anything else is blah blah blah to pollies (unless it impacts their re-election chances).

 

Thanks. I didn't know that. I wonder if the British pollies choose to eventually ignore the vote.

 

link

 

 

The EU referendum result is not legally binding so in theory Parliament could ignore the will of the people by deciding to stay in the EU.

 
This is because Parliament is sovereign and the EU vote was an “advisory referendum”, as opposed to a “binary” referendum which has a fixed outcome...
...the EU referendum legislation does not force the Government to automatically take Britain out of the EU. 
 
But the political reality is that the Government has no choice but to follow through on the electorate’s wishes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the Brexit vote wasn't binding. You need support for a mandate. Most people are unaware of this. Anything else is blah blah blah to pollies (unless it impacts their re-election chances).

There's nothing more binding than a plebiscite. Or at least it should be. Politicians swing around 'mandate' when it suits them - we took a policy of spending $1b to save the endangered Sunnybank tree frog to an election, therefore we have a mandate to spend $10b saving two frogs. It's a load of sh*t. We charge politicians with making decisions for the nation. A moral decision like this should be far easier for them than almost everything else they consider. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing more binding than a plebiscite. Or at least it should be. Politicians swing around 'mandate' when it suits them - we took a policy of spending $1b to save the endangered Sunnybank tree frog to an election, therefore we have a mandate to spend $10b saving two frogs. It's a load of sh*t. We charge politicians with making decisions for the nation. A moral decision like this should be far easier for them than almost everything else they consider. 

Politicians use the term 'mandate' to suit their propaganda, but in reality they never have a mandate other than being elected. The way they use the term is a buzz word, not with lawful basis.

 

A mandate I am talking about is lawfully binding. If I recall correctly Arthur Chresby wrote a small book on mandates. A mandate was used to successfully stop a toxic waste dump up near Mildura several years ago. A referendum is generally binding but you're dealing with career lawyer politicians so they're shift bastards.

 

The one thing I do know is that plebiscites and petitions are not binding. Petitions are in fact a great waste of time (other than influencing pollies in terms of votes they will lose/gain).

Edited by Mr Medved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politicians use the term 'mandate' to suit their propaganda, but in reality they never have a mandate other than being elected. The way they use the term is a buzz word, not with lawful basis.

 

A mandate I am talking about is lawfully binding. If I recall correctly Arthur Chresby wrote a small book on mandates. A mandate was used to successfully stop a toxic waste dump up near Mildura several years ago. A referendum is generally binding but you're dealing with career lawyer politicians so they're shift bastards.

 

The one thing I do know is that plebiscites and petitions are not binding. Petitions are in fact a great waste of time (other than influencing pollies in terms of votes they will lose/gain).

There is no greater (moral) mandate than a plebiscite. If the majority of people say we should behead all Muslims or allow poofs to marry then politicians should follow this direction. Whether a particular pleb should be given to the people is an act of politicians. For example, I would be disappointed if a pleb to behead Muslims was voted through both houses. (not sure if a pleb requires both houses to agree??)

 

A referendum is binding. It requires both houses to vote for a ref on the issue. One house is enough under some circumstances. Referendums often fail. Only around 20% have been successful. Referendums require a majority of voters nation wide with a majority of the states 4/6 to pass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing is a joke. The Libs/nats/lnp will not take this to a plebiscite in this term. 

Achieved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now