-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGaf |Early 2016 Election| - the government's term has been... Shortened
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
bobnowhere
Member
Sharkie/NXT is considering withdrawing supply and confidence in the House if Turnbull doesn't stand down Joyce and Nash from the ministry. Cath McGowan is waivering as well.
Elaugaufein
Member
Actually by my count Labor has a slightly easier Senate (assuming pairing holds or the high court stuff is sorted). They have 26 of their own , and the 9 Greens are generally amenable , which means they just need NXT + 1 of Lambie* , Hinch , Xenophon or Leyjonhelm (I can see a couple of cases where they could theoretically get Cory , Gichuhi or less likely PHON) . They can even Collect All 4 and drop NXT (though I have no ability whatsoever to conjure a scenario that's likely in).
*Lambie's basically a free vote for Labor for economic policy too.
They are sorta boned if the Greens don't support something and the Coalition isn't willing to come to the party though.
Elaugaufein
Member
I feel like I should be keeping book of how many get s44 in the coming week.
bobnowhere
Member
54(+1)/46(-1) Newspoll. 12 to go!
The ABS may take a statistical approach to make the SSM opinion poll more accurate, basically fudge the numbers to make up for voting difference between age groups. . Not sure if I think this will happen but involving the ABS whose mandate is to give the most accurate representation, not to just take a straw poll like the AEC, may cause completely havoc and invoke further legal cases. Somewhere Malcolm is tearing his hair out.
The ABS may take a statistical approach to make the SSM opinion poll more accurate, basically fudge the numbers to make up for voting difference between age groups. . Not sure if I think this will happen but involving the ABS whose mandate is to give the most accurate representation, not to just take a straw poll like the AEC, may cause completely havoc and invoke further legal cases. Somewhere Malcolm is tearing his hair out.
Elaugaufein
Member
Any adjustments would snuff whatever illusion of democracy this has to begin with. Especially if adjusted figures return a different result to pure. The government cannot allow that to happen since they'd go straight back to their internal war.
Oh Jesus this government can't even put their thumb on the scale right
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
They'll take demographic information to determine rate of reply among different groups, then extrapolate the opinion of the entire country from that based on the last census. What's there to not understand?
Elaugaufein
Member
That there's a possible entangled variable there that makes non-respondents statistically different to respondents, they might not care strongly either way, whereas those who do return the survey either care or feel some kind of civic duty. It's by no means certain that the distinct groups have the same distribution after accounting for lack of intensity.
This is different to the usual case where demographic projections are used, which is limited samples, the vast majority of the population aren't given the chance to participate so it's reasonable to assume they would behave similar to the polled group (including non-response rates) if they could.
D.Lo
Member
Ugh, I understand what it's saying. I doubt this guy's heresy idea will be done.
And it seems it cannot, the actual ABS site says:
The two items will not be tied together. They will not be able to determine what each age voted, just what percentage. The only real chance it has at being undermined is if the youth vote is very low, but I can't see that being interpreted as anything except 'not voting = voting not to change'.
bobnowhere
Member
Cristensen is the next person in trouble. Alarmingly we are almost identical, we both were born before 1983, we both have Scottish born mothers yet while I am a British Citizen by descent, Georgie looked at a website and thinks he isn't. The Nats vetting process really does come down to "she'll be right mate."
bobnowhere
Member
Yep!
extreme brain geniuses in the nats
D.Lo
Member
Can't be an election for another year I believe, since we just had a DD.
Even if supply is blocked?
bobnowhere
Member
A house election can be called whenever but if it's before August 2018 it will only be a house election, not half senate.
Tony Windsor is getting involved in the Barnaby case and wants to appear before the high court.
D.Lo
Member
Yep, so assuming Labor is handed the key, while they may benefit from a house election they'll still get a bad senate, so it's not in their interests to do so practically. More inability either way, which while not their fault would damage their brand and continue to erode the public's faith in Canberra.
bobnowhere
Member
Labor (26) + Green (9) + NXT (3) is a workable block of 38.Take one off for the President and they'd only need 1 more. Lambie backs the ALP on the economy, Leyonhjelm is open to a lot of social policy even he comes from a completely different stance, Guichuhi is unknown at this point and Hinch is pretty amenable on most things.
It would be a pain in arse for a while but it could work and Labor could call another election a year or two later to bring the houses back in line.
D.Lo
Member
that's my worry though, as soon as they have some deadlock, or are pushed left by the Greens, murdoch and the Libs have a field day. I guess maybe needing both Greens and NXT/indies might even policies out if they all work together?
bobnowhere
Member
Politics.
Labor know they have the upper hand here and unless they are lying the various members under question (Zappia, Vamvakinou, Keay, Lamb, O'conner and now even the ridiculous Shorten conspiracy) have all released statements that they renounced their various potential second citizenship's, with time to spare, and are basically daring the government to challenge them and are holding the threat of referring up to 8 extra government members that also have "doubts" using the losing Labor candidates. The longer this story can be dragged out in the news, the more pain for the government.
Aarglefarg
Member
I fear that Pandora's Box has been opened and so now there would still be all the abuse and nastiness, over "people not getting their say".
The other day when there wad the liberal party meeting to decide whether to have the plebiscite still, my boss started talking me to about a 'horrible undemocratic decision' and asked me several times in a few minutes if I was going to Canberra to vote, if I already had, etc. He was being absurd and inappropriate. I thought for the rest of the shift they had decided on a free vote. I found out when I could check the news that they hadn't decided yet.
Elaugaufein
Member
No election is possible before mid next year short of some kind of Constitutional Crisis* happening or them desyching the Senate (which is a) a good way to lose and b) gives an incoming Labor government a fairly friendly Senate until mid 2019 (Greens + NXT + 1 other (Lambie is basically a lock for economic policy, Hinch is generally good on civil rights except for people suspected of / guilty of crimes, Leyjonhelm is possible for somethings too)).
* DDs require the Lower House to be in its final 6 months (so first half 2019). After a DD Senators must serve at least 2 years, (mid next year).
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-windsor-joins-high-court-battle-as-dates-set
High Court won't hear MPs cases until October now. Bit of a headache for the govt as they'll have to drag this corpse behind them for months almost ensuring nobody will work with them given their legitimacy is in question.
Seems like everyone is also angling to make their case for validity whilst discrediting other parties cases which gives the entire proceeding a weird musical chairs vibe.
Canavan's lawyer's argument, that 50% of Australians would be ineligible by descent if he is, seems exceptionally weak as the court may well point out they're only ineligible if they do nothing about it.
High Court won't hear MPs cases until October now. Bit of a headache for the govt as they'll have to drag this corpse behind them for months almost ensuring nobody will work with them given their legitimacy is in question.
Seems like everyone is also angling to make their case for validity whilst discrediting other parties cases which gives the entire proceeding a weird musical chairs vibe.
Canavan's lawyer's argument, that 50% of Australians would be ineligible by descent if he is, seems exceptionally weak as the court may well point out they're only ineligible if they do nothing about it.
Should have linked the article, my bad.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...october-high-court-hears-20170824-gy31ds.html
Honestly, not sure that argument is going to work for him.
I assume this is the law change? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_nationality_law#Decision_no._30_of_1983
Whatever the case, he obviously had Italian grandparents, wouldn't you think to check this?
bobnowhere
Member
So they start the week trying to embroil Shorten in this mess even though he was born here and then they go into the High Court and argue that s.44 can't possibly apply to people born here that happen to aquire citizenship through descent.
I think I know who their lawyer is.
I think I know who their lawyer is.
Elaugaufein
Member
I dunno how citizen by descent can possibly be ignored in general, citizenship by descent is just as standard as citizenship by birth. There's not much in the claim one should be recognised and not the other. You could maybe argue that it's unreasonable to know about certain forms of citizenship by descent (like Joyce's case, where he might not have that his father had acquired NZ citizenship and thus he acquired it ) but consistency would require that you apply the same to citizenship by birth.
Let's play a game; who is the most screwed of the Magnificent Seven?
Given Ludlam seems to not be bothering to contest I think it's gotta be Roberts. Canavan's a strong contender though given his defense seems to be rhetorical and based on the notion that if he can't be in Parliament lots of others can't either.
Given Ludlam seems to not be bothering to contest I think it's gotta be Roberts. Canavan's a strong contender though given his defense seems to be rhetorical and based on the notion that if he can't be in Parliament lots of others can't either.
Elaugaufein
Member
Not unless there's a reasonable probability they are actually foreign agents. Which seems to be about 0 for all of them (except maybe Roberts who may be the scouting force of Omnicron Persei VIII).
I feel like the court either has to (1) read down the shit out of this section because it's stupid; or (2) set an example and it'll probably never happen again. I'm not adverse to option (2) because it's short term pain for long term certainty.
Elaugaufein
Member
The first example invalidated 3 candidates in the same election so your faith in 2 is probably misplaced.
I'm not sure I follow, are you referring to Sykes?
Elaugaufein
Member
I think so. Like a PHON candidate got eliiminated as did at least one other contender (the ALP candidate) , and I think it was actually the Liberal candidate as well. .
ETA - Yeah, the 3 top candidates all got eliminated.
bobnowhere
Member
Elaugaufein
Member
Are we talking about a construction that by happenstance include the N word or one that deliberately uses it ? Because in the case of the former I am inclined to agree, the Scunthorpe problem is insufficient ground for much of anything.
- Status