Should there be an Aboriginal voice to parliament? (1 Viewer)

[cosmo 2]

it makes ya wonder though if the polls really are this shit its still going to look fuking bad for them trying to push this through to referendum

albo has basically fuked himself, dutton would otherwise have been unelectable (possibly still is he looks like a demon) if it hadn't been for this

 

[enoilgam]

you really think theyll back out?

i thought about it too but that'd be a serious self-own if albo tried to do that he'd never live it down

at leas tif he takes it to ref and it loses he can try to push the barrow it was sabotaged by the lnp etc which some will buy

As unpalatable as it would be, I think it would be easier to spin cancelling it then run the risk of having it be rejected by the Australian public at the ballot box. Albo can say "The public is indicating we need more detail, so we may need to go back to the drawing board" and then kick the can to having the referendum coincide with the 2025 election (maybe they ask two questions, one on recognition and the other on the Voice). There is no way to spin a referendum loss, what can Albo say the majority of people got it wrong and Dutton manipulated them?

if it fails, the armies of left-wing psychos in the australian media, think tanks, academics etc will simply say this proves australia is a white supremacist country etc. and that the no campaign won by promoting racist disinformation

To be completely honest, I dont know if they will. Australian support for the Indigenous is a mile wide and an inch deep. People sympathise with their plight but ultimately, many other issues are more important to the average Joe Blow. Also, I feel that whilst Australian's are sympathetic, there is a "silent majority" that do believe Aboriginals have now been given more than their fair share of funding and affirmative action policies which have not done anything to shift the dial on disadvantage.

 

[SylviaB]

that didn't stop him from starting this whole voice thing in the first place

you have to understand that none of this is about helping anyone

it's an albo vanity project, nothing more

it's so when he's retired, he has a 'legacy' and he gets jerked off by asshole activists and abc journalists and think tanks etc as being a boldly progressive leader, the same way Rudd is for his 'sorry' speech.

and yeah it looks bad if it fails, but it also looks bad if he delays it since he's said explicitly that he won't do that less than a month ago: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06...-holding-voice-referendum-this-year/102516842

It won't stop him doing that, but neither will looking bad from the voice failing stop him from holding the referendum

 

[cosmo 2]

i think its more than possible he has fked himself with this voice crap

 

[enoilgam]

i think its more than possible he has fked himself with this voice crap

He really has backed himself into a corner, I don't think nearly enough work has been done on developing a sound policy which is marketable. The No campaign really has been brilliant so far it must be said. Opting to put Warren Mundine and especially Jacinta Price at the centre of the campaign has worked wonders because both are fierce advocates for the No campaign and being Indigenous, it's hard to hit them with the lazy "racist" card. The only mistake thus far is the awful Thomas Mayo cartoon - it was in seriously bad taste especially in 2023.

Furthermore, the No side are absolutely hammering the Yes campaign on detail and accusing the them of trying to push through the Voice based on "Vibe". In response the Yes campaign has done...nothing. Their pamphlet was more of the same old same old, low on detail and high on sentiment. Whereas the No pamphlet was a detailed criticism of the Voice. You cant double down on failure, the Yes campaign needs to start getting into the details and draw a solid connection between how exactly the Voice will improve outcomes better than existing processes. That said, something tells me that the last thing Yes wants to do is release the details and give a more detailed picture of the Voice's strengths because they know if they do, these things will probably push more people to vote No (maybe a sign of a bad policy but what would I know).

 

[cosmo 2]

i didnt think this would happen i really thought people would just vote for it same as gay marriage

it probably would win if they had proposed it in 5-10 years from now theres too many boomers around still whod vote against it

 

[hehe43]

3 abo kids spat on me in the kfc car park the other day

there is 100% a regional crime wave and its out of control

You probably deserve it

 

[enoilgam]

i didnt think this would happen i really thought people would just vote for it same as gay marriage

it probably would win if they had proposed it in 5-10 years from now theres too many boomers around still whod vote against it

Initially I thought it would be very similar to the SSM vote, but the more I think about it, the more I see there are key differences, namely:

• SSM was very simplistic, straightforward and easy for people to understand (i.e. can people of the same sex get married). It literally involved changing a few words in an act of parliament. The Voice referendum is more complex and abstract, it's harder for the average voter to know exactly what it is and why it is needed.
• SSM was asking for one group to receive the same rights as another. The Voice is essentially giving one group of people a special body not available to others
• The No campaign for SSM really lacked a strong, cutting argument. Most arguments essentially revolved around tradition and traditional values. The No campaign could not show how a Yes vote would have any impact to the average, heterosexual person. They tried saying "If we approve SSM, boys will start wearing dresses in school" and other stuff, but the link between the two was tenuous at best in the minds of voters. The No campaign for the Voice is really cutting through by hammering the lack of detail and how said lack of detail can lead to unintended consequences

I think this referendum is much more similar to the Republic Referendum, which lost not due to strong support for the monarchy, but because the proposal was a poorly thought out, overcomplicated mess which lacked detail and scared off voters.

 

[cosmo 2]

my guess was ppl would vote for it bc they dont want to be racist and no is racist

young people definitely feel this way overwhelmingly but older people dont, that's whats keeping it from doing well in the polls i'd say

 

[Ellztrap]

Initially I thought it would be very similar to the SSM vote, but the more I think about it, the more I see there are key differences, namely:

• SSM was very simplistic, straightforward and easy for people to understand (i.e. can people of the same sex get married). It literally involved changing a few words in an act of parliament. The Voice referendum is more complex and abstract, it's harder for the average voter to know exactly what it is and why it is needed.
• SSM was asking for one group to receive the same rights as another. The Voice is essentially giving one group of people a special body not available to others
• The No campaign for SSM really lacked a strong, cutting argument. Most arguments essentially revolved around tradition and traditional values. The No campaign could not show how a Yes vote would have any impact to the average, heterosexual person. They tried saying "If we approve SSM, boys will start wearing dresses in school" and other stuff, but the link between the two was tenuous at best in the minds of voters. The No campaign for the Voice is really cutting through by hammering the lack of detail and how said lack of detail can lead to unintended consequences

I think this referendum is much more similar to the Republic Referendum, which lost not due to strong support for the monarchy, but because the proposal was a poorly thought out, overcomplicated mess which lacked detail and scared off voters.

I remember in high school one of the big “arguments” against same sex marriage was about this gay couple who had a kid and broke up and then the father who the kid stayed with had multiple partners, and the school literally blamed the gayness on the kid hating the father because he had multiple men over.
I also recall the whole marriage is sacred and a man and woman get married to have children. But you know, if someone’s an intersex person “they’re a freak and no one would marry them” - direct quote from an educator I had.

my guess was ppl would vote for it bc they dont want to be racist and no is racist

young people definitely feel this way overwhelmingly but older people dont, that's whats keeping it from doing well in the polls i'd say

No isn’t racist though, like I think a lack of information on how this will change the system should constitute a no vote, how can you vote yes for something when you don’t know what you’re actually agreeing to?
I like to think I’m generally pretty left leaning too.

 

[Drdusk]

my guess was ppl would vote for it bc they dont want to be racist and no is racist

Idk about that, I haven’t seen any major rhetoric of people calling it racist, but I could be wrong.

Anyway probably gonna be a no from me too and I’m young.

 

[SylviaB]

hahahah this is a fucking bad look for yes

 

[SylviaB]

the level of dishonesty from the yes campaign is insane

yeah, passing the voice doesn't literally mean that a treaty gets enacted, but you're out of your goddamn mind if you don't see this following naturally from the voice

The reality is that as long as there's broad political support of indigenous issues, this stuff will never stop.

Voice, truth and treaty (altogether as well as individually in sequence) would do bugger all to close the gap between aboriginals and everyone else, so what, they'll just stop there? Obviously not. There will always be an excuse for the old policies failing (that will be "obvious" in hindsight but somehow invisible now) and a whole new slew of policies and initiatives will be proposed with all the same promise and enthusiasm as the old ones had to begin with.

There's got to be a lot of people on the margins of yes support (and undecideds) who don't even know that the voice comes from the uluru statement from the heart and was always meant to be the first part of voice, treaty and truth

 

[cosmo 2]

right if tthe voice passes and the gap doesnt budge what then? where do they go from there

it can only ever get more extreme in its demands

 

[SylviaB]

The albanians have spoken

 

[SylviaB]

hahahah

They get rid of the cultural heritage laws in WA but then do this shit

https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/sustainability/handed-over-ten-victorian-councils-blindsided-by-sweeping-aboriginal-land-rights-deal/news-story/6760aea4ee5b59ea3572b0207fdd4df5

bye bye yes campaign

 

[howcanibesmarter]

i personally dont think that there should be an Aboriginal voice to parliament

 

[SadCeliac]

i personally dont think that there should be an Aboriginal voice to parliament

why?

 

[nsw..wollongong]

why?

ig an argument against it is that its hard to manage and monitor? a council of aboriginal speakers may not account for all tribes in Australia, idrk

 

[synthesisFR]

i have no clue whats going on in this thread and too ceebs to think deeply abt it