[AMA] I'm a Minor Party Political Candidate (Fusion Party)

Lwryun on 05/04/2022 - 12:01
Last edited 05/04/2022 - 20:10

I'm standing in Grayndler (Albo's seat in Sydney) in the coming federal election for the Fusion Party:

https://www.fusionparty.org.au/james_haggerty

I'm guessing this has already provoked a few strong reactions, probably related to either my sanity, the futility of minor parties, or me using Ozbargain for self-promotion, so hit me with your best shot. I promise to not completely toe the party line.

EDIT: for context, the Fusion party is a combination of a number of existing parties: the Science Party, Pirate Party,
Secular Party, Vote Planet, and Climate Change Justice Party. This was encouraged by the government changing the rules around minor party membership requirements: https://www.fusionparty.org.au/our_party

For this election, we've tried to combine our passions into a bunch of different policies you can see on our website (https://www.fusionparty.org.au/). For instance, you can really see the influence of the Pirate Party on the Civil & Digital Liberties section, the Science Party on Future Focused, and the Secular Party on Secular Humanism. I think it's great that we all have our areas of expertise and passion, and we're all on board with Climate Change as our number one priority.

Introduce Yourself Federal Election

closed Comments

  • Xistn on 05/04/2022 - 12:30
    +2

    How much you willing to pay for a vote…

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 12:44
      +17

      One reply on Ozbargain. Deal?

      • jaimex2 on 06/04/2022 - 12:02

        No branch stacking?

    • Almost Banned on 06/04/2022 - 16:32
      -2

      Congratulations - you have BOTH committed an offense under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
      http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea191…

      • Xistn on 06/04/2022 - 16:34

        So is a pamphlet.

        • Almost Banned on 06/04/2022 - 16:38
          -1

          A pamphlet does not create any type of 'understanding'.

      • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 20:39
        +5

        Please share your insight with the appropriate authority. I will enjoy being prosecuted for this (the publicity would be amazing!).

  • pegaxs on 05/04/2022 - 12:40
    +3

    Do you get to pick where your preferences go or does your party tell you where they have to go?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 12:46
      +2

      Australia now uses a preference system where nothing is 'automatically' done - i.e. the distribution of preferences is entirely the responsibility of the voter.

      If you're asking about how to vote cards - which people don't have to follow, of course! - it's going to be a joint decision between me and the party.

      • EightImmortals on 05/04/2022 - 13:53
        +1

        Not if the voter votes 'above the line' it isn't.

        If they vote above the line and their preferred choice doesn't get enough votes then their vote gets passed on to whoever their chosen candidate decides. People need to vote below the line. Here's a recent vid explaining how it works.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS3IfC-i6I

        • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 14:37
          +7

          This has not been correct since 2016:

          https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart…

          (i.e. it's now 'safe' to vote above the line - and in fact, you're supposed to number at least 6 boxes above the line. My advice is that you should first choose the parties that most align with your views, then put Lab/Greens/Lib in whatever order you prefer if you haven't already. This ensures your preference isn't exhausted, and, for instance, would help elect a mainstream candidate over One Nation or UAP if you would prefer they weren't there ;) )

          • EightImmortals on 05/04/2022 - 14:45

            @wryun: Thanks for that.
            But doesn't that still pass the votes down the line to the majors (unless say the independent really romps it in)?

            • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 14:55
              +2

              @EightImmortals: It's your choice on whether you pass your vote down to the majors once you've numbered the required boxes in the senate.

              The reason why I would advise passing it to a major regardless is that it makes sure if something crazy happens (or you don't want One Nation elected) you express that preference rather than wasting your vote.

              Note that the $3 electoral funding doesn't pass down the line. It's entirely based on who you voted (1) for.

              • EightImmortals on 05/04/2022 - 15:06
                -1

                @wryun: Yes understand (I think :) ) how that works below the line. Not so sure on above the line?

                Will be putting majors last and working backwards from there, I don't care if ON gets elected, at this stage of the game I have some goldfish in the pond out front that would do a better job than the incumbents. :)

                • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 17:32
                  +2

                  @EightImmortals: Works the same above the line, but applies to the party list.

                  i.e. if you voted (1) Labor, (2) Liberal, etc., it's the same as voting for all the Labor candidates, then all the Liberal candidates, etc.

                  Our electoral system is too confusing; most people aren't across how it works, particularly given it's often different at federal/state/local :(

                  • EightImmortals on 05/04/2022 - 17:45

                    @wryun: Well at least we can agree on that. :)
                    I've been actually looking at it and trying to understand it for decades…most people don't even bother to do that.

        • twinbag on 08/04/2022 - 20:51
          +1

          Nice vid, here's a shorter one from the Juice Media's Honest Government ad series on preferential voting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bleyX4oMCgM

  • Xyzzy on 05/04/2022 - 12:40

    How'd you end up with the name "Fusion Party".

    For minor parties the name is the only piece of information on the party most voters will have; do you think "Fusion" will entice anyone to vote for you?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 12:48
      +2

      Personally, I think it's a poor name and it's going to make it harder (and more confusing) to get the word out, but I wasn't involved in the merger discussions. I believe some people advocated 'Future Party', but the problem with that was it's the old name of the Science Party…

      However, the 'official' name of the party that will appear on ballots is actually: FUSION: Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency

      Which means there's some chance that previous voters/supporters will realise who we are!

      • Xyzzy on 05/04/2022 - 12:51
        +4

        and everyone else will think you don't know who you are.

        • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 12:55

          Possibly :)

          Starting a minor party is always a gamble, and ultimately there's a low probability that Fusion will be successful in the long term. But when the benefits of success are so high, and we can at least try and push the political discourse in our direction… worth a try?

          For more context, the reason the merger happened was because the AEC increased the membership requirement to 1500. This is harder than it sounds - you need to a submit a list to the AEC with accurate addresses so they can match against the electoral roll, and they contact people to confirm. It's surprisingly painful getting people to give you exactly the same name and address they have on the roll!

      • ChillBro on 05/04/2022 - 13:12
        +4

        Oh damn! Didn’t know the pirate party is part of this!

        • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 14:26
          +1

          Hope that's a 'damn' of 'wow, it's good that now Pirate Party ideas will get more attention and votes' ;)

          • Jolakot on 06/04/2022 - 02:07
            +1

            @wryun: Honestly, you guys should have just kept the Pirate Party Platform instead of whatever half-baked mess you're trying to describe to us here:
            https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Platform

            They actually have consistent and well defined ideas, most of which are a socially progressive economically conservatives wet dream

            What does Fusion have beyond pretty buzzwords? I want to see a platform with even half the citations that PPA has, because right now it just feels like you're selling apartments off the plan before you've even broke ground

            • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 10:59

              @Jolakot: As a member of the Science Party (which brought the largest number of members), I reckon we had a pretty good set too:

              https://www.scienceparty.org.au/federal_policy

              I haven't tried to describe Fusion's complete policy platform here, only answered specific questions. If you want to see it:

              https://www.fusionparty.org.au/

              But, like I said, with parties coming together it takes time for everyone to agree on a joint platform. You can see a lot of ideas from Science and the Pirates in our policy, and you can probably even hunt down citations if you're keen (in policies from either party). Trust that there are a lot of members that do care about these things, and we're working on it.

              Re the 'pretty buzzwords' accusation, I think that's a bit much. There are a lot of specific ideas in our platform and particular focus areas, hopefully enough to give most people a good sense of what they're voting for.

  • Godric on 05/04/2022 - 12:47
    +2

    Any bargains?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 14:22
      +8

      After the election, I can send you some slightly used corflutes to make a cubby house.

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 05/04/2022 - 12:52

    What's your uncensored and no-holds-barred view on the United Australia Party.

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 13:00
      +9

      I'm not writing that down.

      The thing I will write is that the UAP is so obviously dysfunctional that I think he's actually being counterproductive in spreading his views. People are now more likely to think 'the UAP wants that? No way'.

      Unless it's just a ploy to help elect the Coalition. Palmer's motives are opaque to me.

      • Herbse on 05/04/2022 - 19:49
        +7

        It's 100% a scam to harvest small percentage of votes from labor and prop up the Coalition. If you look at the UAP voting form it's UAP 1, LNP 2.. Labor Last.

        They have been illegally posting banners at high traffic intersections to get their name out with vague quotes like "vote for freedom"

        Their candidates in every electorate are paid for, their photographs and bios and media made up and when you try to contact them they go to a generic voicemail which no one responds to.

        All done to harvest votes away from Labor and ensure the Libs win again. It worked last time and will work again.

        All 100% legal by AEC laws and nothing anyone can do about it.

        • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 20:17

          Yes, but … Palmer doesn't actually seem to like the Libs.

          I also did actually see a UAP candidate in the flesh a few months ago, though I agree they've put a number of random people up as candidates so they can cover all the electorates. The UAP candidate for Grayndler is an interesting character: https://www.unitedaustraliaparty.org.au/candidate/father-dav…

          • Herbse on 05/04/2022 - 20:41
            +6

            @wryun: He pretends to not like the libs because it helps differentiate himself from the "major parties". But his motivations are clear, he's said so himself.

            https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/11128160

            • Mr Palmer reportedly spent at least $60 million on advertising throughout the campaign
            • Mr Palmer says the advertising was worth the cost, preventing a Labor victory
            • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 22:37

              @Herbse: Think there might be a bit of post hoc justification going on there, though. He's trying to find a 'win'; whether it was the 'win' he was originally looking for…

    • Yorkshire-Man on 05/04/2022 - 14:29
      +9

      I will give you mine. Craig is my local MP and we are so ashamed as locals. Most people I know are going independent this time…

  • Mokr on 05/04/2022 - 12:55

    Isn't the reason party the same

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 13:03
      +1

      I'm going to go with 'similar'; I think we approached Reason when forming Fusion and they weren't interested. But Reason mostly has a presence in Victoria, and we've got a strong membership base in most states now.

      Also, it's ok for parties to be similar - this is what preferences are for, people! Then we can see after the election which party looks like it has more momentum.

      • twig on 05/04/2022 - 19:49
        +1

        Based off policy alone, Reason and Fusion already have my vote.

        I'm not in your area though so good luck, you've got a tough seat allocated.

        • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 20:19
          +2

          Thanks! It's just where I live, and to be honest, there's a slim possibility that being against Albo will lead to more publicity than otherwise. Won't help our primary vote much, though. I called one of our actual party members the other day who had trouble hearing me, and she just said "Albo's got my vote" and hung up when she realised I was a political caller.

  • AustriaBargain on 05/04/2022 - 12:56
    +10

    I never vote for those minor parties because unless you know a lot about them their names always feel like a trap. "Family First" party sounds fine, but you read into it and they are into some horror show stuff. And you see like Freedom Through Democracy party and their only platform is banning pregnant women from buses or some crap.

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 13:06

      I mean, ultimately, I agree: when I vote, I preference parties I've never heard of below those I have (special exception for the far right who get preferenced last), and in particular take care to vote for those likely to be elected over those I don't know (i.e. I make sure Lib/Lab/Greens are all reasonably high in my senate preferences).

      But this is part of why I'm here - letting you know that Fusion exists, so that if you do have a bit of time you can find out what we're about. And if you agree, maybe even vote for us :)

      (and remember, 1st preference delivers your $3 electoral funding - https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/public_fu…)

      • AustriaBargain on 05/04/2022 - 13:10

        I like the idea of fusion, but I don't see any kind of nuclear power becoming policy in Australia anytime soon even though it's greener than coal or oil power.

        • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 13:18

          And this is one of the reasons I hate the name. We have exploring Fusion power as one of our (minor) policies, but we're called fusion because we're a bunch of parties coming together around a set of common goals.

      • Mokr on 05/04/2022 - 13:13
        +2

        This is why I tell all my friends not to vote unless you are certain as it just gives money to parties.

        • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 13:17

          Remember, only (1) gives money to the parties, and only if they get 4%.

          If you vote for a really hopeless minor party in the senate the chance they get 4% is tiny, so this is one way of not funding anyone. Or you could just give $3 to someone you mostly agree with, eh?

          • vinnychase on 05/04/2022 - 15:16

            @wryun:

            this is one way of not funding anyone.

            Where does that Money go?

            • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 17:34

              @vinnychase: Money is allocated per vote, but only to those parties that receive >4%. If you vote for a party that receives less than 4%, no-one gets funding from your vote.

        • AustriaBargain on 05/04/2022 - 13:43

          It's why I vote for Greens when I really want to preference ALP over Liberals. It gives the ALP the vote, but gives the Greens the $1.50 or whatever each vote is worth to them, plus it helps their statistics to have another primary vote. Greens are against nuclear which is nuts, but I think by the time Greens become a dominant party in Australia public sentiment over nuclear will have improved, and as Greens gets more powerful they will have to become more serious about their policies. If Greens got 40% of the vote instead of just 4% or whatever then by that time they will have completely different party leaders and stuff.

    • orangetrain on 05/04/2022 - 23:01

      ABC is partly why there is minor party fear of unknown. Aside from Antony Green hating extra choices on ballot, ABC have a policy to report on incumbent political parties which comes under review often.

      The other media are owned by self interested billionaires. Enough said.

      It is best to review all the ballot choices yourself. Unfortunately, that includes making your own judgement without the rich journalism. Ie questioning a party policy, credentials, compare against other ballot choices, etc.

  • veetor on 05/04/2022 - 12:56
    +3

    Can you beat Albo in a fist fight?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 13:00
      +6

      Highly unlikely.

  • ozyhsk on 05/04/2022 - 13:18
    +1

    Why are you in politics, don't say for people & country?

    Do you think ministers deserve these big pays & pensions?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 13:42
      +4

      Well, I'm definitely not in it for the money; aside from being in the privileged position that I don't mind spending some of my money and time on it.

      More seriously, I'm reasonably politically engaged, and when I was young and innocent used to vote for the Democrats. I'm still sad that the Democrats fell apart (1); I feel like we need a party that's idealistic enough to spur the major parties into listening to good policy ('keep the bastards honest'?) without getting too tied up in a particular ideological stance (for many people, they're just never going to vote Greens). So, I really want something like the Fusion Party to exist, and running in the lower house just as we're trying to get the word out is a way to help that happen.

      Re ministerial pay, in general I think it's worth paying the people who lead the country a bunch of money. It's a tough and important job, it doesn't cost us that much relative to the government budget, and they shouldn't have to stress too much about their circumstances. I would support reducing the number of parliamentarians somewhat. Pensions I think are too generous, but it's not at the top of my list of concerns. In terms of government reform, I think we'd get more benefit from making government decisions more transparent, having a federal corruption commission, improving whistleblower protection, preventing people stepping from government into related private industry, etc. etc.

      (1) Actually, the Democrats are trying to resurrect themselves after being deregistered. I don't hold out much hope for their long term success - most people seem to not like to vote for parties that they perceive as 'failures', and too many people have written them off.

      • ozyhsk on 05/04/2022 - 14:36
        +1

        in general I think it's worth paying the people who lead the country a bunch of money. It's a tough and important job

        I agree, so do you also agree that we should have some entry criteria for politicians for such an important job

        All these unqualified & uneducated running this country.
        none of these ministers would even pass an interview for a junior position in any departments they are heads off.

        • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 14:41
          +5

          I think you'd be surprised at how well educated the majority of our politicians are.

          From my perspective, the main issue is that politics has become so competitive that the main thing they've used their education and intelligence for is becoming good at politics. It would be better if they had more left for running the country :)

        • orangetrain on 05/04/2022 - 23:10

          Unqualified and uneducated, are you sure you're not falling for their "bloke" media persona?

          Look at Scott Morrison's education and it's not a honorary degree: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Morrison

          Around the world, Boris Johnson with his messy car? Loved getting an education. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson

          These leaders try to work for rich class. And in turn the rich class props them up. They don't get to be leaders of the country for no reason. If it was that easy, then do you think you can do it?

          • ozyhsk on 06/04/2022 - 09:25

            @orangetrain: Their responses and the decision makes me doubt their degrees.
            Did they buy it through? Rich get in big unis easily. One more thing Australian uni standards are way under all other countries. Assie unis are just money making machines

            Also, yes I agree it's not easy to become a politician all you need:

            • Money
            • be from a popular community / background
            • be a good liar

            Cheers,

            • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 11:49
              +1

              @ozyhsk: Morrison is actually among the least academically impressive of our recent PMs. Both Abbott and Turnbull were Rhodes Scholars! Pretty hard to fake that.

      • havebeerbelywillsumo on 05/04/2022 - 16:27

        @wryun - Good Lord, a sensible reply….you're doomed.

  • GourmetFoodie on 05/04/2022 - 13:30

    Good on you. Running is hard work and most people don’t have the courage or motivation to do so.

    What is your thoughts on renewable energy going forward? Should we have nuclear power in Oz?

    What should the govt do to fill ongoing and increasing skills shortages in the IT sector?

    How should our country better position itself for the future talent wars?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 14:03
      +1

      Thanks!

      What is your thoughts on renewable energy going forward? Should we have nuclear power in Oz?

      Fusion policy is all in on renewables ('800%' - i.e. we should overproduce to make energy cheap and sell it on, as we're again the 'lucky' country). In terms of nuclear power, our policy is basically 'if we can make fusion work, let's do it ASAP' (remembering that the party name is not about Fusion power - argh!).

      In terms of fission, there's no official position. There are people in the party who are strongly against, and strongly for. Personally, if I was magically in a position of power I would consider any proposal; I'm definitely sympathetic to the idea that it's a good transitional step as we're trying to decarbonise, but in Australia we're so ridiculously blessed with renewable potential it feels like that's the sure bet. So my current, under-educated belief, is that it's better to focus on energy sources that have broad public support, and see how far we can get with that.

      What should the govt do to fill ongoing and increasing skills shortages in the IT sector?

      How should our country better position itself for the future talent wars?

      Personal opinion: nothing specific to IT. The broader solution is to keep investing in education, and have less obnoxious pathways for international students to become citizens in priority areas generally.

      I see the success of Australia as part of the success of the world, so thinking of 'talent wars' between countries seems counterproductive to me. What I'd like is for Australia to become such a good example of governance that people would naturally want to come here and we'd inspire other countries to be more like us. That is, letting natural pull factors do the work; the 'talent war' would just be about creating a great place to live, not having random subsidies and complex migration benefits.

  • Bargainfluencer on 05/04/2022 - 14:01

    The Fusion party sounds like you support Nuclear Fusion Power plants and is confusing, I wouldn't vote for you if I see you on the ticket without research like Science Party
    Why are you wasting your time and money standing in a Lower House seat of a safe Labor seat held by the leader who is favourite to be the next Prime Minister?
    If you don't get 4% votes won't you be completely out of pocket?
    Why not stand for the senate?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 14:07
      +2

      The leader of the party, Andrea Leong, is standing for the senate in NSW: https://www.fusionparty.org.au/andrea_leong

      But having someone in the lower house seat helps the senate vote and gives us a focus for getting the word out. Also, too many people are a bit disengaged with the senate, and it's hard to get people excited about letterboxing and handing out flyers at booths for senate candidates only.

      Ultimately, in terms of visibility for Fusion and our policy ideas, I think it's a pretty good deal to spend ~$5000 or so on a lower house candidate (that money wouldn't go that far in media advertising…).

      And yes, I expect to 'lose' a bunch of my personal money and whatever is donated to my campaign, but I don't view it as lost - it's money that's helping to change the political discussion, even if only in a small way.

      EDIT: addressing the fusion name thing - I agree. The official party name will have all our constituent parties in it, but… naming things is hard.

      • Xyzzy on 05/04/2022 - 14:17
        +1

        If you could produce a workable Nuclear Fusion Power Plant, you'd have my vote.

  • SnowDragon on 05/04/2022 - 14:03
    +1

    Where do you (and by extension, your party) fall on the political compass?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 14:18
      +2

      Haven't done that in a while! Currently (wish I knew my past results now):

      Economic Left/Right: -4.88
      Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.59

      Personally, I think that overstates how far I am towards the economic left in mainstream opinion. I'd definitely consider myself a capitalist, but the regulatory framework under which capitalism operates is very important. Can't speak for the party generally. It's hard to get imaginary constructs to answer quizzes.

  • [Deactivated] on 05/04/2022 - 14:10
    -2

    read your bio, smart man stick with that and get a real job

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 14:20
      +2

      Already have a real job, but thanks :)

  • [Deactivated] on 05/04/2022 - 14:11
    -5

    would you of mandated vaccines that don't work to keep a job?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 14:21
      +6

      Too much of a leading question here for a genuine discussion, I reckon.

      • [Deactivated] on 05/04/2022 - 14:25
        -2

        simple question really yes or no
        ok take out the bit they don't work

        would you of mandated vaccines to keep a job?

        • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 14:28
          +2

          Give me a particular scenario.

          Do I think it was reasonable to mandate vaccines for healthcare workers? Yes.

          (IMO we have very good evidence that COVID vaccines reduce the pressure on medical systems, even if they don't prevent all disease. For current events, compare what happened in Hong Kong with Omicron vs Australia)

          • [Deactivated] on 05/04/2022 - 14:31

            @wryun: health care workers get vaccines for everything though.

            School teachers?

            Politicians don't have to be Is that fair?

            • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 14:57
              +2

              @[Deactivated]: Public school teachers are ultimately government employees, and there were/are good health-based reasons to do this.

              Was it worth the social discontent caused and the jobs lost over something that wasn't that important in the end, given that Australia's vaccine uptake was quite high? I'm not sure. Ask me in 5 years time when we see what's happened to the anti-vaccine movement. I'm on the side of 'whatever made people less anti-vax', I guess, and mandating vaccines for teachers may have caused more polarisation than necessary :)

              • [Deactivated] on 05/04/2022 - 14:59
                -1

                @wryun: politicians are government employees? no mandate for them to keep jobs?

                • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 17:37
                  +3

                  @[Deactivated]: School teachers are interacting with large numbers of people, so it's a decent argument to trade their freedom to choose against the damage to society. I don't think it's that strong an argument, but… look, if you ask me about important issues facing society today, I think the rights and wrongs of vaccine mandates are well down the list.

                  • [Deactivated] on 05/04/2022 - 17:40
                    -4

                    @wryun: guess you don't give a toss then about people losing their jobs then, you will make a great politician then, look after no 1

                    still didn't answer the question about being fair that politicians don't have to be vaxed to keep their jobs, you have learnt about avoiding the question already lol

                    • twig on 05/04/2022 - 20:22
                      +14

                      @[Deactivated]: Stop fishing for an answer you won't get, you're just embarassing yourself.

                    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 21:00
                      +3

                      @[Deactivated]: There's a cost-benefit trade-off here.

                      Health-wise, it makes sense for everyone to be vaccinated.

                      Freedom-wise, the government should avoid forcing people to do things unless it's really important for society.

                      So, we make a trade-off. Sometimes the trade-off is clearer - i.e. I think vaccinating health care workers, particularly pre-omicron when the vaccine was more effective against transmission, was pretty important. With school teachers it was less important. Politicians not so important, and also difficult to implement sanely (it's one thing losing a government job; another for kicking someone out of parliament over a clearly political disagreement!); the main benefit would be political, in that showing that the people who were 'imposing' the mandates were prepared to do it to themselves. I don't think there's a compelling health-care reason to do this, and it would mostly be optics.

                      But really, I'm not sure what you're hoping to get out of this discussion. I know you disagree with vaccinations for some reason; you know I think they're useful. We're coming from different enough perspectives that I think you're only trying to 'out' me. Well, you've 'outed' me, and we can probably take a break now :)

                      • [Deactivated] on 06/04/2022 - 07:59
                        -5

                        @wryun: Typical politician bs spin, there is 600 NSW teachers that got kicked out, and thousands of causals that can't work.

  • Plankton on 05/04/2022 - 14:18
    +1

    Is it hard to get people to listen to your campaign in an electorate where the winner is pretty much already set?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 14:20
      +1

      When you're a minor party, I don't think it makes a lot of difference. Some people are 'nup, no politics', a few are willing to engage. But I haven't started in earnest yet - if I remember, I'll revisit this in a few weeks.

  • EightImmortals on 05/04/2022 - 14:27
    -4

    I absolutely HATE some of your policies but would still put you above the majors if I was in your locale. :)

    "Declare an emergency with a Climate Emergency and Mobilisation act"
    "Place a material price on carbon emissions"

    Bit to much religious and non-scientifically proven hysteria there for my liking. Even if 'global warming' was a proven fact I'm yet to see the peer-reviewed research on how 'more tax' is going to fix it realistically and not simply be passed on to the consumer while the environmental vandalism continues. Yes we are trashing the planet, no arguments on that point, but slugging the whole world with even more tax is not going to fix the problem. Talk to me about direct practical action against environmental vandalism, built-in obsolescence, and general pollution and you might change my mind. Otherwise see 'Who wants to be a carbon trillionaire' and tell me you still support a global 'carbon dioxide' price.

    "and remove all subsidies from greenhouse intensive practices and vehicles."

    How about instead of making it harder for people to produce and purchase, you offer tax incentives for corporations who do the right thing and for those who decentralise away from capital cities. That way with less of a tax burden they can produce cleaner products at affordable prices. We have QE already now, we do NOT need more bloody taxes!

    "Set an 800% renewable energy target, and establish a national grid to distribute renewable energy."

    So are we talking clean nuclear (LFTR's ) and the like or just more environmentally damaging wind turbines and solar cells? And what type of national grid are you referring to? We already have poles and wires, what else did you have in mind?

    "a bill of rights would ensure the rights that are fundamental to a fair and ethical society are extended to all within it."

    So what good has a bill of rights done the yanks and the Canadians over the last 2 years? Canada has turned into a full-blown tyranny with Justin Castro being castigated a week or so back by the international community for his OTT tyranny during the scamdemic. There's no point in ANY scribbles on bits of paper unless a) we ALL get a say in the contents and that b) they are enforceable and not easily ignored or countered by whatever kakistocracy of the day decides it's agenda is more important than mere 'rights and laws'.

    "Remove censorship, blasphemy, and other laws against speech."

    How will you force facebook, twitter, instagram etc to reverse their current censorship agenda?

    And you really lost me at the 'secular state' nonsense. Why is imposing your secular beliefs (whatever that means) and excluding the beliefs of everyone else somehow morally superior? How is that any different from the Muslim who would love to install Sharia law on everyone? People should be free to follow whatever world-view they choose on the basis that they are not harming others. And if we had an actual democracy with limited government powers then no one particular world-view would be able to dictate to anyone else, be it theistic, atheistic or corporatist unless it had the full support of the majority. And even then I'm not yet convinced on the claimed virtues of having 51% of the population dictate how the other 49% live their lives.

    "It is important that decisions made about the future of the country be based on facts, evidence, and logic."

    But only YOUR 'facts, evidence and logic'?

    "Teach ethics in school to expose children to questions of morality and truth, as an alternative to religious education."

    Why can't you do both? Because you have an agenda of your own to push?

    "Replace the National School Chaplaincy Program with a National School Counselling Program, using trained counsellors suited to the role."

    'Councillors' trained in what, and by whom? And in what practical ways are school chaplains not 'suited to the role'? Is it because you believe they have a bias that is different to your bias?

    Sorry to be argumentative, and good on you for having a go and standing up for your beliefs but I'm not seeing much here that's different from the atheistic Greens policies which has earned them 3rd last place on my ballot paper. These policies will probably fly a bit better in woke parts of the capital cities IMO, not so much in the real world.

    All the best.

    :)

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 14:29

      Thanks! Always keen for a good discussion, but don't have time for this much now. Will get back to you tonight.

    • SBOB on 05/04/2022 - 16:07
      +4

      environmentally damaging wind turbines

      well thats a new one

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join