hitmyspot
The voice enshrined in the constitution is the plan. The state,ent does not discuss its make up, nor the election process, nor the fine details. The constitution shouldn’t either. It may need fine tuning to be effective, not be rorted by bad actors, and to be representative. If all that is in the constitution, it’s harder to change later. For an example, look at what the constitution says about how we elect senators, who would have more power. Very little. It’s left to the states to legislate.
A no vote to reject what you call a performative gesture is more damaging than a performative gesture. I don’t think it’s just a performative gesture, to be clear, but it’s a poor argument.
I don’t expect any corporation or person to do the right thing unless it’s in their interest. I expect the voice to be a check on the powers in government, rather than a power themselves. Just like the oil and gas and mining industry has paid lobbyists that are very effective, the voice can do the same, but for the people. The press has no powers in the constitution, but Murdoch, for instance, has had huge power just be nature of his abi,it’s to spread information with his slant on it. The voice will have power, but it won’t have power to control our government.
Change comes slowly and then in a sprint. Stopping that progress doesn’t advance anyone’s rights and is a misguided understanding of how governance works. Your ideal is not necessarily everyone’s ideal. Even this limited change for the better is at risk of failure. A more extreme version would be even more so. Your resistance to good enough, instead of ideal is just as bad as the racists in outcome, even if your intentions are good.
There are valid reasons to vote no. However most no voters seem to jump on all the excuses to try and justify their stance. Even when two reasons are contradictory.
Then complain that the YES side call them racist. I do think they don’t consider themselves racist. They think their opinions are just ‘common sense’ rather than discrimination. Or that the injustices are too long ago, ignoring current injustice.
The way I see it is we have 3 options. The voice. No change Another unnamed option.
They are against the voice. They recognize, for the most part, that there is injustice, but have no alternative path. To me, that’s intellectual dishonesty. If you recognize there is a problem, you either propose a solution or go with the proposed current actions to help, or accept status quo. A nonvite is a vote for status quo, but with added divisiveness sue to attempts made to actually have change, that are now rejected.
Raising interest rates to fight inflation works by reducing demand. Jobs get lost so people have less money. So they spend less, so prices drop to be more competitive.
Only poorer people obviously. Rich people are less affected, but still pay more in interest. The increased number of unemployed people means competition for jobs is higher so workers are cheaper to pay, increasing profits again.
High inflation is bad for everyone, but particularly so for the poorer, too. However, measures to fight it should be spread across society. Instead blunt tools like interest rate rises disproportionately affect the poor. They should be combined with higher taxes on business and high earners and high net worth individuals. Worldwide we only really do the first. I wonder who decides?
I find it so frustrating when I hear NO campaigners say a constitutive is not required. Politicians should just do their job and it’s easy to consult ATSI people, no voice required.
They literally did that. Consulted ATSI people, as part of a plan to change things, with all major parties on board. They are showing how much they don’t listen by saying that they don’t need the voice to listen? Aaaghhh.
Given the public statements, it will be difficult for them to offer more and still have any authority. However, a strike or similar would also be a poor look for the rba after multiple interest raises. They would seem more out of touch.
It could be her bowing out as they fired her Co star for voicing support for Palestine. It was called anti semitic but from what I’ve seen it wasn’t.
It could also be that Ortega has made supportive comments and prefers to walk than be pushed. Or was pushed, but has better PR.
Timing is certainly odd.
To be fair, she was already doing well from TV, and scream was a big win, but Wednesday made her a household name. If it really was scheduling, it still makes sense. The timing of the announcement makes that super unlikely.