Carefactor
Well-known member
Almost mirrors the US.
Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here
- Thread starter Kul
- Start date
- Status
Halbrowne61
Well-known member
Not with my vote he won’t. The footy here doesn’t grab me, Im a confirmed “mungo”Wests Tigers forever.
ALP returned with a slightly reduced majority. Vic Libs are lurching dangerously towards being controlled by Cooker and Pentecostal religious groups. They could have made a decent run with better leadership and candidates.
What exactly do you consider authoritarian about the government he leads? As I understand it there’s an election this weekend like there was 4 years ago,
They dont call him dictator Dan for nothing apparently...
A lot of water has gone under the bridge since the last election....
The only reason he would be voted back in is because his opposition is very ordinary...
But who cares really Im in NSW and have to worry about our state more than Victoria...
As the famous wise man once told me ..
""THERE ARE ONLY 2 STATES ....NSW and PISSED🤣..
I enjoy your input Yoss even though we rarely agree.....the only way I see things is with and open mind and an open heart,,,,
Magpie_Magic
Well-known member
Very draconian during lockdowns.
Condescending use of power during lockdowns.
From memory he changed legislation re "state of emergencies " giving his government extra ordinary powers.
As far as elections go other nations outside western orbit have elections but are considered authoritarian by the west.
If you’re seriously comparing Victoria to say Russia or somewhere that is demonstrably undemocratic you’re going to lose all credibility.
The powers in Victoria were pretty much the same used in other states. Your assertion that they were “condescending” doesn’t equal Andrews being a dictator or authoritarian. His party won an election, he governs on that basis. The suggestion that the VEC is corrupt or elections there are rigged is frankly absurd.
No, people on the right with no insight into how actual dictators work call him that. Or people who disagree with his politics. He seems popular enough in respected opinion polling. Like you, not being from Victoria makes it tough to get a real grip on things.
A real opposition would certainly make it interesting but the Vic Libs are becoming less electable as time goes on.
Agreed. And that’s fine. I have no dramas with people taking polar opposite positions than me. I do find it frustrating when people go straight for the hyperbole. I mean I disliked Howard intensely. Hated his politics, hated the smoke and mirrors job. But he was no dictator nor a tyrant. He kept winning elections because he was good at what he did.
Winston Churchill
Well-known member
"people on the right with no insight into how actual dictators work call him that."
Pot meet kettle
Exhibit A = The rabid far left calling Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon a literal NAZI and worse than Hitler for 4 years straight during his entire Presidency. You mean like that?
Don't you just love it when lefties are completely oblivious to the obvious and continue to prove true the age old saying about lefties "If they didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all"
Magpie_Magic
Well-known member
Government's can be democratically elected and be authoritarian. But that's a discussion for another time.
One cannot compare provincial government to national government.
Andrews government secretly negotiating permanent pandemic laws to replace state of emergency
Health Department officials have been meeting with three powerful crossbenchers whose demands are set to radically change the way the government manages COVID-19.
When I read that at the time I was very concerned.
The mere fact it was considered is dangerous and exceeds his mandate.
Read that article now and those powers are sweeping. Most would would consider this authoritarian at least. Certainly dictating terms.
Nothing like this in other states.
I mean the idea of "permanent powers".
And "secret negotiations ".
That's dictatorial to me. Little difference it makes if you get to vote if laws like this are enacted because laws like that lower the threshold for a "police state" which is what the lockdowns were.
Where did I mention that?
Last edited:
Government's can be democratically elected and be authoritarian. But that's a discussion for another time.
One cannot compare provincial government to national government.
Andrews government secretly negotiating permanent pandemic laws to replace state of emergency
Health Department officials have been meeting with three powerful crossbenchers whose demands are set to radically change the way the government manages COVID-19.www.theage.com.au
When I read that at the time I was very concerned.
The mere fact it was considered is dangerous and exceeds his mandate.
Read that article now and those powers are sweeping. Most would would consider this authoritarian at least. Certainly dictating terms.
Nothing like this in other states.
I mean the idea of "permanent powers".
And "secret negotiations ".
That's dictatorial to me. Little difference it makes if you get to vote if laws like this are enacted because laws like that lower the threshold for a "police state" which is what the lockdowns were.
Where did I mention that?
There is no mandate. There’s an election and there’s a parliament. The notion that his government can’t legislate on something they could not possibly have foreseen before the previous election because they didn’t mention it before said election is ridiculous.
Secret negotiations as referred to in The Age? Sounds top secret. But let’s move beyond the headline. The article refers to his government negotiating with MPs. I’m not sure how The Age thinks these negotiations should happen. Live-streamed on Facebook?
Nothing outside the constitution is permanent. All acts are subject to amendment or repeal. As noted above, there’s an election on tomorrow so the electorate can makes its thoughts known then.
Sure democratically elected governments can be authoritarian. If for example they rule by decree instead of by law or through parliament. Neither is true in Victoria. Or by censoring criticism through the press. This is also not happening in Victoria. I get you don’t like the man or his policies but he is clearly not a dictator nor does he lead an authoritarian government.
She's a comedian. Just a shit one.
Magpie_Magic
Well-known member
That article and his contemplations are not hallmarks of a free society to me.
But I get some people may like being ordered around.
Oh nice snide remark there. Are we going to converse politely or are you going down that path? I think I’ve been pretty decent to you.
Yoss,I think that when Andrews wanted to have the permanent powers and he negotiated with others is what made people wary of his leadership...Im not there but a friend of mine has relos in Vic and they all said it was ridiculous what Andrews wanted to install...having said that,in New Zealand,Ardern was interviewed and the reporter asked her the question of having a divided and segregated community..
If your vaccinated you can move around freely and enjoy life,if your not then you will be restricted in most aspects of normal life...she said it is exactly that a 2 tiered society...
To me that is not how humans should be treated,we are all equal,we have choices and when you have Govt dictate to you what you can and cant do as a soveriegn person,then that has to come into the equation...
I dont care if people get vaxxed or if they dont for their own particular circumstances,its a choice,,,,
That is where I think it shows how leaders can be dictatorial or authoritarian..
I think he thought it the best way forwards.
But this conflates two issues - the way the Andrews’ government tried to do things and whether it’s reasonable to stop the free movement of people who pose a potential health risk. Agreeing to the latter proposition doesn’t make you either a dictator nor authoritarian IMO. I don’t really want to get into a lengthy discussion of COVID responses. I feel as though we have divergent options on that.
Magpie_Magic
Well-known member
The remark was in a general sense. I was amazed at how many people just accepted government dictate during the pandemic.
Given that the article contains concerns from human rights lawyers re Andrews proposals and he contemplated attempting to enact permanent legiislation that would have been unconstitutional is reason enough for me to believe he is authoritarian, not in dictatorial terms but certainly relative to a supposed free society.
Below is an excerpt from Wikipedia re state of emergencies.
Though fairly uncommon in democracies,[clarification needed] dictatorial regimes often declare a state of emergency that is prolonged indefinitely for the life of the regime, or for extended periods
So any use of a permanent law resembling a restriction of civil liberties for any reason in supposed "democracies" is irregular so funny he contemplated it.
Dangerous in my opinion.
If it was unconstitutional it would be invalid.
Gladys did similar things to Andrews. Was she a dictator or does this level of scrutiny only apply to ALP leaders?
Your Wikipedia quote is meaningless. Nothing Andrews did was designed to prolong the life of his government. The election is happening as scheduled.
Kaito
Well-known member
Dan is killing it. Mathew Guy is a parasite
Magpie_Magic
Well-known member
But he contemplated it which is very irregular in a supposed free society
Apples to all parties. But Dans laws were tougher than elsewhere in Australia and he envisaged more.
But Yeah,
I thought Gladys reminded me of a primary school teacher so she isn't far behind . Those 11am presses!
Not meaningless. It shows that if a permanent law curtailing civil liberties is introduced it is rare in supposed democracies.
Never thought that
- Status
