The Bob Ross of Australian politics.

@timmyturner327

2 жыл бұрын

I cannot unsee this.

@firefly-fez

2 жыл бұрын

That’s such a weirdly accurate description. 😂🤣

Just noticed that Moore’s candidate is named Ian Goodenough. And I guess he was just goodenough to win. I’ll see myself out.

@R3DACT3D9

2 жыл бұрын

Well he did suffer a swing against him. So I guess Ian wasn’t Goodenough for the people of Moore.

@rolandheath4103

2 жыл бұрын

@@R3DACT3D9 He was still Goodenough, but the other candidates got Moore than last time.

@R3DACT3D9

2 жыл бұрын

@@rolandheath4103 haha brilliant

I'm stoked with the result. A hung parliament would have been better, but I'm glad to see the two party system slowly dying.

@TheBlackDogChronicles

2 жыл бұрын

I'm right behind you there, Mr Reeson. It is not so much (for me) because I dislike the two principle parties but rather that I fear they become self-assured that they never need to be aware of the positions that the other parties represent. Now we have demonstrated that you can't be a major party and ignore Australis's need to respond to the challenges of Climate Change. It is the minor parties that have allowed that to come so much to the forefront.

While I'm not going to comment on the politics itself since that just a recipe to incite argument - I'm super happy with the swing away from the two major parties. Our preferential voting system is one of the best in the world and I've been disheartened over the years by having to explain how it works to so many people (my parents included). Far too many people I've spoken to think we have a first past the post system like the US - so this result made me really happy simply because it indicates that a lot more Australians actually do understand how this all works! I'm sure your content is helping that along too. Although I'm sad that Max Dicks didn't get elected to the senate haha.

Super well said thoughts at the end. The diversity of parties in this parliament is unprecedented!

that WA swing wow

@crazymusicchick

2 жыл бұрын

Coz scomo bagged wa lol so we went let's not have him again

love your channel so much!

Great summary of the entire election result!!

@orthofox9302

2 жыл бұрын

😂

@TheBlackDogChronicles

2 жыл бұрын

I thought so too. I think it is hard not to dance around at the thought of the removal of Scott Morrison, who even many of my traditionally conservative-voting friends thought was the most corrupt politician in recent Australian history. I am therefore impressed by the even, matter-of-fact assessment in this video which is devoid of the gloating that I might have felt unable to contain!

This would never happen in the US, where electoral boundaries are gerrymandered by political interests in each State. As voters, our interests are preserved by our independent Electoral Commission.

Nice vid :)

What I'd like to see is pollies with a super strong sense of ethics. Especially the "do no harm" part of the ethical equation. That way we wouldn't see crap legislation like the "Religious Freedom Bill" which had nothing to do with religious freedom & everything to do with freedom to discriminate on the grounds of religion - which - btw - doesn't actually make ANY references to homosexuality. At all. We could even see policy designed to increase the social inclusion levels of people with disabilities, a reformed labour market that finds a place for people with disabilities, and properly funded aged & disability support systems that are not heavily dependent on family providing the bulk of the care.

Just about to watch the vid... but When you make your Victorian election video, would you consider getting into LC preference deals if those are public knowledge?

To be honest there were a lot of close calls, and near death experiences with a lot of these campaigns. Let's just congratulate those who won, and those who ran good campaigns, and put on a good fight. I wish all of them well, and for those who came close good luck next time.

Even as someone who preferenced Liberal above Labor (with Independents above both) I can’t deny Albo is probably the most likeable and down to earth Prime Minister in my lifetime (24 year old). Add to that Seselja being ousted from the ACT for someone like Pocock who might look to gain us some independence greater than that of a territory, rather than stick to his own Right-wing Christian ideology. This election has left me much more hopeful than any previous.

There's a error in the video in the section recounting the seats in the senate. The legend on the left shows one nation with 2 seats but the image on the right shows 3 orange dots. Also, the legend shows Coalition with 32 seats but the image on the right only shows 31 dots. Everything else looks correct.

@AuspolExplained

2 жыл бұрын

2 orange are One Nation, and 1 orange (not next to the other two) is the Country Liberal Party Senator from the Northern Territory. That's probably the missing 32nd seat in your count.

@Bazwalt

2 жыл бұрын

@@AuspolExplained Thanks for clarifying :)

Just curious will you be covering state elections such as the vic state election this November?

@AuspolExplained

2 жыл бұрын

I will have a basic how to vote guide but I'm not planning an entire breakdown of the parties and policies

I'm disappointd by the Senate results. I would like either more Labor in Senate or at least less UAP, One Nation, LNP and/or parties along those lines in Senate

Side note. Not everyone in parliament can introduce a bill. Monetary related bills can only be introduced by the Government of the day, so if we see the Opposition or minor parties proposing monetary related bills, they are always struck down regardless because they have no authority to introduce them. That's why most monetary related proposals by non-Government MPs should be and need to be introduced as amendments to bills. Also they can only be introduced in the House of Reps, not the Senate. Monetary bills that is. So if you see any Senators introducing monetary bills, and one particular minor party is extremely guilty of repeatedly doing this, that is the reason they are always struck down. Because they're not allowed to but do anyway

@AuspolExplained

2 жыл бұрын

The limits of the Senate being unable to introduce money bills is true and a good point, but that's a restriction on the type of bill a member can introduce - not that only some members/senators can introduce a bill. The content of the bill has further restrictions (like obvious constitutional ones) not just if it's an appropriation one or not, or if it's clearly frivolous or ironic as the Presiding Officer can reject such an act and reprimand the member for wasting chamber time.

@therealauspol

2 жыл бұрын

@@AuspolExplained ah yep my bad, thank you for the correction!

Not for this video. I know you do only Australia but i was wondering, why in America, were they able to change such a huge law that effects the people without the people even having a say or voting for it??

@AuspolExplained

2 жыл бұрын

Is this in reference to the overturning of Roe v Wade?

@Kamo442

2 жыл бұрын

@@AuspolExplained Yes it is

@AuspolExplained

2 жыл бұрын

@@Kamo442 OK so there are 3 powers right: the parliament that makes the laws (or congress in the US), the executive that puts them into action (here it's the Governors/Governor Generals who don't have legislative input, but in the US the President is both head of government and head of state in one), and then the judiciary (courts) that interprets those laws. So let's say a government decides to make a law, then the courts examine it and then come to the conclusion that it's unconstitutional. The law needs to be amended or repealed. Court decisions set what we call precedents that shape the idea of what laws can/can't do. Like if the High Court said a certain kind of law is unconstitutional once, you can't just wait 10 years and try again. The courts act as a check and balance to the legislative power of the government effectively. In the instance of Roe v Wade: that's a court case that set a precedent to do with the legal limitations on restriction abortions. The Supreme Court Justices are allowed to re-examine cases and decide if the ruling is no longer relevant, or not in line with their interpretation of the constitution, which they've done. Now that doesn't mean they've changed the law - the courts aren't a legislative body. What it does mean is they've changed the framework for what law making bodies on a state by state basis can do in regards to restriction abortion. Overturning Roe v Wade means states are legally allowed to reduce access to services more. So some states governed by conservatives have welcomed this because it means they can make restrictive laws, while other states have no plans to change their abortion laws because their governments believe it shouldn't be restricted. If those governments change their minds (like more conservative people get voted in) then that can change and the laws can become more restrictive. Roe v Wade was a barrier to that. So the people do still have the ability to vote on this - a state that decides to restrict abortion services could have people voted in who believe it shouldn't be and then those state laws change. But then it could flip back and forth, with abortion services being denied/provided/denied depending on who is in power. It's possible though that in the future, the Justices will be different and someone can bring forward a new case to the court to re-establish a new precedent on this matter. In Australia we limit High/Supreme Court justice appointments to end when they're 70, instead of when they die. It's also less highly political - so in the US it's very dependent on who is President at the time of an unpredictable vacancy. Trump got to appoint 3, so his ideas and his decisions will impact America for decades to come.

@Kamo442

2 жыл бұрын

@@AuspolExplained Wow, thank you for taking your time to write this, I appreciate that. Do you think this is a topic for an up coming video 😁

@michaelpatison986

2 жыл бұрын

American here. I’d add a couple of notes to add to what Auspol said. The Supreme Court can’t just randomly pick and choose which laws to rule on or which prior rulings and precedents to look at. They must be presented with a court case that has made it through all levels of the US Court of Appeals system and is then appealed by one party to the Supreme Court. Roe v Wade was a lady named Jane Roe (a pseudonym) suing the District Attorney of Dallas County for the right to an abortion. That ruling, and every ruling the Court makes, is presumably grounded in the US Constitution. Is it constitutional to ban a woman from having an abortion? Is a high school football coach allowed to pray at the midway line at the end of every game (actually the case that immediately followed Roe’s overturn)? However the court rules becomes a precedent, which are theoretically held in high esteem. Roe’s precedent withstood numerous challenges over its 50 years, most notably in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in the early 1990s. An argument could be made that the precedent itself set in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) allowing racial segregation as “separate but equal” is what allowed segregation to withstand challenges to it until Brown v Board in 1954. Because the Supreme Court is deciding the constitutionality of laws, it’s ruling tend to create rights instead of taking them away. Roe was a challenge to a ban on abortion, so by upholding the challenge abortion was legalized. Obergefell v. Hodges was a challenge to a ban on gay marriage. Gay marriage is now legal because the challenge was upheld. If Obergefell were overturned, it wouldn’t make gay marriage illegal. Instead it would leave the issue up in the air for the public to decide at a state level. But only by voting for representatives to make the laws since we don’t have referendums.

It's actually called katter's *Australian* party. Fun Fact.

@James-wf8nu

2 жыл бұрын

no kap