Saturday, September 7, 2013

Race to the bottom means a 'protest vote' for me

(Image: iCarly wiki)

Dear Potential Political Candidates,

Your cruelty towards asylum seekers makes me weep.

Your cruelty towards live animals and trade in their export makes me weep.

Your cruelty towards our first female prime minister makes me weep.

Inter alia, I wish to inform you that until such time as you can behave responsibly and humanely, I am no longer going to join in this farcial game where for one day every three years we play at being a democracy.

None of you shall have my vote.

Yours faithfully,

Sue (no-relation-to-tony) Abbott

(also posted on Scone Blog)


  1. I feel your pain. Is it not the most tragic election ever?

    When a major party pretends it's going to save $1b a year from "stopping the boats" and such a statement is greeted with almost universal silence, we know we're in trouble.

    Whatever the result is tonight when Kerry O'Brien announces it, I won't be celebrating.

    My prediction is that thanks to our undemocratic voting system, Tony Abbott will win a large majority in the House of (un)Representatives but on a primary vote of about 42% and then claim he has a "mandate".

    Then off we go for another three years.


  2. Even the lesser of two evils is better than one that's even worse!

    But there is certainly a case for reforming the system so that people who number their first few preferences and can't decide between the rest don't have their votes deemed to be informal.

    And the same for the Senate - why not allow people to number the boxes above the line, instead of having to number 109 boxes below the line? The current system allows undeserving candidates to be elected on preference deals - something that would be less likely if voters could optionally decide their above the line preferences, instead of leaving it to their first preference party.

    1. Sounds like that could be a good amendment for the Senate...'s all so disheartening

  3. Sue - oh dear:

    Cycling just a gimmick in silly kit, not a way of getting to work, uni, school runs, shopping, seeing friends or anything else in normal clothing.

    Alas Labour wasn't much better, and also treated asylum seekers, women, fauna and flora and of course Indigenous people like shit. (We have that up here in our frozen waste too).

    1. Legatta,
      i have been riding to work and uni and the shops for 20 years in 'silly kit'. Who would have thought that it's possible to change into street clothes at the end of the journey...

      Setting up a false dichotomy between those who ride primarily for sport and those who ride primarily for transport is senseless, at best, sneering and condescending, ay worst.

      regards, seamus

    2. So Seamus where do you change into civvies when you ride to the shops? Or am I missing your point? Actually, having heard too many Australian sports cyclists actively demean any attempts for better cycling infrastructure for transport cyclists I do wonder if it is a false dichotomy - you'd hope it was but it doesn't seem to be - no Strava glory for the cyclist on the separated cycle path so no interest from the weekend lycra crowd. Or so it seems - then again maybe they sprout this nonsense just to be fickle?

    3. Hi anonymous,
      Once again you miss the point. Cycling infrastructure has to suit cyclists. That could be any permutation of sports cyclists, recreational cyclists, commuters and those who are just desirous of getting from A to b via bike (or any combination - as it seems to escape you that the same person couild indulge in any combination of these activities in lycra or in civvies).

      If sports cyclists choose not to want or use segregated paths how are you disadvantaged? Do you want mamils vying for space on segregated bike paths? How is you reinforcing your perceived dichotomy helpful to recreational or utility cyclists?

      Oh, and to answer your question: I often ride into town in lycra knicks and put on a pair of shorts when I arrive (out there in the street, by the way - or, since you asked, if I must change out of knicks i use a loo to get changed in) and exchange my mountain bike shoes for runners - although I imagine you'd prefer something from this: as i guess you can't see the possibility that a cyclist could accomodate lycra and street clothes in the same persona...



    4. Hey no need to get all precious about it. If sports cyclists choose to vocally shout down proposals for segregated paths and threaten to vote against politicians who support them, then yes that does affect me. Look to Adelaide Cyclists - seemingly the home of the sports cyclist - for some examples of this. It ain't my dichotomy - I ain't no cyclist, I simply ride a bike - pretty much everywhere and as my normal mode of transport, I've even ridden road bikes in races, but the whole boys club mentality and "serious" competition on display in recreational cycling circles is not my particular cup of tea.

    5. Well you are forcing the dichotomy - you continually refer to sports cyclists and yourself as two separate entities without realising that people who cycle for pleasure and people who cycle for transport can be one and the same.
      I'm about to hop on my bike and go to the shop - wearing muddy mountain bike clothing from my commute over the hills to work (wow, combining commuting, fitness and pleasure in one ride - who would have thought that was possible).

      What would you call that, I wonder? It seems that I can't be a 'utilitarian cyclist' because I don't have a beard, sandals and a bike with a basket on it... oh wait, i shouldn't really be pigeonholing cyclists on appearance, should I?

  4. Seamus, I'm not at all opposed to sport cycling - we are going to spend Sunday watching a major cycling event here.

    I'm opposed to the mentality this rightwing shithead PM displayed towards utilitarian cycling by getting on a bicycle ONLY as an expensive toy. I understand that people with very long commutes might prefer to do them in sport kit - kit "going to the shops" is a bit odd, though.

    Did you know that "our" rightwing shithead PM once plagiarized an entire speech by his Austral counterpart John Howard?

    1. Hey,
      All our PMs appear to be rightwing these days.... our entire political system appears to have lurched to the right. The problem being that the conservatives still get to vote for their usual right wing policies but our worker's party (Labor) is now stranded between right and less right... leaving greens and independants to win the truly centrist/left leaning vote. I'm sure we still have a communist party somewhere but no-one takes them seriously anymore.
      I'm just happy to be in an electorate where my vote counted (again) and it looks like we'll remove the sitting conservative member.
      But anyway, as they say, you should never bring up religion, politics and bike helmets into a conversation....