3 ms·
They worry that they'll be wedged on national security if they vote against it and then there is an incident. Their opponents will aggressively label them soft
by prawn 8y ago
They worry that they'll be wedged on national security if they vote against it and then there is an incident. Their opponents will aggressively label them soft on terrorism and the 'reason' the attack couldn't be stopped.
Meanwhile, if they vote for it, they annoy the few people paying attention or who have strong feelings about it. Low risk in the short term.
- cyphar 8y agoThis is exactly the reason. It's one of the many risks of having a de-facto two-party system -- if you piss off the other guy's base you'll lose the next election. As I've said for many years, we need much stronger third parties in Australia. Personally, I think problem is that there's too much political apathy.
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago"too much political apathy" x 21,000,000 I only took an interest in politics since the selling of Telstra and then the NBN stuff, and man, I wish I'd been more aware earlier in my life. I haven't worked out how I'm going to introduce my kids to "the decisions that will shape their futures" yet, without turning them into suicidal nihilists bereft of hope for the future of the species / planet - but that's kinda the point.
- Joakal 8y agoI agree and what disturbs me the most is that the two parties have recently massively increased requirements to being a candidate with more requirements on the way. Why? One independent senator out of 76 got elected legitimately by votes and ABC Antony Green complaining about too many choices on the ballot. The biggest attackers to Australian democracy is Liberal/Labor's actions. Are they trying to turn Australia's democracy into USA's?