There’s no alluring and dewy portrait hidden in the Biden attic.

Thought for a moment you were hinting at a Dorian Gray sort of thing where there is a painting of Biden as vivid and sleek, even with the strokes as moist, as when it was first painted.

She’s a housewife from Bumf^ck, nowhere,

I live in Bumf^ck nowhere and I can safely say all the wives around here would generate more style in their toenail clippings than the good Dr Jill.

Also, what’s wrong with housewives?

Cassie, unless there is widespread fraud, I can’t see the Yes vote getting up.

I don’t see any benefit for this country in whatever way the referendum goes. If the “NO” vote is successful, we’ll have all the 1/16th professional “Indigenous” protesting in the streets, if the “YES” vote is successful, the demands will be for a treaty, reparations, and, yes, pulling down the statues and re – writing the history.

The ad containing Farnham’s “voice” song.
They’ve blocked comments – almost certainly to avoid being ratioed.

Indigenous power struggles endanger Yes vote in key referendum state of Tasmania

By matthew denholm
Tasmania Correspondent
@MatthewRDenholm
Updated 8:37PM September 3, 2023, First published at 8:25PM September 3, 2023
No Comments

The Yes campaign in Tasmania is being cruelled by power struggles between warring Indigenous groups whose opposition to the voice is driven by fear their rivals will control it.

Yes campaigners are most ­confident in the left-leaning south, but No sentiment is fuelled by bitter conflict between Indigenous groups, particularly in the more conservative north and northwest.

The longstanding peak Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, ­associated with prominent family groups, is battling what it claims are attempts by “tick-a-box” Indigenous people to gain influence and control over land and ­organisations.
Read Next

Hostility between the TAC and newer, regional-based Aboriginal corporations is most acute in the northwest, where the Circular Head Aboriginal Corporation has growing influence. The two groups are often at loggerheads – over Aboriginal identity, voting rights and land access – but are in furious agreement on one issue: the voice is no good.

Each has a range of reasons but a common theme is concern the other mob will gain control of the voice and disenfranchise them. Both would rather government consult with them and their elders directly than via a voice from which they felt excluded.

It is a divide that threatens to fell the voice campaign, as Yes insiders increasingly see Tasmania and South Australia as key to getting the majority of states ­required to pass a referendum.
READ MORE: Tassie a key voice battleground | Legislate now: Call to dump ‘polarising’ voice | Dutton dividing nation: former Lib premier | Liberal leaders reject Dutton’s voice crusade

In the west of the state in Smithton, CHAC chairwoman Selina Maguire-Colgrave said the Tom Calma-Marcia Langton model of just two voice representatives per state did not sit well with the divisions in Tasmanian Aboriginal politics. “In Tassie, we are still fighting for recognition as Aboriginal people – the TAC and the land council don’t recognise many of CHAC’s members,” Mrs Maguire-Colgrave said.

She said TAC figures had abused and boycotted CHAC members on state committees, providing a glimpse of what the voice would be like.

“We see Marcia Langton’s map and the plan for two people from Tasmania – it would be the complete downfall of CHAC should that happen,” she said.

“It (only two Tasmanian voice representatives) would cut our voice off. That’s why we’re voting No. It’s divisive.”

Mrs Maguire-Colgrave is ­calling for detail about how many voice members will be elected and how. She believed it was culturally inappropriate to expect Tasmania – a land of disparate Indigenous nations and groups – to have as few as two voice members. “Each community in Australia has its own issues – what’s happening here in Circular Head is different to the needs in outback WA,” she said.

“So how are either of our voices heard by just two people sitting in an office in the capital city? You’ve got to talk to each community.”

She said TAC assertions that CHAC members were not Aboriginal were wrong and motivated by that organisation’s attempts to retain control.

Krystelle Jordan, a TAC member and its treaty negotiation group, said: “I wonder, ­especially here on the northwest coast, how many of these (voice) seats will include Aboriginal people – and not just people who tick a box and claim to be Aboriginal.”

Devonport-based Ms Jordan said there were “too many unknowns” about the voting system, the number of voice seats and eligibility. “If these people do manage to sit on these advisory committees, it then becomes another white advisory committee,” she said. “So that advice will not come from our elders, who it should come from. It’s going to come from people who quite literally only have to tick a box.”

She conceded some TAC members may vote Yes, despite the strong No stance of elders such as Michael Mansell, but believed most would vote No.

“We have been advising the government for 250 years and we’re sick of it,” she said. “My elders have stood staunch in the struggle to get our land back through sit-ins and marches through the streets of lutruwita (Tasmania),” Ms Jordan said.

“It’s my elders whose voice matters and my elders have never marched the streets for an advisory committee. The voice is more of a step back in our view. It’s a waste of a referendum. Treaty should come first and foremost.”

The situation is disappointing for Indigenous Tasmanians backing the Yes case, who include members of groups from Bruny Island in the south to Six Rivers Aboriginal Corporation in the north.

Albert “Sammy” Howard, a Devonport-based Six Rivers member, said he jumped ship from the No to the Yes camp, believing the voice would deliver constitutional recognition and an advisory body that could be ironed out by parliament.

“I realised it’s just two simple questions,” Mr Howard said. “If you believe Aboriginal people were here before colonisation, vote Yes. If you also believe that Aboriginal people deserve to have a voice in things that concern them, vote Yes. That’s it. The rest of it is to be decided by the Australian parliament of the day. Also, if the Yes vote doesn’t get up, it will put treaty negotiations back 20 years.”

Rodney Dillon, of Bruny’s Weetapoona Aboriginal Corporation and the First Nations Referendum Working Group, backs a Yes vote, believing the voice “can make significant change” and that a No vote would set back Aboriginal rights.

He said increasing the number of voice representatives would be up for discussion. “But two (voice) members is two more than we have now,” Mr Dillon said. “Let’s have the vote, get this thing through – and then there’s a few things like (number of positions) that we could talk about.”

If Aboriginal people are designated as Australian, then we are covered under the Constitution. The End.

I’m thinking it won’t Rabz because the core constituents, black fellas themselves, can’t really give two flying fornications.
And the ones that do, like Zulu linked earlier with the Tasmanian idiots, they aren’t doing the YES cause any favours.

Perfidious Albino

Sep 3, 2023 9:09 PM

I think Dutton recognises that there is possibly a majority who would vote for constitutional recognition but not the Voice.

I get that this is what he is trying to do.
To go for a simple symbolic acknowledgement without any transfer of power.
No doubt his very clever advisors will be telling him it will be a re-run of the 1998 Republic referendum, with the left vote split on the best republican model.
I think it is a tactical mistake.
If da Voice fails, just say “It’s cooked. Come back in twenty years. In the meantime, let’s stop f-cking around and get some basics done. Kids into school. Proper prevention of DV. Proper booze bans in remote areas. Etcetera, etcetera.”

Zulu I agree on one part.
If the NO vote is successful, there will be gnashing of teeth for all of about 5 minutes.
Yes there will be upset dickheads around the joint, but there won’t be anything like a George Floyd Memorial.

Fair comment. I’m happy for my gloomy view to be proved wrong.

No vote for Voice tips over 50 per cent as Coalition leads Labor on Newspoll primary vote

Exclusive
By simon benson
Political Editor
9:30PM September 3, 2023
13 Comments

The Coalition has leapt ahead of Labor on primary votes for the first time since last year’s election and ­Anthony Albanese has dipped into negative territory, as support for the voice dropped further following the ­referendum date announcement and the official launch of a six-week ­campaign.

An exclusive Newspoll conducted for The Australian shows ­support for an Indigenous voice to parliament and executive government falling to 38 per cent and those intending to vote No rising to 53 per cent.

This marks the first time that ­opposition to a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous voice to parliament and executive ­government has achieved an outright majority.
Read Next

It comes as support for the ­Coalition lifts to its highest level since the May 2022 election, with the opposition now leading Labor 37 per cent to 35 per cent on primary votes.

While Labor still leads comfortably on a two-party preferred lead of 53-47 per cent, the Prime Minister’s personal approval ratings have also fallen into negative territory for the first time in his premiership.

Mr Albanese now faces a divisive six-week campaign ahead of the October 14 referendum with electoral support for the government in a weakened position as cost-of-living issues continue to bite with households.

The results reflect shifting sentiments in the six-week gap since the previous Newspoll on July 15. This survey was conducted between last Monday and Friday and polled 1200 voters throughout Australia. The further decline in support for the voice follows the Prime Minister’s announcement last week that the referendum would be held on October 14.

The fall in favour for the voice – on the back of a five-point rise in the No vote and a three point ­decline in the Yes vote since July – was consistent almost across the board with the most notable ­declines among men and the ­important demographic of 35 to 49-year-olds.

The only age group with a ­majority in favour of the voice now is the 18 to 34-year-old group. But among these younger voters there was a four-point decline in support to 55 per cent. There was now a majority against the referendum question across all other age groups, with 66 per cent of over 65s, 61 per cent of 50 to 64-year-olds and 51 per cent of 35 to 49-year-olds saying they intended to vote No.

Suffer in your jocks, Albo, it’s all downhill from here.

U.S. government to deploy surveillance software to detect ‘problematic sentiment and emotion’

Democrat-Corporate Alliance: Big Banks, BlackRock, Pfizer Back Hochul Plan to Have Americans Bail Out New York for Illegal Immigration

Number 1 was Aussie battler Joe Dolce

Aussie battler and former Catallaxy commenter.

dover0beach

Sep 3, 2023 11:07 PM

Did anyone here watch tonight’s 7News Spotlight? Was on trans for minors and reportedly quite good.

I think the tide is turning on this, and right across the political spectrum.
Incidentally, Channel Seven have been doing good work of late.
They were the first commercial TV network to break ranks and consider the possibility that a former Canbra staffer might, in fact, be a lying cow.
And Natalie Barr has been hitting some backhand winners down the line against Liars Party talking points. It must be causing a Plibber’s PR flaks to choke on their Samurai cut oats when their daily spin blurb has been torpedoed below the water-line by 7:15 a.m.