From what I’ve seen there is one guy talking about a specific episode of Q&A which I didn’t watch, and that’s basically it.
I can’t consider PPA a credible choice for my vote without a policy on such a major issue.
That was the opening piece of a thread which continued from another discussion. There’s quite a lot more, if you care to read on.
And yes, I’m beginning to wonder myself, whether the Party is a good fit.
Yeah there’s so many parties to choose from now I’ve had to introduce some sort criteria. At best I’m about an 80% fit for any party’s overall policy, so major omissions are a deal breaker.
It does raise a follow up question: If there has been so much discussion by party members, why hasn’t it been raised at the policy level? Does that mean policy making ignores the ‘lower-downs’ in the party? That’s not a good sign either.
I wouldn’t say we’re ignored. The position among those who develop policy seems to be that Australia’s population can continue to grow without limit.
There’s also a strong Libertarian streak in the Party. The harder Libertarians tend to resist any controls on pretty much anything.
Policy making around here runs on people caring enough about a particular subject to put in the time and effort to build a consensus and draft a policy for it. There’s a bunch of Policy Development Committee trappings to it, but that’s what it is at the core. Any member can get involved. There are no ‘lower-downs’ except in the sense of those who don’t care enough to get into drafting policy. And everyone still votes in whether or not to actually adopt the policy draft at the next Pirate Congress.
So to answer your question: there is no policy on this because there is no consensus of specific immigration numbers and nobody has cared enough to put in the time and effort to draft anything. It hasn’t been raised because nobody has raised it.
2 Likes
I believe it has:
I meant it hasn’t been raised to the PDC to my knowledge. There’s certainly been discussion on here about it.
2 Likes
From what I have seen there does seem to be a heavy weighting to the opinions of a handful of elected officials here. To the point it appears that certain opinions / issues are off limits. This topic is a case in point.
In theory the party states it is open / equal as you describe but in practice I have observed certain officials effectively squashing dissent.
1 Like
elected officials
I’m not sure how you’re getting that impression in this case, although it is of course a good general heuristic: people who are involved more in any group often have their opinions taken more seriously by others in that group.
The only ‘elected official’ in this thread (so far, and of the current batch) is me. From what I’m seeing of the other two threads, everyone’s getting as good as they’re giving.
1 Like
Which opinions/issues are off limits? Not this one, obviously, because including this thread there are at least three threads discussing it. But you should post the list.
I’m curious, because aside from being against censorship on general principle, I spent a while last year arguing with the previous president on the subject of an Aboriginal treaty. Taking the opposing stance on that issue is what I’d call controversial, but it wasn’t declared off limits at any point.
3 Likes
Threads are absolutely irrelevant if they don’t lead to policy. Anything can be posted in the forums. It means nothing. You’re missing (or sidestepping) the point.
Some policy realms are important enough that they have a dedicated government department.
There is a government department dedicated to immigration.
PPA has been in existence for 10 years and has not formulated a policy.
That is by any reasonable measure a glaring policy omission.
Attempting to justify this situation rather than rectify it, is neither wise nor productive.
And now we circle back around to my initial post in this thread. Cool. I have nothing more to add.
1 Like
Which entirely sidestepped my point rather than bothering to address it.
Maybe the point I made is the CAUSE of the effect you describe. If people aren’t listened to, they will stop participating. And stop voting for you. Not that’s there’s many people voting PPA now. Its between fringe dwellers the cyclists party and rise up australia.
There are obviously some problems here and pulling an attitude with anyone who brings it up will get you nowhere.
I wasn’t describing an effect. I was describing how things function, and indeed how things must function in such a directly democratic organisation as PPAU.
In order for policy to be written, there must be people who write it. It’s not that the PDC ignores the wider membership, it’s that the wider membership ignores the PDC. If members want policy on a particular area, they are encouraged to get involved, write it, and then have it voted on. We can always use more people interested enough to actually put that effort in. And that’s the only way anything significant gets done, with people caring enough to put effort into doing it.
I’m not sure how many other ways I can rephrase this. You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the party is organised.
1 Like
I’d encourage an immigration policy to be written and voted. That one hasn’t got up is probably because there is disagreement in the party over it, and ongoing discussion. It’s the same reason we don’t have a foreign relations policy.
Having some disagreement doesn’t mean we can’t implement a compromise. So long as the position is reasonable and supported by evidence it would have a strong chance of being accepted by the party.
With National Congress in early July, now is the time to write and propose this new policy as well.
2 Likes
Lol, you said “lower downs” in relation to the policy development people.
Just go join policy development.
You’ll be welcomed.
Start forming policy.
Provide convincing evidence to support your policy.
Get it voted for by enough members, and it’s policy.
Just get involved.
“Lower downs” - lolololol.
4 Likes
Policy should be written by people who care.
You seem to care, so write a policy.
4 Likes
Uhhhh, we’re the “pirate” party.
It’s right there in the name.
2 Likes
@jw1985
I think we’ve gotten to the point where need to break down some understanding barriers. I just came by this thread (I get email notifications) and to be honest, your reception to what others have given you so far is perceived as being on the aggressive side. Sure, that’s perhaps not what you intended, but if you feel you’ve been misinterpreted/misunderstood etc, then take a step back for a moment and stop coming across as someone who is antagonising us. Take this as you will, but keep in mind that the Internet/reading text is notoriously difficult to distinguish intent in one’s dialogue.
To answer your question, one of the first locations you can check is our wiki page that shows our policies. I don’t know if we have exactly what you want whether for or against, but the best available information I suppose we do have for you is “Asylum Seekers and Refugees”. If you deem it not entirely or at all satisfactory, you are more than welcome to contribute to improve on it via the PDC, as others have pointed out. The PDC exists for this purpose.
Otherwise, if there’s nothing in the wiki, @alexjago’s first reply to you is essentially how we would stand universally on all issues.
You’re pointing fingers, but not showing what you’re pointing fingers at, so this claim is uncalled for. In the meantime, if you have issue with this sort of thing, best to raise to Party Management for attention.
In the 3 hours between you starting this thread and this post I’m quoting, you’ve not submitted on here anything that resembles what you want in such a policy. Your aggression here has demonstrated you in position of irony, and quite frankly, we don’t appreciate people who get all uppity about things they don’t like and don’t appreciate that we might simply not yet have the (or a) answer that they want and without having submitted anything of their own for proposal.
Please act more civil and objective focused in future. If you maintain the above attitude, you’ll not find camaraderie here. If you do otherwise want to things to be taken seriously, I’ll refer to the others of recommendations for you to partake in.
5 Likes
I for one support open borders… those with capital already have open borders, so the idea of border control is entirely classist.
2 Likes