Same-sex marriage survey suffers from incomplete information

Today in The Australian

The continuing crisis in Catalonia highlights once again the dangers plebiscites pose to social coherence and stability. By reducing complex problems to simple questions, they can exacerbate divisions rather than build agreement, while worsening the tyranny of the majority.

About Henry Ergas

Henry Ergas AO is a columnist for The Australian. From 2009 to 2015 he was Senior Economic Adviser to Deloitte Australia and from 2009 to 2017 was Professor of Infrastructure Economics at the University of Wollongong’s SMART Infrastructure Facility. He joined SMART and Deloitte after working as a consultant economist at NECG, CRA International and Concept Economics. Prior to that, he was an economist at the OECD in Paris from the late 1970s until the early 1990s. At the OECD, he headed the Secretary-General’s Task Force on Structural Adjustment (1984-1987), which concentrated on improving the efficiency of government policies in a wide range of areas, and was subsequently Counsellor for Structural Policy in the Economics Department. He has taught at a range of universities, undertaken a number of government inquiries and served as a Lay Member of the New Zealand High Court. In 2016, he was made an Officer in the Order of Australia.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Same-sex marriage survey suffers from incomplete information

  1. stackja

    ‘Same-sex marriage survey suffers from incomplete information’ due to ALP/Greens.

  2. Bruce of Newcastle

    while worsening the tyranny of the majority

    Democracy only works when a “loyal opposition” can exist. An opposition will only be loyal when they are not persecuted and when they have some stake in the polity.

    This is why democracy does not work in muslim lands. When you have a large plurality who religiously believes the opposition are evil, and must be excluded from power, they will not be loyal. So elections in muslim nations tend to be one man one vote once only. (Some muslim nations have semi functioning democracies, but in all cases they are failing under the pressure of religious hardliners.)

    Which brings me to Australia, since we also have a religious plurality which believes the opposition is evil and must be made to do what they think is good for them. The Green-Progressive Left. We have seen this on energy and climate, we have see this on “human rights”, and we are now seeing it on SSM. The hardliners in the Green-Progressive religion are not willing to allow Christians to have a conscientious objection – they openly intend to persecute and financially ruin the opposition through gotcha lawsuits, fines and gaol.

    Therefore we no longer have an actual democracy in this country, since the Green-Progressive religion brooks no opposition, loyal or otherwise.

  3. Tel

    I’m sure everyone in Catalonia has a very clear idea what the question is.

  4. struth

    The continuing crisis in Catalonia highlights once again the dangers plebiscites pose to social coherence and stability. By reducing complex problems to simple questions, they can exacerbate divisions rather than build agreement, while worsening the tyranny of the majority.

    Translation.

    Democracy is crap.
    The majority are dumb and giving them a plebiscite only means I may be living under the tyranny of their majority view, instead of my much smarter elitist minority view.
    Building agreement means banning disagreement and listening to what the ruling class tells you is right.

    Can you believe this paragraph was actually written by someone who apparently is not a paid up communist party member?

  5. stackja

    When Oldspeak had been once and for all superseded, the last link with the past would have been severed. History had already been rewritten, but fragments of the literature of the past survived here and there, imperfectly censored, and so long as one retained one’s knowledge of Oldspeak it was possible to read them. In the future such fragments, even if they chanced to survive, would be unintelligible and untranslatable.

    Title: Nineteen eighty-four
    Author: George Orwell (pseudonym of Eric Blair) (1903-1950)
    * A Project Gutenberg of Australia eBook *

    http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt

  6. candy

    I hear it said that UK and USA have SSM and there’s no troubles. But I tend to think Australia’s Green Progressives, the Left, are extreme here, and will persecute Christians openly and seek to ruin them through lawsuits etc, just as Bruce says above. There’s something wrong in Australia where socialists/bullies are taking over and we let them. It won’t stop at an actual first gay wedding, although will be quiet for a few months.

    Just an aside – which famous couple will marry first – Penny Wong and partner, Christine Forster and partner, or Ian Thrope and partner. My bet is Christine Forster. She has a grudge against her brother big time, and is waiting this opportunity, is my hunch, and her wedding will be attended by at least one of the bigwigs of the Liberal Party. Probably Julie Bishop.

  7. stackja

    Comments at Oz varied.

    David 2 MINUTES AGO
    I don’t see how Henry’s argument shows that a parliamentary vote on the question would have solved the problems of not knowing the full consequences. I think on a question of this kind most thinking people would prefer to be asked their view in a formal survey, although a proper plebiscite would have been better, but the the Senate apparently believed that a survey was better. There is no evidence that the Parliament acting on its own would have produced a less “objectionable” result than the current process would.

    Paul 2 MINUTES AGO
    A plebiscite is just a poll done properly.

    david 11 MINUTES AGO
    Who would sign a contract and let the other party draw it up afterwards? Yep, Australians.

  8. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    I hear it said that UK and USA have SSM and there’s no troubles.

    Then you are misinformed, Candy.

  9. Peter

    “Can you believe this paragraph was actually written by someone who apparently is not a paid up communist party member?”
    Well, yes and no. I don’t agree that democracy is a bad thing – in a world where ordinary citizens are not ill educated, indoctrinated sheep. In Australia and elsewhere in the Western world socialists have surreptitiously made their long march through the institutions of society – we do not educate kids anymore. We indoctrinate them. Those institutions, especially the education ones are not creating well informed citizens who are being taught how to think critically in order to make their contribution to society. They are churning out ill educated halfwits who are told WHAT to think according to leftist ideology. And hence who are not well equipped to critically think about complex issues for themselves. And of course the Left capitalizes on this (it is why they made their long march, after all).

    So the gay marriage debate according to the Left is not about whether its good for society. The Left’s argument is all about…………………………….. feelings. Because this is the level at which people have been taught to think.

    I suspect this is exactly what Henry Ergas is saying. Why? Because Ergas is a long time expert on public affairs and I would bet he understands that there is an old and very perspicacious saying in public policy. “For every complex, intractable, difficult issue of public policy there is an answer that is simple…..direct……and wrong!” And these are the answers our politicians go for every damn time because citizens who put them in Parliament are not equipped to think at any other level.

  10. H B Bear

    Lieborals – “Trust us”.

  11. Peter Purcell

    Surely the whole project was rendered invalid by the announcement of the interim results.

  12. The direct consequences of SSM will be revealed gradually through details of SSM divorce cases.

  13. zyconoclast

    A historical source has been found for one version of this quote. The source is Boris Bazhanov’s Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary, published in 1992 and only available, so far as I know, in Russian. The pertinent passage, which appears near the end of chapter five, reads as follows (loosely translated with the help of Google):

    “You know, comrades,” says Stalin, “that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.”

  14. rickw

    Clearly the SSM plebiscite isn’t going the way Australias industrial grade Wankerati want it to.

  15. clivehoskin

    Most people read “1984” as a warning. Progressive,Retards read it as a training manual.

Comments are closed.