Fatima Payman - Australia's Voice Party

[Cmarsh]

Fatima Payman has launched her new party without any policies

Fatima Payman's party will run candidates in both houses, but the senator was unable to identify policies or issues she would focus on.

www.abc.net.au

Announced a new party and it's name today.

A little confusing as it's name will be associated with the failed referendum even when she claims there are no links to it.

No policies yet named but given her open criticism of Labor's Palestine stance it a safe bet that it will fully support Palestine statehood.

An interesting space to watch.

 

[burge13]

How do these people get paid? Donors?

Because this party will achieve absolutely nothing yet I bet she gets paid very well to do it

 

[RedStarUncle]

How do these people get paid? Donors?

Because this party will achieve absolutely nothing yet I bet she gets paid very well to do it

In all likelihood there won't be a donor and very little money involved.

She has enough name recognition and a Senate seat and a bunch of hangers-on will now be surrounding that to try and make a buck for themselves. Partly paid by her and a few other small-time donations, and making up the difference with fees from all the candidates they'll rope in on a hiding to nothing.


Even the Teal independents, with an established source of funds, won't be getting rich - the money is just the reality for what it costs to make a hash of it... the rules are weighted very heavily to the established parties and the big bucks are therefore funneled in that same direction.

 

[RedStarUncle]

Fatima Payman has launched her new party without any policies

Fatima Payman's party will run candidates in both houses, but the senator was unable to identify policies or issues she would focus on.

www.abc.net.au

Announced a new party and it's name today.

A little confusing as it's name will be associated with the failed referendum even when she claims there are no links to it.

No policies yet named but given her open criticism of Labor's Palestine stance it a safe bet that it will fully support Palestine statehood.

An interesting space to watch.

It'll fizzle into nothing but syphon off mainly ALP votes and leak a tiny sliver of preferences away from them but most votes will end up with ALP or Greens anyway.

I feel like the timing going into the next election is a bit strange... they won't achieve anything, and they'll have no leverage to do it again when her Senate term runs out in 2028. If they'd done this then the noise around the party might've been enough to get her personally re-elected. Maybe they're hoping the Palestine issue is enough to actually get some no-name up in 2025 so they can feel legitimate.

 

[The Edukator]

what an absolute worm of a person she is

 

[Carn The Berries]

what an absolute worm of a person she is

On the basis of?

 

[Jane Doe]

Isn't she a dual citizen? Shouldn't be in parliament

 

[RedStarUncle]

Isn't she a dual citizen? Shouldn't be in parliament

Legally had taken "all reasonable steps" to renounce Afghan citizenship, which is the constitutional requirement.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Heard that people associated with the "Yes" vote in the voice are accusing Senator Payman of "appropriating" the word "Voice".

I have now officially heard everything... smh

 

[evolved2]

Is it normal to start a political party with no policies?

 

[RedStarUncle]

Heard that people associated with the "Yes" vote in the voice are accusing Senator Payman of "appropriating" the word "Voice".

I have now officially heard everything... smh

... it's... kind of obviously true? I can't tell from all the "" what allusion you're actually worried about. But Payman and her new advisor Glenn Druery have very obviously and deliberately picked the name to include "voice" to try and associate themselves with the portion of the 40% of voters who voted yes and cared enough to be disappointed with the result.

That's a lot more voters to target than they could by being the "Islamic Australia" party or the "Left-but-not-ALP-or-Greens" party.

So yeah it's a very deliberate appropriation of the name and apparently came with no actual discussion with those involved with the "Yes" campaign. And it'll probably buy them a percent or two of votes come election time... but Druery hasn't got anywhere near as many tricks now that party group tickets can't be gamed.

 

[Carn The Berries]

... it's... kind of obviously true? I can't tell from all the "" what allusion you're actually worried about. But Payman and her new advisor Glenn Druery have very obviously and deliberately picked the name to include "voice" to try and associate themselves with the portion of the 40% of voters who voted yes and cared enough to be disappointed with the result.

That's a lot more voters to target than they could by being the "Islamic Australia" party or the "Left-but-not-ALP-or-Greens" party.

So yeah it's a very deliberate appropriation of the name and apparently came with no actual discussion with those involved with the "Yes" campaign. And it'll probably buy them a percent or two of votes come election time... but Druery hasn't got anywhere near as many tricks now that party group tickets can't be gamed.

Why would there be any need to consult with those running the Yes campaign? Do they need to be consulted every time someone wants to use the word voice now? The report I heard stated that the Senator consulted members of the Indigenous community before selecting the name (not that I think this was necessary anyway).

I daresay most people who were/are engaged enough with the Voice referendum who might make a connection to what Senator Payman is doing would be politically savvy enough to discern the difference.

 

[Rotayjay]

We've seen this movie before

Scene 1: Politician is member of major party
Scene 2: Politician has falling out with major party and quits, becoming an independent
Scene 3: Politician sets up their own new party
Scene 4: New party wins a couple of seats at next election
Scene 5: there is an internal feud in new party and the first-term members leave, becoming independents themselves
Scene 6: the new party shrivels up and dies
The end

 

[RedStarUncle]

Why would there be any need to consult with those running the Yes campaign? Do they need to be consulted every time someone wants to use the word voice now? The report I heard stated that the Senator consulted members of the Indigenous community before selecting the name (not that I think this was necessary anyway).

I daresay most people who were/are engaged enough with the Voice referendum who might make a connection to what Senator Payman is doing would be politically savvy enough to discern the difference.

There's certainly no "need" to do it... but it's an obvious grab at the terminology and I think those associated with the "Yes" campaign would fairly feel disappointed and are within their rights to state that disappointment.

The actual consequence for either party is minimal especially with her unlikely to achieve anything anyway. But every sliver of a percent edges them towards winning a Senate seat or two and good luck to them if they can achieve it... but it's exactly the cynical grab at it that you'd expect if you're being advised by Druery.

 

[RedStarUncle]

We've seen this movie before

Scene 1: Politician is member of major party
Scene 2: Politician has falling out with major party and quits, becoming an independent
Scene 3: Politician sets up their own new party
Scene 4: New party wins a couple of seats at next election
Scene 5: there is an internal feud in new party and the first-term members leave, becoming independents themselves
Scene 6: the new party shrivels up and dies
The end

Are there even many examples where "Scene 4" happens?

Usually they happily sit as an independent up until year 4 or 5 of their term... then with an "oh crap no-one will elect me as an independent on the ballot paper" they whizz together a party to get their name to appear on above-the-line voting. Almost never get a second member elected and rarely get themselves over the line.



Lambie, Xenophon, etc. fail on Scene 1 because they weren't elected through major parties. Pauline Hanson nailed the script through to Scene 5 but somehow One Nation won't succumb to your 6.

 

[Rotayjay]

The Indigenous Voice to Parliament is dead. It's gone. I proudly voted yes, but it's not coming back, it's off the table at federal level for at least 25 years, and therefore the name is up for grabs.

 

[Donakebab]

The name might be available but its still tone deaf to choose a divisive name almost smack bang on the anniversary of the referendum. Claiming that you "consulted with elders" when you admittedly spoke to a handful of people from a small part of WA means squat. I don't think appropriating the name will actually win her any votes, but it certainly could cost them.

It's also dumb to essentially reappropriate the name from a failed right wing party that was diametrically opposed to your position in politics/society and probably opposed your very existence.

Australian Voice Party - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Home

We are an alternative Australian political party not based on leadership egos but grassroots democracy and loyalty to our country. We are pro-family and pro-Australian. Members select local candidates and local policies.

www.ausvoice.org

Name aside, the party doesn't stand a sniff. Heard Payman on the radio this morning on 774 ABC Melbourne and she absolutely tanked it. The obvious response to the question about standing aside and running for her own party at the next election is easy. "There's still work that I can do in the lead up to the election that I couldn't do if I had to vacate. It also gives me a greater platform to advocate for what I stand for, etc etc etc". Instead it was a big swing and a miss.

Its a weak party launch with no candidates and no policies, and she doesn't seem savvy enough or having a big enough personality to pull enough interest beyond single issue voters. Gone are the days where Glen Druery could spin this into a couple of seats in the Senate.

 

[Not Important]

i quickly lose faith in anyone who hires druery.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

Its a weak party launch with no candidates and no policies, and she doesn't seem savvy enough or having a big enough personality to pull enough interest beyond single issue voters. Gone are the days where Glen Druery could spin this into a couple of seats in the Senate.

It's trying to be an anti Labor party and that's about it.

 

[Saint]

i quickly lose faith in anyone who hires druery.

Most people upset with him are the major parties.

He advises on the best way of using the current system to advantage. The major parties change legislation at the expense of minor parties - regularly.

Do I think this party will last? No. Do I think they've done anything wrong? No.

I think Dutton's recent dog whistling Islamophobia has mostly been aimed at widening and exposing this schism on the left.

 

[Carn The Berries]

The name might be available but its still tone deaf to choose a divisive name almost smack bang on the anniversary of the referendum. Claiming that you "consulted with elders" when you admittedly spoke to a handful of people from a small part of WA means squat. I don't think appropriating the name will actually win her any votes, but it certainly could cost them.

It's also dumb to essentially reappropriate the name from a failed right wing party that was diametrically opposed to your position in politics/society and probably opposed your very existence.

Australian Voice Party - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Home

We are an alternative Australian political party not based on leadership egos but grassroots democracy and loyalty to our country. We are pro-family and pro-Australian. Members select local candidates and local policies.

www.ausvoice.org

Name aside, the party doesn't stand a sniff. Heard Payman on the radio this morning on 774 ABC Melbourne and she absolutely tanked it. The obvious response to the question about standing aside and running for her own party at the next election is easy. "There's still work that I can do in the lead up to the election that I couldn't do if I had to vacate. It also gives me a greater platform to advocate for what I stand for, etc etc etc". Instead it was a big swing and a miss.

Its a weak party launch with no candidates and no policies, and she doesn't seem savvy enough or having a big enough personality to pull enough interest beyond single issue voters. Gone are the days where Glen Druery could spin this into a couple of seats in the Senate.

Show me one person (aside from yourself) who has any idea that the referendum was almost exactly a year ago....