Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
Wallaby Man
Nev Cottrell (35)
The Geerob article is brilliant
Crashy
John Solomon (38)
can someone post without paywall? ( Geerob article)
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
That ARU statement is well done, I agree.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Also just read that Geerob article - yep I think she nailed it.
LeCheese
Greg Davis (50)
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
Can I say I don't think the statement is very good at all, and it's clearly written by an organisation that doesn't know what it's getting into when it wades into a very very serious political issue.
For a start, as a political issue, this is far more party partisan than the previous issues Rugby AU has engaged in. Campaigning for LGBT causes including gay marriage and against players that spread hate on these issues had a far broader and deeper support from the electorate - 64% of people voted for it, and it succeeded in every state and territory.
The voice is a completely different proposition to this. Currently, the voice is polling at just 53-47, as of yesterday, and it is well behind that in other states - particularly Queensland. Of this country's political parties, there are two that clearly support the voice (ALP, Greens), three that clearly oppose (LP, NP, PHON), and strong support behind both campaigns.
On current polling, the voice would actually likely lose even if it wins the overall popular vote 53-47, because it would likely fail in TAS, WA, and QLD, while racking up lopsided victories in VIC and NSW, and overall falling short of the requirement to win the vote in a majority of states.
Like all modern political issues, opinion on this question typically divides on the urban region divide. This typically sees stronger progressive support in urban centres, strong conservative support in the regions, and a mixture in the suburbs.
All of this suggests that at the very least there is strong plurality support for both sides of the referendum and that Australians have very legitimate reasons for voting yes or no.
The statement itself amounts to an endorsement that makes an opaque effort to acknowledge people's concerns, but without actually addressing them properly.
- The idea that the Voice is good because it's not a third chamber is a strawman argument and isn't what anyone from the no case has been arguing since about since c. 2017. The problem is that the executive government clause that is proposed potentially gives any litigant the right to make vexatious challenges to executive government decisions in the High Court, which is not in our national interest.
- Rugby AU makes no mention of the executive government clause issue that’s prevalent with the voice in its statement, but simply asserts that the voice doesn’t or won’t obstruct government. The history of constitutional changes tells us that that is not the case and a number of legal scholars including a former High Court justice are also of this opinion.
- Rugby AU quite wrongly compares the referendum to the 1967 referendum which removed the race power from the constitution. This would insert race back into the constitution, so it’s an incredibly strange comparison to make.
Putting aside the errorts in the statement, endorsing such a partisan cause will raise a lot of questions from the public:
All of these issues go to the deeper issue of whether companies/sports organisations should be involved in endorsing political and social clauses. My position is an empathic and firm, no, never ever ever ever get involved in political causes, ever ever ever.
The truth is that having companies and organisations back these causes divides their fan base, pushes people apart, and ultimately serves to detract from interest in the sport as a whole.
In the United States, ground zero for organisations taking partisan stands on social issues, there’s growing evidence that when it’s done badly it has spectacularly backfired for companies. Even though I don’t support the backlash, the recent bud light issue comes to mind, as does Gillette, as does Disney.
I think this was not a good idea, and can I say, if you’re a “Yes” supporter in the upcoming referendum, this is a blunder for your campaign.
One of the key factors that turned people off voting yes in the 1999 republic referendum was that it looked like all of our institutions were stacking the deck and pushing people to vote yes. It had a huge amount of celebrity endorsement.
This actually backfired, and quite spectacularly. Australians don’t like it when companies and elite organisations try and tell them how to vote. When we wash up the referendum, and it loses (and believe me, it’s going to lose, every polling trend is against the referendum, and undecided voters are breaking 90-10 against it), endorsement from big institutions is going to be one of the reasons why people voted no, just like in 1999.
Rugby AU should stay out of Australia’s democratic processes at all times.
For a start, as a political issue, this is far more party partisan than the previous issues Rugby AU has engaged in. Campaigning for LGBT causes including gay marriage and against players that spread hate on these issues had a far broader and deeper support from the electorate - 64% of people voted for it, and it succeeded in every state and territory.
The voice is a completely different proposition to this. Currently, the voice is polling at just 53-47, as of yesterday, and it is well behind that in other states - particularly Queensland. Of this country's political parties, there are two that clearly support the voice (ALP, Greens), three that clearly oppose (LP, NP, PHON), and strong support behind both campaigns.
On current polling, the voice would actually likely lose even if it wins the overall popular vote 53-47, because it would likely fail in TAS, WA, and QLD, while racking up lopsided victories in VIC and NSW, and overall falling short of the requirement to win the vote in a majority of states.
Like all modern political issues, opinion on this question typically divides on the urban region divide. This typically sees stronger progressive support in urban centres, strong conservative support in the regions, and a mixture in the suburbs.
All of this suggests that at the very least there is strong plurality support for both sides of the referendum and that Australians have very legitimate reasons for voting yes or no.
The statement itself amounts to an endorsement that makes an opaque effort to acknowledge people's concerns, but without actually addressing them properly.
- The idea that the Voice is good because it's not a third chamber is a strawman argument and isn't what anyone from the no case has been arguing since about since c. 2017. The problem is that the executive government clause that is proposed potentially gives any litigant the right to make vexatious challenges to executive government decisions in the High Court, which is not in our national interest.
- Rugby AU makes no mention of the executive government clause issue that’s prevalent with the voice in its statement, but simply asserts that the voice doesn’t or won’t obstruct government. The history of constitutional changes tells us that that is not the case and a number of legal scholars including a former High Court justice are also of this opinion.
- Rugby AU quite wrongly compares the referendum to the 1967 referendum which removed the race power from the constitution. This would insert race back into the constitution, so it’s an incredibly strange comparison to make.
Putting aside the errorts in the statement, endorsing such a partisan cause will raise a lot of questions from the public:
- What does Rugby AU say to the 5,200,000 liberal national voters that are likely to vote no to this referendum? Are they included in Rugby AU and welcomed?
- What does Rugby AU say to Queenslanders, who currently are on track to very clearly vote no. Are they included in Rugby AU or does it only represent the views of people in NSW and other states that are leaning yes?
- What does Rugby AU say to its supporters in regional areas who polling also shows do not back the voice
- How can Rugby AU claim to be an organisation that’s diverse and inclusive when it excludes plurality political views of certain states, areas, and people?
- Shouldn’t Rugby AU be an organisation that is pro pluralism? Shouldn’t it actually embrace political differences? Isn’t one of the beauties and indeed the majesty of the democratic system that there are differences?
All of these issues go to the deeper issue of whether companies/sports organisations should be involved in endorsing political and social clauses. My position is an empathic and firm, no, never ever ever ever get involved in political causes, ever ever ever.
The truth is that having companies and organisations back these causes divides their fan base, pushes people apart, and ultimately serves to detract from interest in the sport as a whole.
In the United States, ground zero for organisations taking partisan stands on social issues, there’s growing evidence that when it’s done badly it has spectacularly backfired for companies. Even though I don’t support the backlash, the recent bud light issue comes to mind, as does Gillette, as does Disney.
I think this was not a good idea, and can I say, if you’re a “Yes” supporter in the upcoming referendum, this is a blunder for your campaign.
One of the key factors that turned people off voting yes in the 1999 republic referendum was that it looked like all of our institutions were stacking the deck and pushing people to vote yes. It had a huge amount of celebrity endorsement.
This actually backfired, and quite spectacularly. Australians don’t like it when companies and elite organisations try and tell them how to vote. When we wash up the referendum, and it loses (and believe me, it’s going to lose, every polling trend is against the referendum, and undecided voters are breaking 90-10 against it), endorsement from big institutions is going to be one of the reasons why people voted no, just like in 1999.
Rugby AU should stay out of Australia’s democratic processes at all times.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
Which claims? I'd love to know. I personally utterly detest Sky News, so I'm very surprised to be compared to them.
PS here is a trend chart of the YES v NO vote, published in the Sydney Morning Herald (NOT SKY!) yesterday. If anything, the voice primary vote is falling earlier, and faster, than the republic vote, which only collapsed about three months before polling day.
The Ghost of Raelene
Simon Poidevin (60)
Why does it resemble a Xmas Cock
What's there to lose? Every major sporting code in Australia is on the same page. Are no voters going to stop watching sport due to their outrage?
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
What's there to gain? Will we gain/lose supporters for having a backing stance? Just seems not worth the risk.
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
No, no voters aren't going to stop watching, except for the intergalactically dim people that do watch sky (who were probably never rugby fans in the first place, and allegedly said they'd stop watching after Folau anyway), but this is a debate about what the right thing to do is, not whether it will stop people from watching. The right thing to do is to respect the democratic process and be an organisation for all Australians, not just those Australians of a certain political persuasion.
Wallaby Man
Nev Cottrell (35)
As much as I hate how divisive our culture is these days and how we have probably gone more backwards in attitudes the last 5-10yrs towards gender/race etc. because everyone is desperate to align with something (Māori background here and I officially hate these days how people are desperate to categorize me despite just been a normal guy, didn’t have this 5-10yrs ago). I do think there is more to lose from not supporting it than the reverse.
Media is generally the domain of people outside the centre be it right or left of politics. Given social media is predominantly a left leaning platform and it’s propensity to attack differing views in a venomous fashion you can quickly lose the narrative and be accused of something nobody or entity wants to be attached to. This could be racist, sexist, etc. more often than not the intention isn’t the case from the people accused but once the horse has bolted in the media or specifically social media it’s very difficult to rein in back in and could do horrendous damage to a brand.
As GeeRob’s article indicates there is also a political element, with a “you support our causes and we will support yours” process behind it.
Unfortunately in society these days I think you are more likely to damage your brand by not supporting it than if you did the reverse or remained on the fence. Nuance is currently gone in society.
For whoever made the Sky news comment, yea there is some out there thinking on that platform but need to realise you’re almost as likely to have a ridiculous conversation on the ABC at times as well. I have given up watching Q&A as they rarely have a balanced conversation
Media is generally the domain of people outside the centre be it right or left of politics. Given social media is predominantly a left leaning platform and it’s propensity to attack differing views in a venomous fashion you can quickly lose the narrative and be accused of something nobody or entity wants to be attached to. This could be racist, sexist, etc. more often than not the intention isn’t the case from the people accused but once the horse has bolted in the media or specifically social media it’s very difficult to rein in back in and could do horrendous damage to a brand.
As GeeRob’s article indicates there is also a political element, with a “you support our causes and we will support yours” process behind it.
Unfortunately in society these days I think you are more likely to damage your brand by not supporting it than if you did the reverse or remained on the fence. Nuance is currently gone in society.
For whoever made the Sky news comment, yea there is some out there thinking on that platform but need to realise you’re almost as likely to have a ridiculous conversation on the ABC at times as well. I have given up watching Q&A as they rarely have a balanced conversation
It is performative box ticking from the marketing department (not just this but every week we have something)
I don't go to rugby matches to learn about the latest social wrongs or celebrations, I go with the hope (well it is the tahs and the wobs) they play well and win whilst I enjoy a beer
My preference is that sporting codes focus their sport and that all serving politicians return to their rightful place as someone to boo at if they flash up on the big screen -c*nts the lot of them
the scots got it right (NSFW)
and Liverpool
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
That's where I'm at FP. Just get on with the footy.
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
Goes to show the level of group think and lack of diversity of thought in these organisations. Ironic given they have a fawning conga line of sycophants that evangelise "diversity" (political and regional diversity not included sorry). Perhaps we should have quotas for regional and interstate board members for Sydney and Melbourne corporates?
Last edited: