Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National Motorcycling political party - pros / cons? Would you vote for them?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by smileedude, Aug 7, 2011.

  1. This is on off shoot from Robs thread on vehicle census data. https://netrider.net.au/forums/showthread.php?t=124018 . The sensus indicates that from 2006-2011 the proportion of registered bikes rose from 3-4%. Why is this important? For states with legislative councils 4.7% of the vote is required to gain a seat. However after preferences the primary vote can be substantially lower. Shooters in NSW recieved 2.8% of the primary vote in 2007 and had a member easily elected.

    We now have more bike owners than gun owners. So can we get a motorcycle party member elected to parliament? My answer is not at this moment. Shooters had serious reason to act due to major changes in gun laws. MC haven't had that, but the CTP hike in NSW came close.

    Shooters also fit fairly well on the right of politics so voters know in a hung parliment which way their vote will go and be happy with it. We don't have such a leaning.

    But lets pretend for a second the current trend in motorised two wheel vehicles continues. It wont be long till we could easily win a seat in an election with less than half of riders voting for an MC party. Would half the riders ever vote for an MC politician? Well we will never know if we don't try.

    Seeing the power that Fred Nile and the shooters are currently brandishing shows how much we could benifit from a similar situation.

    So is an MC party a good idea? Do we have enough issues to warrent one, and is there enough consensus agreement on those issues? Is anyone here politically motivated enough to start one? Discuss the pros and cons.
  2. Why the heck not? There's even a "sex party", so why not a motorcyclist party!
  3. My federal and state seat are so utterly labor that opposing views don't really matter. I'd vote for a motorcycle party in upper and lower houses just to give them support, hang my political leanings.
  4. I'd absolutely vote for them and probably join too... We need a louder voice in society, the way that motorcycles are treated in comparison to other road users (even cyclists) is terrible
  5. Bikers range from ultra-right to ultra-left, and generally it just doesn't matter coz we all ride. I may be wrong, but I'd be guessing gun owners are more likely to share political beliefs than bike riders.

    Throw politics into the mix things can get muddy and nasty very quickly, just look at any political thread on here. It isn't just bikes either, I used to hang out on a lot of musician sites, and it was exactly the same there. All best mates until someone started talking about politics.

    If somehow it ever got to a stage where a bikers party got a seat in State or Federal parliament, how would they decide which way to vote on anything non-bike related?
  6. 'organising motorcyclists is like herding goldfish', or something like that :LOL:

    I think seedy's right, we are such a varied lot, and anyway, most riders I know don't care about politics, they're too busy riding.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. #7 smileedude, Aug 7, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 24, 2015
    While our political views are varied I would put more bikers in the I don't care, which party best addresses my needs camp. Lefties and righties are just the most vocal and present themselves most obviously.

    Federal politics would be impossible, unless we had some miraculous preference deals. But state government would be achievable. And even if we couldn't have some one elected in any state, having the party would at least give us more of a voice.
  8. I'd vote for a candidate on a motorcycling platform, on principle. I'd hazard a guess that most of "us" would do the same.
    But apart from that, I think we'd be a fringe party like the sexers and even the shooters to an extent: those involved in the "lifestyle" would be staunch supporters, but the majority would see us as a novelty at best...

    Where would we stand on non-motorcycling issues? Start talking about Health, Education and Finance for a start, and you'll find deep division amongst NR members let alone the rest of the motorcycling community.
  9. #9 smileedude, Aug 7, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 24, 2015
    I agree, we would be like the shooters and the fundy christians in that respect. But that doesnt stop them getting their agenda accross. While I disagree entirely with what Nile is doing right now with ethics classes I give him full marks for effort and being able to represent his voters wishes.

    I think it would come down to supporting the government of the day with non motor cycle issues, unless we needed to negotiate something. Don't block supply unless absolutely necessary.

    The organisation issue is another matter. But i would think shooters would be even harder to organise. It comes down to having enough volunteers to hand out how to vote cards, core members to make a living out of it, political donations and getting enough people to number the right box.
  10. OK I'll jump in, but everyone's encouraged to settle down and see the big picture and I'll introduce you to this guy...

    Daniel Mumby

    Small business owner, consultant, creative thinker, marketing/social entreprenuer & political activist/candidate


    I realise he ran under the Family First banner so skip it. Not interested and it's not relevant to this discussion except to say one thing...

    Dan believes that because the FF Party didn't pick up on his suggestion to adopt some motorcycling policies that reduced the opportunity to get into the seat. Dan also knew his best shot at being voted in as an independent would be to have a party and their resources behind him. He was very nearly correct. Dan is not a muppet by any stretch of the imagination, and he's a very very passionate motorcyclist.

    The bottom line is, getting represented in parliament is not an out of the question proposal. It's very doable.
    • Like Like x 2
  11. I wouldn't vote FF is they gave away free motorcycles.

    Think this just proves that you can support someones views on motorcycling and still end up not supporting them on just about everything else and why in most cases I will never vote for a single issue party/candidate.
  12. Did you pick up on undercurrent of my post that Dan doesn't subscribe to the FF policies but saw it as a door way in?
  13. The only way I could see this working is if they only had stances on motorcycling related issues.
  14. No, Sorry missed that.
  15. I had a couple of initial chats with him. He wasn't planning on running a second time, but a group of them had another independent lined up. I believe fully independent with some backing so they could focus on motorcycling and not be tarnished. Unfortunately a family issue came up and Dan understandably withdrew to focus on that.
  16. The point of the post was to demonstrate that it is possible for an independent to get into the upper and wield some influence where it counts. Self defeatist talk is just that and nothing more, so should be resoundingly ignored.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. I personally wouldn't vote for a 'one issue' party. Why, because there is more than one issue that effects my life.

    Yes, motorcycling is a big part of my life. But so is the ADF and road transport. Plus local issues, like the hospital we were supposed to get 4 elections ago.

    I think we should be concentrating on getting ONE organised, vocal and well funded lobby group to represent us at Federal and State level.
    • Like Like x 2
  18. How about a party dedicated to getting the government out of our personal lives in general? Oh wait, couldn't happen. Too many people want to legislate their views onto other people.
  19. Yes I agree. Although either goal would probably end up leading to the other. A political party in the name of motorcycling would act as the national lobby group, just as the shooters party does for gun owners now. Or if there was a national lobby group no doubt there would be a few people within who have political aspirations who would endeavor to use the lobby group as a springboard to get into politics. It's just which way is the best way to accomplish either of these tasks.
  20. I think it's quite achievable, big numbers aren't needed to get into the legislative council, marketing to appeal to off-road riders is desirable. Whoever did it, even if not elected, will be rolling in filthy lucre from the electoral funding, so why not.

    That shouldn't be a problem. Parties like this (and the shooters, CDP), operate in the legislative council. The ADF is a federal issue. No one in the legislative council is going to represent your local interests. You vote for someone in the legislative assembly who will.