Of course he is not intent on losing. That's just a peculiar, roundabout way used by some peculiar, roundabout people to tell him what he has to do to win.

Albanese is just a stupid and arrogant man of the hard Left who thinks he should be able to ram rubbish like the Voice through without any opposition from people he holds in contempt.

And, the David Flint-like references to the loss of the Republic referendum have nothing to do with what might or might not happen with the Voice referendum. Things have changed. People have changed since then - more easily frightened, more easily bribed or threatened since Covid.

We can only hope that Australians still have a spark of courage, some common sense, and a sense of right and wrong, and vote NO!

For heaven's sake get the facts right. The 1967 referendum was not connected with citizenship in any way. What it did was to allow aborigines to be counted in the census. In fact it was part of a con job, the motherhood referendum that would hopefully allow a second referendum on abolishing the nexus to be approved on its coattails. Fortunately the voters saw through the con and the second referendum was not approved. This referendum seems almost to have been setup to fail.

Who knows what the referendum will deliver. Those that say no have had this position from day dot. And will like the author, continue to argue from that position. All while trying to sound reasonable and uncommitted.

When we go to the polls, we will know what we are being asked to decide! No two ways about that.

In the meantime, the naysayers will be out in force frothing from the mouth and implying all sorts that may have nothing whatsoever to do with the question being asked.

And suggesting the sky will fall if we say yes to the voice and the following recognition and reconciliation.

I for one will read the question then decide what I'll do. AS all reasonable folk should also do. Is that too hard or unreasonable?
Alan B.

When you set aside fake tears and frog in throat, I don't even know that Albanese cares all that much. If his metaphor gets mandated or not.

It's a sideshow. So can he grovel to Charles and Camilla, on their next Royal Tour.

More importantly, it distracts from his real agenda, the thing he really does care about. Us as a permanent United Nations immigration caliphate.

This referendum has been in the planning for a long time. It’s only know that there’s sufficient stupidity among the masses to vote for it. It’s taken the Left a few decades to wrangle the education system to this stage with its co-conspirator ABC for the chance to get the votes !

I agree with the thrust of the article.
The government is somehow unconvincing in its approach to the matter.
They want to say they tried, but won't be sorry if they fail?
Even the suggested wording makes it clear that 'the voice' will have no authority behind it.
Also...
I hear lots from the 'yes' camp, but nothing about voting 'no'.
That worries me.
And the 'yes' camp makes outrageously untrue statements too.
Been here 65,000 years?
Not likely.
No one has been here that long.
More like 65 years.
And I have yet to hear just who it is wants a change to the constitution.
Names? Number of citizens? Reasons?
I just hear people repeating tonelessly; 'it will be a good thing'.
That doesn't convince me.
Logic tells me a 'yes' vote would create division, and be a large step backwards.

Slightly off topic, but talking of past generations...

Only those who are alive can make changes to how we live.
The dead have no say in anything.
They cannot think, plan, act, or do anything else.
Their intelligence died when they died.

Whilst alive, they coped with life, and developed principles.
Those principles are usually passed on to us when they leave.
But WE need to decide on the usefulness of their wisdom.
It is the province of the living to make such decisions.

We can certainly learn from the past.
But that is it.
We are otherwise on our own in the present.
We must use our own thinking to plan for our own future.

And disagreements between groups should not carry on from generation to generation.
For example, we are no longer aggressive towards the Japanese or the Germans.
Yet a few generations ago we were at war with them.
To keep a 'feud' going is absurd and childish.

I think there are many among us whose principles are faulty.
Life, for them, is a built on an unstable foundation.
Faulty principles can lead to people suffering confusion and anxiety.
A little push can bring them down.
And it does, frequently.
It is just a matter of time.
Good Morning Mr Grant.

I see a 'Mr. Grant' mentioned. Would that be Stan Grant, who has resigned as Q & A presenter because of the social media 'racist' blast against him after his reprehensible coronation commentary?

Boo hoo. Poor Stanywany. What about his own anti-white racism, constant anti-Monarchy, anti-British, anti-colonist, anti-everthing not black hatred and anger!

Good riddance.

He is a human being, and an Australian.
He needs to be treated with due respect.
Perhaps the only thing he has done wrong is to distance himself from those around him?
Telling himself he is different? Using that as a reason?
By doing so he has created his own dilemma?
If he behaves 'differently', people will treat him differently.
That is human nature.
And how they treat him might not be to his liking.

People will make up their own minds who they 'respect', despite being told who they should respect by other people.

I do not respect Grant, who should buzz off - not just from the ABC, but from the airwaves altogether. He is a very privileged person who seems to be bent on pointless, ignorant activism at the expense of ordinary Australians whom he obviously despises.

I’m afraid Grant strikes me as an opportunist of hypocrisy. At times I’ve wondered if he isn’t Paul1405.

I just hear people repeating tonelessly; 'it will be a good thing'.
That doesn't convince me.
Logic tells me a 'yes' vote would create division, and be a large step backwards.
Ipso Fatso,
No-one can dispute that, not without being moral anyway !

Truth in advertising needs to also apply to political statements. And a not before time must do! Without which pollies of all political persuasion can continue to lie through their back teeth.

I'm not suggesting the author is telling pork pies or being loose with the truth. But he could be. And because that's possible, ought to be subject to fact checking. Just my opinion.
Alan B.

Is Albanese cunning enough to be having this referendum simply to shore up the aboriginal vote, most definitely.

Is he ruthless enough to do it, wanting to lose, & not give a damn how many are hurt in the process, yes definitely.

Is that what he is doing, most probably, but who could know what goes on in that hate filled mind.

As for Stan Grant resigning from Q+A I stopped watching a long time ago. When we had a female presenter, there seemed to be a overrepresentation of women's issues.

When Stan got the chair there seemed a disproportionate concentration on black fella issues. While things like cost-of-living, cost of housing, cost of energy, homelessness, cost of health etc took a huge back seat or never got a mention.

We already said sorry for things that our forebears and the crown did, and we are set to change the constitution to include all Australians in it as citizens with equal rights.

And a voice to the parliament that doesn't require large political donations to have a say in legislated outcomes! And as a first order of business, campaign for a bill of irrevocable human rights for all Australians!
Alan B.

Quote: We already said sorry for things that our forebears and the crown did, and we are set to change the constitution to include all Australians in it as citizens with equal rights.

I don't want to appear rude, but didn't we do that back in the 1960's?
Or is there a degree of humour lurking in there?

Forced myself to watch Q&A last night & it struck me that young Stanley has started to realise which side his toast was buttered !
He actually gave that useless Labor git a run for her undeserved money !

Back on topic. Sort of...
I liken the voice to a fake credit card.
You need a card?
We will give you one.
But of course it has no credit attached, and you cannot buy anything with it.
But you wanted a credit card, and now you have one.
Aren't you lucky!

Slightly off topic?
Just when I was thinking that Peter had bitten off more than he could chew, he surprised me.
He said a lot of things which makes sense.
Pearls of wisdom flowed from him.
But some of the ears around him were deaf.
And I have no doubt some of the eyes were blind too.
But a truthful message is still a truthful message.
And Peter delivered it in spades.
And not before time.
All this dilly-dallying is frustrating for everyone.
But he has made a start.
Now is the time to get in there and lead.
If he is able.

Off topic back to Stan,
In a move to cash in on the sympathy vote, Stan is highly likely to go off-radar for a couple of months & then take up head position as Director of the Voice movement, counting on his victim play at resignation which has been planned from the start.