-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGaf |Early 2016 Election| - the government's term has been... Shortened
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
Lord and saviour
Elaugaufein
Member
I would have gone with Proof there is no God.
I think these are easy criticisms to make and I find them a bit petty. Internal party politics are messy and nobody is exempt from criticism. If we go by this metric we'd never nominate anyone. It's especially weird (not to mention hypocritical) when said criticism come from the opposite side of politics. I mean who better to judge how Labour handles themselves as a party, amirite?
IMO, we should be looking at the man's performance on the international stage. In this regard Rudd's performance seems solid (well, judging by the Wikipedia summary anyway). He comes across as a man committed to building the developing world, helping the victims of war and strengthening relations with China. He's also shown himself to be open minded and willing to change his views on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
Edit:
Interesting analysis from Anabel Crabb on the issue
Candescence
Member
Another analysis over on SBS basically summarised as "Kevin's issues as PM wouldn't be applicable at the UN and not nominating him purely for domestic political reasons is a bad look on the international stage."
Basically, the government comes off looking extremely petty in the eyes of other countries.
Basically, the government comes off looking extremely petty in the eyes of other countries.
Elaugaufein
Member
The SBS is often viewed as pretty left wing (more so than the ABC) and so the government is unlikely to give a toss.
Aarglefarg
Member
Last year, Turnbull treated going to the cabinet about Rudd as cosmetic. It was to avoid the appearance of a 'captain's pick' but not actually change anything. To be shown so wrong about that continues to show his weakened influence over his party.
Was there a similar report when the ALP didn't back Costello for head of the IMF? He was infinitely more qualified than Rudd was.
bobnowhere
Member
The AEC have declared Herbert for the ALP by 37 votes.
Brandis is probably already banging on the door of the Court of Disputed Returns.
Brandis is probably already banging on the door of the Court of Disputed Returns.
Candescence
Member
Okay, so Xenophon wants to try and regulate 'gambling' in online games. likely as a result of the recent CSGO gambling site controversy, according to the Sun-Herald. From what the description of the bill is (and I quote, "legislation could make it illegal for games to seek payment for items of varying value according to chance, as is the case in Japan"), meaning that, say, Valve, would have to offer a 'free' (though more difficult to obtain) method of unlocking crates/chests, similar to how gatcha-style mobile games let players obtain 'premium' currency for free. Though, Xenophon really hates gambling, so he might be demanding a ban on such 'gambling systems' entirely.
If such a bill actually passes, things are gonna be awkward for Valve and other companies that use similar monetization systems.
If such a bill actually passes, things are gonna be awkward for Valve and other companies that use similar monetization systems.
bobnowhere
Member
Nick seems to be conflating two separate issues. IAP purchases where you don't know what you are going to get, buying keys to open crates, and then using those items as betting "chips" on an unregulated grey market.
I have no problem with going after IAP purchases where you don't know what you are getting but the only way to stop users trading items would be to only allow transfer of items through the steam marketplace with Valve and the creator getting their cut. They need to go after the gambling websites, Valve is at least, not the games themselves.
Elaugaufein
Member
By elections almost never get a swing to the government , especially not with the mild swing against over the last month. There's no real chance they'll win so this is basically a vanity challenge.
Good.
Gambling is getting out of control - the ease of micro payments has only made the problem worse. Before we only had to worry about people having a predisposition to gambling - now we have the issue of people gambling away small amounts at a time which eventually adds up.
I can't remember ever having a discussion on Gambling (except in Mathematics once during probability) as compared to the dangers of drinking so clearly hat has to be added into PE class or wherever it would reach children. It was stupidly easy to get underage gambling done through sites like CSGOLotto. And cashing out was easy - reddit made that easy to do as well.
Excellent.
Brandis take this L.
Given what we've seen I doubt this Government will survive a term - all it'd take is one person for the Government to collapse.
Glad to see gambling cracked down on. The amount of 15 year olds I know that were spending literally thousands of their parents money on these sites was phenomenal.
Actually do we have any legal residents here who can tell us whether or not underage gambling with skins and not money is allowed under current laws? Because I'm fairly sure it's legal in the US provided it's not money.
Actually do we have any legal residents here who can tell us whether or not underage gambling with skins and not money is allowed under current laws? Because I'm fairly sure it's legal in the US provided it's not money.
Elaugaufein
Member
https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/internet/internet-governance/online-gambling
From this it would appear that things like CSGo are probably illegal (because their sole purpose is bets and the skins are things of value). Micro-transactions are probably okay because they are usually a part of a game and it could be argued they aren't the sole / dominant purpose.
I'm to lazy to check state law for every state.
Pretty useless parents there.
To some extent, sure, but there are documented accounts of children stealing their parents credit cards and losing thousands. I've played these things before (and won, funnily enough), but this is on my own dime and understanding the risks. Kids don't have the ability to make these choices rationally.
I'm normally all for the sanctity of free choice etc, etc. But these are children who fit the definition of problem gamblers because of how these sites are designed. The loot crate is essentially identical to playing the slots.
How is it any different to CCGs?
CCG's?
bobnowhere
Member
It's 100 million times on then!
Collectable Card Games. Buying packs of cards there isnt a whole lot different from pokies.
While they're somewhat different aesthetically, I'm not sure there's much difference fundamentally. It's the ease of access that creates the real problems, not the actual designs themselves.
Although I do think there's some difference psychologically. Pokies are designed to make the users feel good, and the design of many of the CSGO crates are nearly identical to the pokies.
I dunno. Ask your local casino if they'll accept yugioh cards on their tables or your bank if they'll accept a foil pokemon card as a loan deposit.
I think that the microtransaction systems could stand to be more regulated. Even something as simple as putting how much money you've spent in total and recently in big font in a box on the purchase screen would probably go a long way.
At the same time the way that game crates with multiple items reveal their contents one at a time is lifted wholesale from the experience of opening a booster pack.
You damn kids and all these acronyms and terms I don't know. Is that something that gives you more cards?
Candescence
Member
Proper article on the gambling thing.
I honestly think Xenophon might be jumping the gun a little and could be making the bill too broad if he's not careful. That being said, regulations on online transactions are somewhat overdue in any case.
I honestly think Xenophon might be jumping the gun a little and could be making the bill too broad if he's not careful. That being said, regulations on online transactions are somewhat overdue in any case.
If the "first-person shooter" thing is Xenophon and not the media he's going to look like a fucking idiot when the industry just transplants the systems into a different genre. Frankly if he's not consulting with people in the gaming industry/press or similar then he's not going to have a clue what he's talking about.
Elaugaufein
Member
WA Senate done. 5 Lib, 4 Lab, 2 Grn, 1 One Nation.
So far this Senate appears to be worse than the previous for the Government. Xenophon is going to have so much pork he'll need to build a Scrooge McDuck bin to keep it in.
Running Total officially declared: 10 Lib 10 Lab 4 Grn 1 One Nation 1 Lambie
This looks like Turnbull is going to wish for the old Senate back.
ETA - ACT Done: 1 Lab 1 Lib (shocking)
Running Total: 11 Lib 11 Lab 4 Grn 1 One Nation 1 Lambie
At this point the Final Results are pretty much guaranteed to be:
30 Coalition 27 Labor 9 Greens 3 One Nation 3 Xenophon 2 Liberal Democrat (or +1 Liberal Christian Democrat (thanks NSW) and/or +1 One Nation (thanks Queensland)) 1 Hinch 1 Lambie
Which is going to be fascinating:
Lambie is left wing on a lot of issues they government really doesn't want someone left wing on right now (education, health, etc) and right wing on things they can either rely on Labor for anyway (Military) or don't want to touch with a 10' pole (Islam).
Hinch is a complete unknown beyond his tough on crime Shtick (and after the NT issues this week I can't see the government having a whole lot of appetite for that without a lot of care) , he does support SSM though. A brief look at his parties website suggests that he's generally socially liberal and maybe even somewhat left wing in other areas. I will give credit that his tough on crime bit actually includes more thought than is usually given by those running on that platform though I still think parts of it are distinctly unwise.
One Nation aren't really a unified party at all, Hanson, Nationals with Teeth (which means an eclectic mix of left wing economics and right wing social policies) (WA), Climate Change Denier (QLD possibility), and god knows what else. I'll be impressed if they don't implode like PUP did. They are vaguely right - wing populist though which means overall I'd expect that eclectic mix of policy + a nice bit of racism and bigotry )
NXT: Depends on if NIck can hold his team together (I imagine he can , they are basically all ex-Lib wets this time , which means they have fairly similar philosophy and already rejected the most likely shipjump) even if he can't they'll probably still vote similarly for the same reason. This is probably the governments best hope of achieving sweet fuck all.
Lib Dems: Socially Liberal (+Guns) , Economically right wing
Christian Democrats: The natural home of Eric Abetz / Cory Bernadi. Basically plus this many to anything the government proposes except maybe Super changes.
Long Story short: The Government is going to need all but 1 cross bencher to pass legislation that neither Labor nor the Greens back. So they can't pass anything without both NXT and One Nation (lolz)
ETA2 - Hearing SA may end up being -1 Labor +1 Bob Day which would be a big win for the government. We'll know tomorrow.
So far this Senate appears to be worse than the previous for the Government. Xenophon is going to have so much pork he'll need to build a Scrooge McDuck bin to keep it in.
Running Total officially declared: 10 Lib 10 Lab 4 Grn 1 One Nation 1 Lambie
This looks like Turnbull is going to wish for the old Senate back.
ETA - ACT Done: 1 Lab 1 Lib (shocking)
Running Total: 11 Lib 11 Lab 4 Grn 1 One Nation 1 Lambie
At this point the Final Results are pretty much guaranteed to be:
30 Coalition 27 Labor 9 Greens 3 One Nation 3 Xenophon 2 Liberal Democrat (or +1 Liberal Christian Democrat (thanks NSW) and/or +1 One Nation (thanks Queensland)) 1 Hinch 1 Lambie
Which is going to be fascinating:
Lambie is left wing on a lot of issues they government really doesn't want someone left wing on right now (education, health, etc) and right wing on things they can either rely on Labor for anyway (Military) or don't want to touch with a 10' pole (Islam).
Hinch is a complete unknown beyond his tough on crime Shtick (and after the NT issues this week I can't see the government having a whole lot of appetite for that without a lot of care) , he does support SSM though. A brief look at his parties website suggests that he's generally socially liberal and maybe even somewhat left wing in other areas. I will give credit that his tough on crime bit actually includes more thought than is usually given by those running on that platform though I still think parts of it are distinctly unwise.
One Nation aren't really a unified party at all, Hanson, Nationals with Teeth (which means an eclectic mix of left wing economics and right wing social policies) (WA), Climate Change Denier (QLD possibility), and god knows what else. I'll be impressed if they don't implode like PUP did. They are vaguely right - wing populist though which means overall I'd expect that eclectic mix of policy + a nice bit of racism and bigotry )
NXT: Depends on if NIck can hold his team together (I imagine he can , they are basically all ex-Lib wets this time , which means they have fairly similar philosophy and already rejected the most likely shipjump) even if he can't they'll probably still vote similarly for the same reason. This is probably the governments best hope of achieving sweet fuck all.
Lib Dems: Socially Liberal (+Guns) , Economically right wing
Christian Democrats: The natural home of Eric Abetz / Cory Bernadi. Basically plus this many to anything the government proposes except maybe Super changes.
Long Story short: The Government is going to need all but 1 cross bencher to pass legislation that neither Labor nor the Greens back. So they can't pass anything without both NXT and One Nation (lolz)
ETA2 - Hearing SA may end up being -1 Labor +1 Bob Day which would be a big win for the government. We'll know tomorrow.
bobnowhere
Member
Looking at the ACT count pdf, it looks like 68 people voted below the line 1. Katy Gallager (ALP) and then 2. Zed Seselja (Lib). No idea what those people were thinking.
If Labor only get 3 in SA that will be disappointing but even one extra FF won't allow Malcolm to bypass ONP, haha!
Anyway in the NT 2pp CLP 36 (-20) ALP 64 (+20) from the last territory election. Looks like a nail-biter.
If Labor only get 3 in SA that will be disappointing but even one extra FF won't allow Malcolm to bypass ONP, haha!
Anyway in the NT 2pp CLP 36 (-20) ALP 64 (+20) from the last territory election. Looks like a nail-biter.
Elaugaufein
Member
Re: ACT
Labor voters who really hate the Greens ? Since Gallager was certain to get elected first in the ACT it makes sense to then transfer the vote to the next most likely candidate (Zed) to make sure that he gets it before the exhaust could theoretically favor the Greens candidate (who would have got excluded after the second ALP candidate) . The Greens vote and (ALP + Greens) vote in the ACT isn't remotely strong enough to make that a logical choice (Hobbs finished with half of Zed's votes at the point Zed was elected and even assuming an (extremely generous) 80% vote transfer rate that would have only increased by ~8000 votes if the 2nd ALP candidate had gotten excluded before Zed's quota was reached ) though but voting decisions are frequently not completely rational. If the ACT added a 3rd seat though it'd basically automatically go to the Greens (which is pretty much a guarantee that no one is going to propose given the ACT full statehood any time soon).
Re: NT
That pollster has problems (they vastly over-predicted the Labor swing in NT at Federal) and only seem to have surveyed Darwin (which is somewhat problematic because Labor is far stronger there than elsewhere). The CLP will probably get eaten alive in Darwin this time (but they have few seats to lose). And several ex-CLP members in regional areas now sit as Independents (and are likely to hold their seats). And many of the seats Labor needs to win back will have sophomore surge effects for the CLP. Labor only needs to take 3 of the CLP seats to be the largest party, but I'm not familiar enough with the NT to know how the ex-CLP Indeps are likely to vote on that (there's as many Indeps as Labor due to the CLP implosions). I suspect Labor needs to get at least 10 or 11 of the 25 seats in their own right to have much of a shot though given how much of the crossbench is conservative leaning. They've got 7. Still given the melt downs of the CLP and the youth in detention fiasco I'd still consider putting money on them.
On a different note:
Was speaking to my mother about the census. She said that people with no religion should fill in the box saying they had a religion to avoid Muslims being able to build more mosques. And was unswayed by me pointing out that Catholics and No Religion are each individually roughly 10 times the size of the Muslim group in Australia.
Taking advantage of fear is certainly an effective political technique even for distorting something as benign as census results.
bobnowhere
Member
The only thing I can put that part of the ACT vote down to is people just voting for the incumbents. Maybe they thought it was a test and they had to name the current members on the form to receive a free sausage sanga.
Actually the CLP has always performed better in Darwin and the ALP in more remote areas. Why? Who really knows, it's the Northern Territory! You would think it would be the other way. The main reason the CLP won last time was they told outrageous lies in aboriginal communities and won them with massive swings. Once the aboriginal CLP members found out they all left the party. Even before the last couple of weeks Giles was a dead man walking, now he probably won't even make it to the election in 4 weeks or so.
Actually the CLP has always performed better in Darwin and the ALP in more remote areas. Why? Who really knows, it's the Northern Territory! You would think it would be the other way. The main reason the CLP won last time was they told outrageous lies in aboriginal communities and won them with massive swings. Once the aboriginal CLP members found out they all left the party. Even before the last couple of weeks Giles was a dead man walking, now he probably won't even make it to the election in 4 weeks or so.
Elaugaufein
Member
Ahh. That last bit makes a significant difference too. It greatly reduces the numbers the ALP needs to win over a reasonable group of Independents. If its at the point where the ALP only need to tie or beat the CLP they only need 2-3 seats and should romp home pretty comfortably.
Elaugaufein
Member
More Senate Result Spam from Me
SA is done: 4 Lib 3 Lab 3 NXT 1 GRN 1 Family First (Bob Day)
Running Total: 15 Lib 14 Lab 5 Grn 3 NXT 1 One Nation 1 Lambie
Likely Outcome is now:
30 Coalition 26 Labor 9 Greens 3 One Nation 3 Xenophon 2 Liberal Democrat (or +1 Christian Democrat (thanks NSW) and/or +1 One Nation (thanks Queensland)) 1 FF 1 Hinch 1 Lambie
This now means Labor + Greens need 3 extra block.
Or to look at it another way the government still needs both One Nation and NXT to pass things, but can afford to lose 2 cross benchers (Hinch and Lambie can no longer form a voting block to block), the Lib Dems and Christian Democrats might again though and FF is likely to vote with the Christian Democrat in any case if they gets up but there's not enough there for a block).
For a joint sitting Government has 76 + 30 = 106 out of 226 with 114 required to pass. In terms of the ABCC we can count the Lib Dems and FF as effectively Liberals, McGowan's already voted yes on the ABCC so 110. Katter's already said no, Wilkie is almost certainly a no as well, Brandt is a no. I have no bloody idea where any of the others are likely to fall by the government needs to get One Nation and either Hinch and Lambie or Xenopohon.
Lambie's stance on the ABCC is fascinatingly erratic from a purely ideological perspective she wants to deregister the CFMEU but establish a federal ICAC in addition to the ABCC (may as well roll it in). I would expect One Nation to be likely to be anti-Union for reasons I don't understand (probably some historical Nats grudge against the Shearer's Union if I had to bet). Xenophon has signaled he's willing to vote for it but wants amendments which may be a deal breaker.
By my count the only way the ABCC makes it through as envisaged by Turnbull is if he gets One Nation and Hinch to agree to pass as it is. All other paths lead to amendments either explicitly or implicitly.
SA is done: 4 Lib 3 Lab 3 NXT 1 GRN 1 Family First (Bob Day)
Running Total: 15 Lib 14 Lab 5 Grn 3 NXT 1 One Nation 1 Lambie
Likely Outcome is now:
30 Coalition 26 Labor 9 Greens 3 One Nation 3 Xenophon 2 Liberal Democrat (or +1 Christian Democrat (thanks NSW) and/or +1 One Nation (thanks Queensland)) 1 FF 1 Hinch 1 Lambie
This now means Labor + Greens need 3 extra block.
Or to look at it another way the government still needs both One Nation and NXT to pass things, but can afford to lose 2 cross benchers (Hinch and Lambie can no longer form a voting block to block), the Lib Dems and Christian Democrats might again though and FF is likely to vote with the Christian Democrat in any case if they gets up but there's not enough there for a block).
For a joint sitting Government has 76 + 30 = 106 out of 226 with 114 required to pass. In terms of the ABCC we can count the Lib Dems and FF as effectively Liberals, McGowan's already voted yes on the ABCC so 110. Katter's already said no, Wilkie is almost certainly a no as well, Brandt is a no. I have no bloody idea where any of the others are likely to fall by the government needs to get One Nation and either Hinch and Lambie or Xenopohon.
Lambie's stance on the ABCC is fascinatingly erratic from a purely ideological perspective she wants to deregister the CFMEU but establish a federal ICAC in addition to the ABCC (may as well roll it in). I would expect One Nation to be likely to be anti-Union for reasons I don't understand (probably some historical Nats grudge against the Shearer's Union if I had to bet). Xenophon has signaled he's willing to vote for it but wants amendments which may be a deal breaker.
By my count the only way the ABCC makes it through as envisaged by Turnbull is if he gets One Nation and Hinch to agree to pass as it is. All other paths lead to amendments either explicitly or implicitly.
bobnowhere
Member
Emergency, emergency, there's an emergency going on!
As interest rates plummet a full 100 points under known emergency levels we turn to our fearless and eminently qualified money guy ScoMo.
I was bored
As someone that plays cs a lot and is interested in the pro scene and been exposed to the gambling aspects, the general understanding of it in the wider community is pretty terrible. Whole Xenophon has some really good points, I don't think he understands exactly what is going on. In particular how things are rapidly changing as of a couple weeks ago with the Valve cease and desists.
Emergency, emergency, there's an emergency going on!
As interest rates plummet a full 100 points under known emergency levels we turn to our fearless and eminently qualified money guy ScoMo.
I was bored
This is East Asia and the Eurozone's (primarily Germany's) fault. There isn't much the RBA or the government can do unfortunately.
Elaugaufein
Member
That wasn't serious economic criticism of current policy. It was mocking Morrison for declaring that an interest 1% above what we currently have an emergency.
No I get that, I just wanted to comment on it
bobnowhere
Member
We basically have pseudo-austerity already and are following the well worn path of right wing economies around the world, straight to the bottom. Now is the time to invest in productivity improving infrastructure and invest in science and technology. So what are we doing? Desperately trying to squeeze the last drops out of the coal industry, socialising the costs, and instituting a massive long term capital productivity suck on the economy while those that know better are blaming only labor productivity and trying to drive down wages.
On a brighter note? It turns out Barnaby was completely full of it when he said noping Rudd was a cabinet decision, it went 11-10 in favour of endorsing him and Turnbull made a "captain's call." I reckon by Christmas the only captain's calls Turnbull will be making are on his yacht as he sails away forcibly into retirement.
One month in and already two disasters solely of their own making.
On a brighter note? It turns out Barnaby was completely full of it when he said noping Rudd was a cabinet decision, it went 11-10 in favour of endorsing him and Turnbull made a "captain's call." I reckon by Christmas the only captain's calls Turnbull will be making are on his yacht as he sails away forcibly into retirement.
One month in and already two disasters solely of their own making.
Yea we should be investing in these things, you're right. But even if we did it wouldn't give us a payout for decades. What we're seeing now is the comeuppance from 15 wasted years from both LNP and ALP. 98-13 without further reform undertaken that needed to be done.
bobnowhere
Member
There was his little thing called the NBN that had the potential to by transformational. Sadly the born-to-rulers decided that everything the ALP did had to be bad by default so we now have the half-arsed excuse for an NBN and all the long term problems put off into the never-never.
The thing is, Turnbull has made some interesting plays when it comes to city infrastructure, his 30 minute cities while not even remotely original, Albo got there first, is very promising thinking and desperately needed. Australia has some of, if not the worst, town planning in the world. We jam the vast majority of the population into larger and larger cities and just hope it will work out.
The two things we need are telecommuting and more efficient transport systems. Now a socialised high speed broadband network would have taken care of the first and more public transport and even self-driving car networks could take care of the 2nd. But what do we have? A telecommunications system that can't even cope with the latest TV series drop on Netflix and more unprofitable toll roads from rent seeking companies subsidised by the populace.
I for one can't wait till the east coast is name Mega City 1 and we all commute 9 hours a day to our part time casualised jobs making innovative phone apps.
I'm mainly blaming Howard here. NBN should have been built under his watch. Although I think the ALP deserve some blame for their incompetence allowing their good work in governance to be undone by factional infighting.
Lol
Elaugaufein
Member
Also this is literally a work of art: http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/articl...fighting-utterly-ruining-ambiance-poetry-slam
ETA - Expect Vic Senate around 2:30 - 3:00pm and Queensland at ~9am tomorrow.
Howard was never going to build an NBN after the Telstra privatisation (or before it either because it would have delayed it into a period he couldn't be certain he'd be in government for). It would have made that disaster even more disastrous. Though on the bright side 20 years later Telstra is being forced to improve by Market Forces. Shame about those 20 lost years.
ETA - Expect Vic Senate around 2:30 - 3:00pm and Queensland at ~9am tomorrow.
Howard was never going to build an NBN after the Telstra privatisation (or before it either because it would have delayed it into a period he couldn't be certain he'd be in government for). It would have made that disaster even more disastrous. Though on the bright side 20 years later Telstra is being forced to improve by Market Forces. Shame about those 20 lost years.
Privatisation is bad short-term but good long-term policy, generally. Just like Medibank won't help us in the short-term. I still think Telstra could be improved upon though, market forces usually aren't enough for infrastructure.
Elaugaufein
Member
It's not infrastructure exactly it's that infrastructure on the scale requiring Federal governments to establish it (even if indirectly in public private partnerships) are effectively Natural Monopolies. Many of them are actual Natural Monopolies since they are dependent on occupying a particular physical space to serve their purposes (or the external costs of demonopolizing them (cables and pipes everywhere) is to high. Telstra is only feeling pressured after 20 years because cell towers are relatively less monopoly like than telephone cable if it hadn't been for that they'd still be fat and lazy despite regulation preventing them treating their infrastructure as a complete monopoly.
- Status