bobnowhere
Member
I hope you can show empirical evidence of these statements!
-
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
I hope you can show empirical evidence of these statements!
Isnt it always?
D.Lo
Member
Smart person: "Difficult, nuanced answer to a complex issue"
Audience: jeers
Pundit pushing some agenda: "I think we should all have freedom and children are the future and we should all be accepting"
Audience: Big Bang Theory-audience level applause
I still remember Richard Dawkins being on there and he was baffled at how idiotic the crowd was. I remember him repeatedly asking "why is everybody laughing?".
He also had to go up against George Pell, so between Pell, Jones and the audience it was probably hard to figure out who needed primary school level explanations.
Elaugaufein
Member
To be fair the difference between a difficult nuanced answer and cowardly obeisance to political expedience is pretty much impossible to tell without either hindsight or an in depth knowledge of the political circumstances of the commenter. See also: Nauru , Manus, National Security, Gillard's position on SSM. These are all complex issues , the difficult nuanced answers have turned out to be little more than sophistry that have done little but encourage the worst impulses of our society.
So PNG are forcing the closure of Manus Island after discussions with Dutton.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...tralia-and-papua-new-guinea-agree?CMP=soc_568
I genuinely wonder where these people will go.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...tralia-and-papua-new-guinea-agree?CMP=soc_568
I genuinely wonder where these people will go.
#bringthemhere
Like that will happen. Probably just give cambodia some more money to take em.
Dutton says they won't come to Australia. Will either settle in PNG, return to country of origin or to a 'third country' to be negotiated. Said the Australia would assist PNG in settlement costs but there would ultimately be a financial saving to Australia.
Well that's good, I was worried it was going to cost us. Phew.
Well that's good, I was worried it was going to cost us. Phew.
30yearsofhurt
Member
As long as no fair dinkum Australian Dollars are harmed by dirty foreigners that's a win eh?
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Elaugaufein
Member
This photo is great:
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article...cate-halts-turnbulls-national-economic-policy
The thing is the Coalition can't. It doesn't matter how horrific the treatment is. They've made it a matter of moral principle to do offshore detention. In fact the worse the treatment the less ability they have to close them, since it would abandon their moral cover and require a true reconciling of the horror done in the name of a 'greater good' that they'd be implicit admitting was a lie. It's ironically the ALPs more divided internal position that would allow them to act, despite having restarted it, because it allows them to claim moral principle either way (yes we wanted to stop the deaths at sea but we didn't want this horror*).
* Something of a partial truth, the horror was completely intended if probably not on the scale it has occurred under the Coalitions watch, because it's purpose was to win the votes of people who think refugees should be punished for being 'illegal immigrants'. But still far more of an ability to walk back the line than the Coalition has.
Aarglefarg
Member
Just fucking pass marriage equality yourselves, no plebiscite, this year. Get it over and done with.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...arriage-plebiscite-delay-20160821-gqxke3.html
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...arriage-plebiscite-delay-20160821-gqxke3.html
Elaugaufein
Member
It probably won't happen next year either. Unless Labor or the Greens decide to support this it's not passing the Senate and I'm not even confident it'll pass the House without Labor support , there's more than enough Bernadi Liberals in the Lower House for enough to go rogue to stop the Plebiscite passing even with pretty much all independents except Katter indicating SSM support.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...mpts-to-derail-un-plan-to-ban-nuclear-weapons
Have to say, I'm quite surprised by this.
Have to say, I'm quite surprised by this.
Elaugaufein
Member
Why ? Being a US proxy is like 75% of our international policy in every sphere.
bobnowhere
Member
It's pretty funny they tried to hide behind the whole "it's only a hollow gesture" when it's clear we just want nuclear protection from the USA and have stated so in the recent past.
Imagine if Australia's foreign policy wasn't dictated to by seeking a convenient balance between Chinese trade and US military treaties.
Well we tend to be anti nuclear. Well except where it gets in tne way of exporting uranium.
bobnowhere
Member
Yet another thing the Kiwi's seem to do better than us.
Candescence
Member
A quick reminder why the Australian Classification Board needs to be shut down in favor an independent non-government agency that has no legal powers over media. Seriously, a government-run classification board that can ban media for arbitrary reasons should not exist.
Elaugaufein
Member
But who will think of the children ?
More seriously while I agree the Classification board is completely useless even at reflecting community expectations (because the senior members are more reflective of the local P&C in Northern Sydney than the community) I do think we should probably have some kind of legal method to ban things like child sexual abuse material and selling 18+ material to minors so you'd still need to retain some government power.
Candescence
Member
Neither of those things are a remotely convincing argument for a government-run classification board that can ban media based on content, though. The ESRB in the US works fine, as does PEGI in Europe (some countries make it legally mandatory, but that's about it). Not to mention mobile games have been ignoring established classification systems for ages (and governments have done absolutely nothing to change that despite some whining about it), child porn isn't exactly being openly distributed, and kids acquiring 18+ games is really more to do with shitty parenting than anything else.
I'm fine with mandatory age ratings, and blatantly illegal content is already barred and not exactly publicly and openly distributed, but other than that, the classification board is horrendously out of date, even after the R18+ rating for games was introduced, I'm honestly convinced that it was only introduced to make people shut up about it.
It's fairly frustrating as a game designer who eventually wants to push boundaries on sexual content in a meaningful fashion.
Elaugaufein
Member
Wasn't actually advocating for the ACB or anything like it, just pointing out there's some functions it performs that couldn't devolve to non-regulatory bodies. I don't really think the ACB needs to be privatized either if it lacked its regulatory authority but it wouldn't really hurt. It's in a pretty confused place where it charges money for classifications while theoretically providing a public service.
Elaugaufein
Member
This thread is dead. So lets see if I can get some posting going.
One of the reasonably common Labor opinions of the Greens voter is that they'd be Liberal voters without the Greens and that they'd never vote Labor.
As far as I can tell this proposition not only doesn't hold up to scrutiny , it's also not in Labor's interests to get the idea embedded. So why does it keep showing up ?
To address the first point: Greens preferences go to Labor at 3 or 4 times what they go to the Coalition. Labor has generally not made contention that these voters are too dim to understand preferential voting , ergo in the absence of the Greens most of these people vote Labor (which is not to say that there are no people fitting the hypothesis, since 20-25℅ of Greens voter do go to the Liberals on preferences but this is about the same split as happens with Labor votes in the seats these analyses are most focused on.).
For the second: It makes no sense for Labor to embed this idea. If it was true the ALP is well and truly fscked: if you attribute all Greens votes to the Liberals / Nationals, Labor would lose enough seats that it'd be incredibly rare they could form government and their chance of even being able to block in the Senate would approach 0 (let alone control it). It's basically a concession that Labor is done and dusted. (To put things in perspective if you remove the ~7% of Green preferences that go to Labor and add them to the Liberals, Labor is at 44% and the LNP at 56% , which is close to Labors worst performance ever at a poll. They'd need the equivalent of 57% 2PP to hold government, which has happened to anyone approximately twice since our modern voting system was introduced).
So given that there doesn't seem to be much poltical or logical basis to this claim why does it keep showing up?
One of the reasonably common Labor opinions of the Greens voter is that they'd be Liberal voters without the Greens and that they'd never vote Labor.
As far as I can tell this proposition not only doesn't hold up to scrutiny , it's also not in Labor's interests to get the idea embedded. So why does it keep showing up ?
To address the first point: Greens preferences go to Labor at 3 or 4 times what they go to the Coalition. Labor has generally not made contention that these voters are too dim to understand preferential voting , ergo in the absence of the Greens most of these people vote Labor (which is not to say that there are no people fitting the hypothesis, since 20-25℅ of Greens voter do go to the Liberals on preferences but this is about the same split as happens with Labor votes in the seats these analyses are most focused on.).
For the second: It makes no sense for Labor to embed this idea. If it was true the ALP is well and truly fscked: if you attribute all Greens votes to the Liberals / Nationals, Labor would lose enough seats that it'd be incredibly rare they could form government and their chance of even being able to block in the Senate would approach 0 (let alone control it). It's basically a concession that Labor is done and dusted. (To put things in perspective if you remove the ~7% of Green preferences that go to Labor and add them to the Liberals, Labor is at 44% and the LNP at 56% , which is close to Labors worst performance ever at a poll. They'd need the equivalent of 57% 2PP to hold government, which has happened to anyone approximately twice since our modern voting system was introduced).
So given that there doesn't seem to be much poltical or logical basis to this claim why does it keep showing up?
D.Lo
Member
Yeah it seems pretty dumb.
Greens voters are clearly a sort of Labor voter block faction. Apart from two fringes of hard-left loony types (legalise pot, tie yourself to boats etc) and Lib-types with a social conscience who irrationaly hate Labor (probably because their parents did?), Greens voters are all Labor-left type voters, and if there were no Greens they'd all go to Labor.
If the Greens has better discipline (keep their sitting members nutty pet projects and city focus off the platform and focus on their core platforms and try and speak to rural voters) they'd be on track for an eventual coalition with Labor surely. Labor wouldn't like it but I think the Greens could get 20% if they got their head out of their arse and they'd have to since neither could govern on their own in that scenario.
Elaugaufein
Member
Don't think so. It's more of a Libertarian/ Social Left thing. Though I think a fair chunk of the current Social Left is actually pretty heavily in favour of authoritarian states as long as it's their power it's embedding (though I'm pretty sure that's also not how they see it) so it's increasingly just a Libertarian thing.
I think you could describe this block as affluent types with an environmental conscience rather than a social conscience. "Class does not exist but saving the planet is important" would be a fairly common point of view. No reason for these people to vote Labor.
Am I wrong in thinking even the more authoritarian left would be more likely to be in favour of it than the authoritarian right? As a voting issue it's definitely libertarian, regardless of right or left.
Candescence
Member
And Scott Morrison accuses young people of ruining the budget by being 'entitled' when it's really corporations and millionaires he should be going after and that pensions are the main welfare problem, not under-60s.
To be fair, legalizing softer drugs is an increasingly popular idea for various reasons. Pot isn't exactly worse in terms of inhibition than alcohol, and it sure as hell isn't as harmful as fucking tobacco.
That, and the drug war is increasingly proving to be bullshit, so we'll eventually see decriminalisation and harm reduction measures implemented, it's just that the Very Serious People keep arguing that harm reduction makes a specific problem worse, when it's shown in virtually every instance (drugs harm reduction, car seat belts, etc) that this reasoning has no basis in reality.
To be fair, legalizing softer drugs is an increasingly popular idea for various reasons. Pot isn't exactly worse in terms of inhibition than alcohol, and it sure as hell isn't as harmful as fucking tobacco.
That, and the drug war is increasingly proving to be bullshit, so we'll eventually see decriminalisation and harm reduction measures implemented, it's just that the Very Serious People keep arguing that harm reduction makes a specific problem worse, when it's shown in virtually every instance (drugs harm reduction, car seat belts, etc) that this reasoning has no basis in reality.
Elaugaufein
Member
It certainly appears you're correct, the authoritarian social left is generally indifferent (its not an issue they care about , beyond perhaps taking a snipe at anyone who cares about it being a privileged straight White male when there's all these other issues that make the unquestionable exercise of stage power a good thing). The authoritarian right are actively hostile because it's a break from existing social mores.
ETA-
Initially had no thoughts on this but have pondered a bit more.
To some of these people class as it's generally envisioned is an alien concept. They don't really fit in the classical structure because the concept of professionals didn't really exist at the time (except maybe the intelligentsia but the connotations are different). These people don't control capital, perform management or directly produce physical goods. Nor are they at the mercy of managers or capital the way workers are. Though given the increasing outsourcing of these fields and use of special skilled visas in these fields that may change.
D.Lo
Member
No, but it is if you make it the #1 issue, and in some cases th only issue they care about at all.
Back when I used to go to protests (eg GWB and Dick Cheny's visits) there would always be some dreaddlocked pro-green protestors with weed signs. It's like 'dudes this is not a general protest about whatever is important to you, it is a specific protest about specific isues (at that time, those politicians not being welcome and freeing David Hicks).
Agree with that, but they may also care about humanitarian stuff (eg refugees, foreign aid), just not local social issues (because daddy got me a job but I studied hard at uni so it was all because of my hard work why don't poor people just get connections like mine that are invisible to me? types)
Elaugaufein
Member
Thats just odd. Might have to do with her apparently being denied access to the immigration detention centres ? But if that's the case I wouldn't expect the framing to be forced. I also have doubts that any other Green Senator would be better received.
ETA- Went to McKim. Weird. He's got Attorney General too which is particularly odd given he doesn't seem to be a lawyer while Bandt was. Not sure what's going on there at all.
ETA2 - Jacquie Lambie continues to basically be Labor on economics too. That's not looking great for budget to make it through the Senate.
ETA3 - Wow. The portfolio stripping made Van Badham imply something nice about a Green. Not a thing one expects to see.
It's definitely changing, but it'll be a generation or two before it's politically meaningful.
True.
And really Morrison...gst isnt a tax now? And a tax that people have to pay that companies get handouts for? And companies dont pay 30%, its more like 19% after franking credits.
What a tool.
Elaugaufein
Member
Today is irony day.
The Australian complains that media domination denies people a say: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...e/news-story/73d9035a3105eade35cf120da7644b11
ETA- This is actually just a Letter but the Australian chose to put it at the top and make it the title.
WA Liberal premier complains about Business messing in government (specifically trying to get him rolled because be might lost the next election). In good news for our sanity his criticism sounded kinda fascist so we are probably still in the right reality.
The Australian complains that media domination denies people a say: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...e/news-story/73d9035a3105eade35cf120da7644b11
ETA- This is actually just a Letter but the Australian chose to put it at the top and make it the title.
WA Liberal premier complains about Business messing in government (specifically trying to get him rolled because be might lost the next election). In good news for our sanity his criticism sounded kinda fascist so we are probably still in the right reality.
I live in SA, I find it unbelievably difficult to find work......my last paid job was to fly out of the country and go to the UK to help with the recent referendum.
Elaugaufein
Member
Have you considered trying to get a staff job in a politicians office /branch ? You actually have successful campaign experience for a nation wide referendum.
Unfortunately, I came back to the reality that the Libs had lost a lot of seats both in the House and the Senate, which meant that more senior people were in high supply after losing their jobs.
Elaugaufein
Member
Interesting. I would have generally expected senior Lib staff to spend time Lobbying / on Boards / Think Tanks / Business while staff needs were down rather than crowd out the entry level.
Elaugaufein
Member
Welp. Something interesting. Queensland LNP is running preferencing PHON up the flag pole and seeing who salutes. Looks more like testing the waters than a commitment, you've got the Party chair saying one thing and Parliamentary leader being much more circumspect. Seems like they are gauging if potential votes lost in Brisbane and the Gold Coast are worth the gains in other places.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Hey folks; I'm giving a lecture on comparative voting laws around the world soon. One of the sections is on compulsory voting. I remember there being a comedian or performance artist in Australia who kept coming up with progressively more insane protests against compulsory voting. I seem to remember him flying away in a hot air balloon once, and maybe having himself declared legally dead on TV to avoid voting another time. The problem is I can't remember the guy's name. I'd like to show a video clip. Am I crazy? If not, anyone know the guy's name? All the Google results I get are pissing matches about whether Bernie would win in the US if voting was compulsory.
- Status