-
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 |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
few things i detest more than gambling so no
I must admit I don't punt on elections either but I frankly find it hard to believe Labor in Queensland could achieve the sort of uniform swing needed to win.
Even if the polls show 50/50.
Also thanks for the link wonzo.
yeah theres no way labor will win the qld election, the next one almost certainly barring any major fuckups
thanks
no probs
Elaugaufein
Member
Its not really uniform swings you need though, the Country/Regional seats held formerly by the Nationals are basically completely unwinnable by the ALP (the ALP isn't going to win the seat I grew up in or the one I currently live in, any time in the next 20 years at least), you'd be better off trading huge swings against the ALP in those seats for smaller positive swings in actual marginal seats. The best outcome for the ALP is that Katter takes those seats (PUP has pretty much no chance of taking them either, though they might be able to take a Sunshine Coast seat) and that's really unlikely, he made the mistake of preference Labor over the Libs/Nats at the last election which basically means his former vote base regard him as a traitor.
I agree that 50/50 isn't going to win Labor this, especially not given the tendency to give one term governments a second shot and to vote for the incumbent if things look close. The ALP also gets hurt more by OPV than the LNP since there's no longer seats with both Liberal and National candidates but there's seats with Labor and Green. Basically the best the ALP can hope for is Katter and the PUP holding balance of power and the chances are better than even they'd back the LNP.
bobnowhere
Member
ABC24 getting in early
Dastardly Jerks
Banned
Queenslanders are a special breed.
Clive Palmer to be the next premier.
Clive Palmer to be the next premier.
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...ould-be-revisited-following-attacks-in-france
ah Cory, you opportunistic asshole.
ah Cory, you opportunistic asshole.
Elaugaufein
Member
I'm still not sure that insulting someone should be legally actionable , there were other changes that I didn't agree with but I think that may not actually be a bad one. Depending on what exactly is meant by humiliating someone maybe that too.
This is pretty scummy and opportunistic though, no argument there but when aren't these things ? You'll probably get someone suggesting its imperative to expand ASIOs powers as a result too (even though I'm pretty sure an expansion of state surveillance is the last thing a deliberately offensive publication would want),the Republicans already have.
This is pretty scummy and opportunistic though, no argument there but when aren't these things ? You'll probably get someone suggesting its imperative to expand ASIOs powers as a result too (even though I'm pretty sure an expansion of state surveillance is the last thing a deliberately offensive publication would want),the Republicans already have.
Hate speech laws are stupid.
With the bolt example, what he said was dumb, kind of racist. But why should he be fined?
It's like playing whack a mole for bad words. Education is the only answer to racism and hate, not a fine. The freedom to say things should be sacrosanct, even stupid things. The only limit should be direct incitements to violence or harm.
Racism won't die because of a fine, nor will homophobia. And it's better to have this stuff out in the open so it can be fought through argument and debate, rather than festering away out of sight.
Although I think that there may be room for hate crimes legislation targeting violence, but even there it seems slightly superfluous.
With the bolt example, what he said was dumb, kind of racist. But why should he be fined?
It's like playing whack a mole for bad words. Education is the only answer to racism and hate, not a fine. The freedom to say things should be sacrosanct, even stupid things. The only limit should be direct incitements to violence or harm.
Racism won't die because of a fine, nor will homophobia. And it's better to have this stuff out in the open so it can be fought through argument and debate, rather than festering away out of sight.
Although I think that there may be room for hate crimes legislation targeting violence, but even there it seems slightly superfluous.
I think he was fined because he didn't do in good faith research to attempt to back up his claims
I see what you mean, and it's something I go back and forth on a lot, but I honestly do think the Bolt case was relatively unambiguous because he was presenting a lot of things as facts that simply weren't the case, ignoring evidence contrary to his primary argument and basically doing as poor a case of journalism as you could imagine. Now whether or not an opinion columnist is equivalent to a fully-fledged journalist is a bit up in the air, but it does seem that if you're going to mount your soapbox you should at least try and get your facts straight, and there should be consequences if you don't.*
*ideally the consequences would be that nobody listens to your bullshit, but since most people get their information from the media rather than independently cross-checking what the media presents to them, this can prove difficult
I see what you mean, and it's something I go back and forth on a lot, but I honestly do think the Bolt case was relatively unambiguous because he was presenting a lot of things as facts that simply weren't the case, ignoring evidence contrary to his primary argument and basically doing as poor a case of journalism as you could imagine. Now whether or not an opinion columnist is equivalent to a fully-fledged journalist is a bit up in the air, but it does seem that if you're going to mount your soapbox you should at least try and get your facts straight, and there should be consequences if you don't.*
*ideally the consequences would be that nobody listens to your bullshit, but since most people get their information from the media rather than independently cross-checking what the media presents to them, this can prove difficult
Elaugaufein
Member
Deliberately misrepresenting things as facts that aren't facts is something that I do think should be actionable, so we probably don't disagree on that case. Though I do acknowledge that judgement of facts has to be pretty well defined to stop it being used for political purposes.
It's good to know that in times of crisis we can always count on the wisdom of Rupert Murdoch's twitter account.
https://mobile.twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/553734788881076225
What a scumbag....
https://mobile.twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/553734788881076225
What a scumbag....
It should be actionable under defamation. For all intents and purposes, a defamation case against Bolt would have been pretty open and shut, and the remedies available would have been very similar. That wasn't the point though, because the plaintiffs didn't actually ask for a remedy. Which is a fairly good tactical decision because their lawyers probably knew it would've been thrown out on appeal, meaning that an appeal would have been a waste of money because nothing actually happened as a consequence apart from the Court saying, "Bolt, you're a naughty boy."
The Court did talk about misrepresentations and falsehoods, which is absolutely true in Bolt's case, but I think the Court erred in that they didn't actually look at the political underlying message that Bolt was trying to convey in a hopeless manner, which is; "If we are going to create a separate class in our society and afford them certain privileges, then we should be able to scrutinise the requirements for membership of that class." At least that was the underlying message in amongst his fire and brimstone and ad hominems, it's a valid point and one we should be discussing.
Regardless, I don't think it will happen again, and if it did chances are it would go to the High Court where I hazard to guess they'd be severely limited.
Internet speeds: Australia ranks 44th, study cites direction of NBN as part of problem
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-12/australian-internet-speeds-rank-44th-in-the-world/6012570
Bloody Howard.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-12/australian-internet-speeds-rank-44th-in-the-world/6012570
Bloody Howard.
I'm not really sure how the NBN would be part of the problem. And you know...starting with regional areas should actually bring the average speed up quicker as they tend to be stuck on the shittiest connections.
That said, my suburbs NBN connection got delayed 6 months or so by Turnbull following the election.
Elaugaufein
Member
There's 2 reasons:
1) The ISPs sit on improving their network while the NBN rolls out (lets be honest they'll sit on improving their network for a strong breeze since Telstra and Optus pretty much have a duopoly and Telstra has the much stronger hand in that).
2) The NBN is itself outdated technology that means its rollout won't necessarily improve our rank, if by the time its rolled out its equal to or inferior to the technology required to be 44th.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-13/wilson-calls-for-discrimination-law-changes/6013946
Dont think thats true. It would be hard to argue that the cartoons:
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
Religion is specifically exempt from this.
Certainly time is an issue. The speed of the rollout now I'm not sure what the big bottleneck is. Organisational slowness? Lack of resources? lack of staff/companies that can perform the rollout activities? Telstra dragging its feet in giving folks access to conduits? all of the above?
As for outdatedness, Certainly the currrent hybrid solution does make that messier, though the GB/100MB fibre side should be good for a good while. Even the legacy cable seems good given theres now gigabit connections running over that hardware.
Point 1 does raise an issue though it how its all measured. And really how ISPs interface with the NBN.
shanshan310
Member
So my household is currently receiving 10 letters a day from Cambell Newman about the election. One flyer and one sealed letter for every voting person in my household, every day. We have been hording them up to send back after election day. This is ridiculous. What a waste of paper.
Hell, you can even look at 18D the next section over
I mean jesus fuck Tim Wilson get a grip
What do you expect given his history. I still feel a little sick about the fact that he would be made Human Rights Commissioner.
Hey now, the position was entirely a merit based placement based on the merit of his merits.
I dont get why, in the public service for instance, for the lower tiers, its all about merits based hiring, but then when it gets to the political appointments, even the heads of departments... not so much.
Fortunately our High Court has evaded this sort of fate, and the one that has befallen the SC in the US.
Maybe all appointments should be 2/3 majority of both houses >.<
I dont get why, in the public service for instance, for the lower tiers, its all about merits based hiring, but then when it gets to the political appointments, even the heads of departments... not so much.
Fortunately our High Court has evaded this sort of fate, and the one that has befallen the SC in the US.
Maybe all appointments should be 2/3 majority of both houses >.<
roosters93
Member
Was going to post this anyway but it now seems especially timely given the talk on this page. Found it mildly interesting when my fb friend posted about the revival of anti section 18c sentiment only for the man himself to reply
This all screams opportunism, but I find it hard to decide whether he genuinely believes what he's saying or is merely attempting to justify the opportunism.
This all screams opportunism, but I find it hard to decide whether he genuinely believes what he's saying or is merely attempting to justify the opportunism.
Does he realise it is actually possible to hold a position between "you shouldn't die for insult" and "you should get locked up for breach of censorship laws" and still be coherent
is he opposed to the state secrets act too? I mean that's stifling freedom of expression after all
is he opposed to the state secrets act too? I mean that's stifling freedom of expression after all
Elaugaufein
Member
There are strains of libertarianism that would object to the state secrets act (though generally on accountability grounds rather than expression). I don't think those arguments are entirely without merit either. There are undeniably things that states must keep secret to operate in the world (because all states are self-interested and convinced that everyone else is self interested and that this is the true and correct course of the world) but its also undeniable that states dramatically overuse these things: both in terms of duration of secrecy and the volume of information to which it is applied. I have very little doubt that states could function just fine with a serious pruning back of how long things remain secret and what qualifies as secret. A lot of this stuff remains secret purely to prevent embarrassment or public backlash, which frankly is better prevented by not doing those things in the first place unless you can make a convincing case for why they had to be done.
Heys, Im also friends with Facebook poster! Was quite the post.
Wilson's being opportunistic. The metadata laws which have also been dragged back out by Brandis are far more invasive and chilling in there knock on effects to free speech. We're listening Tim! Too everything!
He's applying his own shittie interpretation of the racial discrimination act. The cartoons can't be published in Australia! In the real world every Australian media source has shown them without problem. Meanwhile in the utopian bastion of free speech that is the United States of America the corporate media has been self censoring the cartoons. MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, The Associated Press, The Wall St Journal, Reuters and even The New York Times have censored themselves.
He's applying his own shittie interpretation of the racial discrimination act. The cartoons can't be published in Australia! In the real world every Australian media source has shown them without problem. Meanwhile in the utopian bastion of free speech that is the United States of America the corporate media has been self censoring the cartoons. MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, The Associated Press, The Wall St Journal, Reuters and even The New York Times have censored themselves.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Shamelessly opportunistic, because even if the cartoons in question couldn't be published in Australia, so what? There is no logic to a thought process that goes "these people were illegally attacked for publishing their views," - "it's unlawful to publish those views in Australia," - "therefore the laws must be changed." As far as I can tell, neither Wilson nor Bernardi has made any substantive argument about why the cartoons would be unlawful in Australia and why that's a bad thing (you could say that the latter is covered by their blanket "no censorship" stance but we know they probably wouldn't be piping up now if the cartoons were outright vilification containing incitements to racial violence).
Given todays Terrorgraph piece, I guess tonights ACA will be a new Job Snob episode.
And how curious that said jobs don't seem to appear on any major local job site like seek, just on an obscure job site aimed at travellers.
And of course the whole $250 a day figure is total bullshit. $100 seems more likely.
And how curious that said jobs don't seem to appear on any major local job site like seek, just on an obscure job site aimed at travellers.
And of course the whole $250 a day figure is total bullshit. $100 seems more likely.
This has everything to do with a culture that discourages moving that far for work. That's the problem that needs to be tackled.
I know it does depend on the area but I have done fruit picking work before, $250 a day was a pipe dream for me back then. Finding these jobs are not easy either because they are never well advertised, I got mine through a friend already working at that farm.
FYI you can also gain assistance if you need to move far away to gain work if you are on unemployment benefits, in the form of a cash payout in the several thousands.
FYI you can also gain assistance if you need to move far away to gain work if you are on unemployment benefits, in the form of a cash payout in the several thousands.
If it was more substantial than a couple of months work, I might agree. But moving away from your whole social/support structure for two months work in a rural area is tough.
Certainly the jobs linked to in the screed was 21$ an hour with work normally being to lunchtime depending on weather. So unless they are picking midnight till midday, 250$ a day aint happening.
D.Lo
Member
They'll be paid 16.87 per hour plus 20% casual loading. Like $151 a day ($33k if annualised). Take out the PAYG and yeah maybe $120 a day?
Plus needing temporary accommodation at $50 a night in a dorm. Plus have to buy expensive food/eat out. Plus transportation costs to get there.
Yeah what bludgers.
If it was $250 it would be $65k a year, aka they'd be in the top 25% of Australian earners.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
According to who? The IPA? Scott Morrison? Concerned Retiree of Sylvania Waters?
Hahahahahahahaha.
I wonder if the Canadian rags have articles talking about how lazy their youth are compared to the fabulous work ethic of the Australians snapping up all the casual work on the mountains during the ski season.
I wouldn't be too surprised if a kickstarter for something like this got funded.
Yeah. A bit different for locals. And you know with this kind of work I'm surprised they have not all hit up the government for Work for the Dole people to do this.
Elaugaufein
Member
If I wasn't saving to buy an apartment , I'd seriously think about funding it myself. But if anyone does want to crowd source this , I'd definitely put in something.
Elaugaufein
Member
Welp. Went and voted today (Queensland). Not that it matters much in my electorate, I may as well send the Greens however much funding you get for a 1st preference vote and it'd have the same effect since the LNP will lose Gympie ~never.
The polls have been a real mess (50-50, Coalition, Labor) for Queensland since Christmas. The Courier Mail is running hit pieces on Labor and spruiking the LNP , I attempted to find someone surprised to get their opinion on the matter, but I couldn't find anyone who'd been living under a rock long enough.
Also the way the Ballot Paper is written its really easy to see why OPV tends to become 1st past the post. The instructions say to number your preferred choice 1 and then in a separate paragraph say you can optionally number as many candidates as you like in your preferred order. If it was written like Number as many candidates as you wish in order of preference, it would probably work out better.
The polls have been a real mess (50-50, Coalition, Labor) for Queensland since Christmas. The Courier Mail is running hit pieces on Labor and spruiking the LNP , I attempted to find someone surprised to get their opinion on the matter, but I couldn't find anyone who'd been living under a rock long enough.
Also the way the Ballot Paper is written its really easy to see why OPV tends to become 1st past the post. The instructions say to number your preferred choice 1 and then in a separate paragraph say you can optionally number as many candidates as you like in your preferred order. If it was written like Number as many candidates as you wish in order of preference, it would probably work out better.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked