lafiel am cry
-
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
lafiel am cry
It was the main one missing from the last couple of pages.
I suppose it was meant to be more the observation that it seems that the more far left people go, the more they're starting to resemble the far right in behavior, if not message, and that usually has the effect of pushing people back to Labor just because they're seen as "moderate".
bobnowhere
Member
Muad'Dib, Muad'Dib...
did someone fucking mention socialist alternative
like are they a fucking party outside of uni clubs
please someone tell me no
I don't wanna google this bullshit
edit: well fuck me its an actual party
this bullshit was kicked from our uni due to stunts like pulling the fire alarm
like are they a fucking party outside of uni clubs
please someone tell me no
I don't wanna google this bullshit
edit: well fuck me its an actual party
this bullshit was kicked from our uni due to stunts like pulling the fire alarm
Oh please.
Godwin is saying you resorted to a lazy comparison early in the piece. You compared people with One Nation members. In the late 1990s, the easy way to silence debate was to compare your opponent to Pauline Hanson. It also means you lost the debate.
You used the same tactic.
Saying you have made a lazy argument is in no way comparing you to a vile criminal, so take the nails out and get down off that cross you attached yourself to.
roosters93
Member
I think it's an observation that goes without saying isn't it
Of course once you approach the boundaries, of whatever end of the political spectrum, the behaviour will begin to resemble that of what was originally supposed to be the other. Extremism is extremism.
You see the same thing in the "middle" of the spectrum too. Que countless observations that it's getting harder and harder to differentiate Labor and the LNP.
We can be a Sensible Centrist Consensus™
I thought the political party went under a different name. They usually get about half a percentage of the vote every election.
I don't know about Melbourne Uni (my current one where they maintain a presence) but at La Trobe there was serious talk about banning them after they were accused of making anti-Semitic comments (and given how they act I 100% believe that is true).
Problem is though at La Trobe they actually had a reasonably large presence and banning them would probably cause even more problems.
You can take solace in the fact that a disproportionate amount of former SA members will become Liberal voters.
Ah! I just remembered a great Noam Chomsky video about this phenomena
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SewlKDMFR4
@Monash the club that represented them got deregistered
So they have no grounds to set up events, and have to pay for printing for all their propaganda out of their own pocket
Majority of the campus hate them because they are obnoxious, obtrusive and pull shitty stunts
I remember hearing that the Monash club was their biggest of all the uni's so that was probably a big blow to them.
And yeah the majority of both Melbourne and La Trobe hate them too, though at La Trobe they had some success in elections.
The student election party went under the name "left hook"
They didn't call themselves SA because 1) the club had been deregistered (student parties & clubs are separate, but it still really doesn't inspire confidence) and 2) everyone hates SA's guts
Voting occurs from monday-thursday
I got harassed on the first day of the week by them, before polls even opened
2nd day in they were banned from campus for harassing people
By the 3rd, the other 2 parties had bound together and were on an unofficial platform of "we don't care who you vote for, as long as its not left hook"
student elections are coming around again in a month or so :')
They didn't call themselves SA because 1) the club had been deregistered (student parties & clubs are separate, but it still really doesn't inspire confidence) and 2) everyone hates SA's guts
Voting occurs from monday-thursday
I got harassed on the first day of the week by them, before polls even opened
2nd day in they were banned from campus for harassing people
By the 3rd, the other 2 parties had bound together and were on an unofficial platform of "we don't care who you vote for, as long as its not left hook"
student elections are coming around again in a month or so :')
Quoi ?
Just watched that video, 13 minutes and he doesn't seem to be making any coherent argument.
Elaugaufein
Member
I didn't respond to the Greens policy thing because I wouldn't have been able to point to anything not listed on their website but they sent out an email today with this link: http://greens.org.au/safer-path I assume its new or more clearly stated, if anyone is still interested.
(For the record yeah I'm a member of the Greens, no I haven't made any of the physical meetings. I split my time between Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast and the day they hold meetings for my (Sunshine Coast) chapter is the day I'm travelling back from Brisbane. )
(For the record yeah I'm a member of the Greens, no I haven't made any of the physical meetings. I split my time between Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast and the day they hold meetings for my (Sunshine Coast) chapter is the day I'm travelling back from Brisbane. )
Candescence
Member
I've previously noted that I'm a member of the Progressives. We're building up policies through gathering proper evidence before the policies themselves come up for a vote, the policies that have been decided thus far have all been approved by a massive margin, so that's a good sign. I've proposed ideas for copyright reform on the forums, myself. There's plenty of time to establish a full suite of policies before the next election. The main challenge, I think, is informing the wider electorate that the party even exists, which the leaders are no doubt aware of.
In other news, Turnbull goes and cheekily undermines Abbot's ETS scare campaign.
In other news, Turnbull goes and cheekily undermines Abbot's ETS scare campaign.
bobnowhere
Member
Rubbery number concocted in Ron Boswell's Head so far on QandA:
I think he is on course to pass Alan Jones' bullshit/minute ratio from last week.
Should I mention that the ACT has some of the current highest investment in renewables and has the cheapest power in Australia and even went down this year.
- Power prices are going to go up 50% because of renewables
- Highest income tax in the world, soon to be over 50c in the dollar!
- Australia has the highest number of refugees in the world!
I think he is on course to pass Alan Jones' bullshit/minute ratio from last week.
Should I mention that the ACT has some of the current highest investment in renewables and has the cheapest power in Australia and even went down this year.
The video is definitely mislabeled but there are some interesting points about the similarities between vanguardism and neoconservativeism.
Looking at America a rather large number of neocons are former trotskyites.
.
Please tell me where the filter is that makes these images.
They all look amazing.
Yeah I have Canberra relatives who pay very little for power because of the solar panel subsidies. It's kind of amazing though it does sort of work as a giant middle class subsidy. I guess it's fine if we are burning less fossil fuels.
I would highly recommend that people check out the new CFMEU ad attacking the China Free Trade Agreement.
Google Deep Dream. There's a few websites that run it now for images, and if your computer is beefy enough/you have enough time, you can convert whole videos to it too.
Firstly I'm not from socialist alternative, and unless you are part of activist circles people like Arkys don't know how bad SALT actually are.
ICYMI, Philip Morris are suing Australia for plain packaging laws: https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/29064155/tobacco-giant-sues-australia/
This is possible because of a free trade agreement from 1993 with Hong Kong allows investor-state dispute settlement. Philip Morris restructured so they could be "owned" by Hong Kong, allowing themselves to sue Australia on these grounds.
Killing millions of people wasn't enough for Philip Morris, they're now gunning for democracy. They can eat a dick.
This is possible because of a free trade agreement from 1993 with Hong Kong allows investor-state dispute settlement. Philip Morris restructured so they could be "owned" by Hong Kong, allowing themselves to sue Australia on these grounds.
Killing millions of people wasn't enough for Philip Morris, they're now gunning for democracy. They can eat a dick.
I'd be so fucking angry if those scum won the case.
hopefully the alp stick to their push to de-ratify any isds free trade clauses when they win the next election
im sure the noeliberal keating obsessed goobers in the right will make sure that doesnt happen tho
Candescence
Member
Eh, fuck the free market. Unfettered capitalism is the worst kind of capitalism aside from crony capitalism, and cigs are one of those things that should have warning labels, we'd ban them altogether if it wasn't for the fact that prohibition doesn't work (not that this little fact stopped the war on drugs from happening). Shame governments won't regulate pokies much more tightly, though.
Well, it's party policy at this point, and Labor have made their distaste for ISDS known for quite some time. Hopefully they do actually get around to making good on that policy, because it'd pretty much kill the TPP. Most trade agreements are completely worthless, anyway.
Well, it's party policy at this point, and Labor have made their distaste for ISDS known for quite some time. Hopefully they do actually get around to making good on that policy, because it'd pretty much kill the TPP. Most trade agreements are completely worthless, anyway.
lol.
Well, this is a false dichotomy...Because I'm against plain-packaging, I must be pro-smoking!
It's a fair assumption. It seems more likely that you're against state regulation to reduce smoking generally, rather than you support state regulation to reduce smoking... except for this one in particular. Especially given your phrasing. And yes if you're against state regulation to reduce smoking, you are pro-smoking. We're talking about addictive poison, we should be on track to make selling that sort of good illegal. I don't think that's particularly controversial, even among free marketeers.
Why am I against it? Because I don't think it's an effective policy for achieving anything but the absolute mildest reduction in smoking rates...and comes at a fairly substantial regulatory cost. This, along with cigarette taxes, which went up in the same period is a cynical way of shaming the poorest and locking them into continued destitution. The poorest find it the most difficult to kick their habit and I don't think shaming them with giant posters of their potential fate and expropriating them until they can't afford anything else is an effective policy strategy.
The US, for all the flack they get, has a lower smoking rate amongst adults than we do and cigarettes there are far cheaper, and have the simplest warning on them. This tells me one thing, that there are other policy solutions, or other factors that are more effective than these measures.
Yes, there is also the issue that preventing companies selling items that are completely legal of their intellectual property and the ability to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Don't like the idea of cigarette companies from engaging in what is a totally legitimate business? (Yes, I know that cigarette companies are horrible but that doesn't change the fact that making cigarettes and selling them is legal) Cool. I understand. These products are toxic. Ban them. We have the power. If you don't want to ban them because of prohibition worries, severely restrict supply with the intent of a total ban within twenty years.
Speaking of cynical. Don't you support flat taxes above progressive taxes?
The latest data I can find puts us about the same (2012): http://www.wsj.com/news/interactive/RUSSMOKE20121016
I don't think we do have the power actually. I think this is a misunderstanding of what political power really is. Just because something is technically possible doesn't mean anyone is going to spend the political capital on implementing it. The best we can do is try to get the rates down as low as possible.
I'm aware that plain packaging does constitute "theft" of marketing assets, in the same sense that knowingly selling addictive poison constitutes "mass murder". Personally I'd be happy to compensate them for that theft after they revive all the people they killed. Which was 100 million people by the way. That would be a fair trade.
bobnowhere
Member
They really should have used comic sans as the font on the plain packaging. Smoking rates would have dropped through the floor.
For starters Australian smoking rates have seen the biggest decline year on year in our history.
http://www.afr.com/news/policy/heallth/smoking-rate-dives-after-plain-packaging-20140716-j1stw
And taxes on cigerettes are a good idea for two reasons. One is that there is evidence to show that it reduces rates of smoking and two is that it ensures that the costs to our health system which smoking cause is payed by those who actually impose the cost.
I understand that this is regressive but it is still IMO far more equitable than forcing everyone to pay more tax or cut spending in other areas just to pay for the health cost of smoking.
The fact that you mention the U.S is interesting for a number of reasons. The first is that U.S smoking rates aren't that much lower than Australia, in fact given drop that occurred after plain packaging I wouldn't be surprised if after this year the situation is reversed. It may already be the case since I didn't have figures for 2014.
Though I am surprised by the low smoking rates in America I'm not sure I understand why that is. In any case it is irrelevant because high taxes and plain packaging work.
I'm curious if you have any policy suggestions which might reduce smoking rates?
I would chalk it up to the old guard dying of cigarette effects (maybe something to do with health care access?)
And the rise of e-cigarette popularity the new generations
But thats just an unprofessional guess in the dark
No, you don't know that high taxes and plain packaging work. You can see that there's a correlation between the introduction of warnings and higher taxes (something that's been happening for a number of years) and lower rates of smoking.
The fact that the same trends have been occurring in the US (and other countries for that matter) who have introduced a vast array of different measures confounds the causative link you're trying to establish.
Also, there's a huge amount of debate regarding the input of taxes and the costs of the impacts...even in countries which have lower taxes. It's incredibly difficult to quantify the medical impacts on smoking, and there's even a lot of debate as to what constitutes the cost of smoking. For example, do we count the cost of someone who dies early for all the years they may have lived? Reports seem to vary wildly, on either side.
As for policies, I would lower (not abolish) the tax on cigarettes and merely reverse the packaging laws to the previous regulatory framework. Or ban them entirely.
The fact that the same trends have been occurring in the US (and other countries for that matter) who have introduced a vast array of different measures confounds the causative link you're trying to establish.
Also, there's a huge amount of debate regarding the input of taxes and the costs of the impacts...even in countries which have lower taxes. It's incredibly difficult to quantify the medical impacts on smoking, and there's even a lot of debate as to what constitutes the cost of smoking. For example, do we count the cost of someone who dies early for all the years they may have lived? Reports seem to vary wildly, on either side.
As for policies, I would lower (not abolish) the tax on cigarettes and merely reverse the packaging laws to the previous regulatory framework. Or ban them entirely.
Could be anything and I'd want to see some evidence before believing in any explanation.
How would that reduce smoking rates? Or do you suggest that it is not the concern of government?
I'll happily admit I don't have all the answers. I have zero love for cigarettes, I think the government is more than within its right to remove things from society that both addictive and toxic. Addictive substances have the ability to impact on your ability to make choices, so I don't really give two hoots about the government intervening from a moral standpoint....but in saying that I don't think they should go further than they need to in order to achieve their goal..especially when there are consequences for doing so.
It seems to me though, given what I've read so far that laws and regulations are not the best tools for reducing smoking rates, unless you want to prohibit its consumption entirely. I think that campaigns against smoking, the proliferation of evidence of the effects of smoking, changing attitudes and a general societal pressure to quit as well as improving widely accessible resources for managing and kicking smoking habits have helped far more than sin taxes and plain packaging in reducing smoking rates.
IPA talking notes
Candescence
Member
In other news, Peter Reith was in today's SMH opinion pages, pretty much dismissing Labor's immigration and ETS policies because "they'll do it worse than the Coalition" and "lol carbon tax", respectively. What a joke.
As a social smoker that really should quit, this would definitely work.
roosters93
Member
Why is that so?
Isn't this the case they lost in some other international court because they shifted their operations to Hong Kong just to take advantage fo the trade agreement?
Fucking scumbags. I would support the government raising tobacco tax up to a ludicrous amount to recover costs if we lose the case.
Australia ranks behind Russia in campaign financing transparancy: study
time to make the flag a brown paper bag
time to make the flag a brown paper bag
Yeah, you have to. You can't just be like "you know what guys, we're killing people, we should shut this shit down". You'd just lose your job and someone else would step up to fight the bad fight anyway. The company and it's capital has a mind of it's own. The best you can do is keep applying shackles and hope that the capital dries up. Tough job when people like Mr "I hate cigarettes but we really should cut the price" are setting the policy tone.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked