-
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
reptilescorpio
Member
Swap 'with' for 'producing'
I agree the mining tax was a mistake, but for opposite reasons to you LOL. They should have had the balls too see it through, and at a higher level.
Making budget promises they didn't keep? EVERY government ever has done that. And basically their attitude. Fair enough, they are a bit shit that way. Seems to be pretty petty reasons to vote in someone who will be no different at budget promises, and is just as sanctimonious.
Just like Lionel Richie i will be dancing on the ceiling if this happens
I went to bed not long after my post, the only way they are accountable to their actions is to send them packing in the election.
I am more unhappy about the state of the budget than anything else.
What about the budget?
Hogwash, don't you know, change is always for the better.
toddhunter
Member
I agree. It is more a comment about how people will call one party terrible or inhumane when by and large they will all commit the same transgressions. I think the level of promising was a bit over the top though. It wasn't just "we are going to do awesome, oops we screwed up" the government did make a constant big deal about it.
I'd be happy if they implemented it properly too. The problem was the uncertainty it created.
It isn't just a speculation thing either. My previous job was working on services to the mining industry. We had a lot of projects that were lined up suddenly got put on hold because companies wanted to see "what would happen". They are still on hold until after the election due because obviously something has to be changed with the tax as it is (in a fundamentally broken state).
They'll go ahead at some stage, but unfortunately for now that cost people jobs and at the time I had to be the one to let them go.
To me that is enough reason to vote a party out. I know people get very emotional about issues like same-sex marriage or asylum seekers, but everyone should have the right to their own priorities.
reptilescorpio
Member
Liberals seriously fucked over the university, the TAFE, the hospitals and the Department of Housing here. All of which directly had repercussions on my employment and the employment of my family members, so I can understand voting against a party that damages your life in such a fashion.
Well, to be perfectly honest I wouldn't have guessed so. Having said that, I only raised it because I disagreed with Andrew Bolt being sued into oblivion over it and an example of regulation gone wrong. It is possible to disagree, even vehemently, with someone without wanting to censor them.
Yeah, each person can have their own priorities. In regards your mining tax uncertainty though, that was started by people opposed to it, like the Libs. Blaming a party for the opposition to their policies seems a bit silly. Unless you think Labor shouldn't have changed it, which would seem to be going against your opinion that the never listened to anyone.
reptilescorpio
Member
He didn't get sued into oblivion though. He got a slap on the bottom at worst. Pretty sure I still see his face all over the papers.
Unfortunately, disgusting excuse for a human being.
Box of Bunnies
Banned
Media regulation is wrong and should be left to the Chinese. I know this because the newspapers showed me pictures of Labor people dressed up as Stalin and friends when they were talking about it.
Bulbagarden
Member
If Abbot wins, that won't be strong enough. Hence why I'm going for the thematically appropriate Caribbean Rum.
OK, poor choice of words but he still ended up having to pull the column completely, and based on his legal advice he can't talk about any matter related to indigenous people anymore. Freedom of speech still applies to a "disgusting excuse for a human being".
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
They do. Everyone else also has the right to question those priorities. Naming one experience as a justification to "vote a party out" seems to me to be more emotional than rational; it can basically amount to single issue voting without considering the consequences. By the way, not everyone opposes the Coalition because they are overly emotional about gay marriage and asylum seekers, especially when the ALP's policy on the latter is denounced by many on the left. Wanting halfway competent and equitable economic management/fiscal policy is also a big one.
I'm curious as to what you mean by this. Bolt has the same freedom of speech as anyone else in the country. Do you think there should be no regulation of media content? Someone like Alan Jones is allowed to continue broadcasting even after his numerous breaches of the law and broadcasting standards, not the least of which was inciting racial violence. Should it be legal to spread misinformation and harmful rhetoric simply because it's what some people want to hear?
Not in Australia. We are not America.
toddhunter
Member
I think you need to give a bit more credit to the people running the mining operations and making these decisions. They are just looking at the potential bottom lines, not scare tactics or opposition propaganda.
If the government felt the need to change the policy due to perceived pressure, than that to me is a failing of the government. The opposition can bluster all they want, but ultimately they can't really do much about anything if the policy is communicated properly.
I'll concede the point that it weakens my argument about them not listening and making changes. But even then I think it had a lot more to do with the internal power struggles at the time rather than any true commitment to stopping a fear campaign.
Quite correct, but I was addressing the people who were asking to "name one mistake". I'm not saying that is a particularly great reason to vote, I'm just suggesting it is just as valid (or invalid) as people who feel strongly about another issue.
Elaugaufein
Member
Definitely horse trading involved. Removing a Right leader and bringing in a Left one to soften a tax on industry makes negative sense ideologically.
CrazedProfessional
Member
He clearly believes that Bolt tells the 'gospel truth'.
Elaugaufein
Member
Not Ventron. But I'd have to say yes it should be generally. As long as its clearly opinion and not presented as factual/news and there's no incitement to criminal activities.
If a statement is factually incorrect, it can be quickly destroyed with proper citations in a discussion. Surely Clive Palmer's statement this morning that Rupert Murdoch's ex-wife was a Chinese spy counts as harmful rhetoric? But it won't gain traction because there is nothing to back it up. There is no need to sue Clive Palmer and ban him from the airwaves. That's before we come to people like Bob Ellis.
It's natural for any person to seek out and stick with people that they agree with. In that case, it's not as if the media is saying anything they don't already strongly believe. If a person isn't going to listen to you when you present them with the opposing view, why on Earth would blocking their own side make any difference?
Great article by John Quiggin here about how the case for Abbott is possibly the worst in recent memory, even more so than Howard in 1996 and Fraser in 1975
http://johnquiggin.com/2013/09/03/an-undeserved-win/
http://johnquiggin.com/2013/09/03/an-undeserved-win/
the rise of the qld nutterscrikey said:Tony Abbott is set for a comfortable win in Saturday's election, but his lead has been clawed back by a late shift toward the minor parties, the final pre-election Essential Research poll shows.
The poll, conducted this week with a sample size of 1035, shows Labor on 35% -- steady compared to last week -- and the Coalition down a point to 43%. The Greens are steady on 10%, and "others" are now on 12%. Just two weeks ago, the minor parties' collective was on 8%.
The two-party preferred result is 52-48% to the Coalition.
State breakdowns of the figures, which Crikey will reveal tomorrow, suggest minor parties are performing very strongly in Queensland, certainly well enough to secure a Senate quota with favourable preference deals, and to tip a number of marginal House of Representative seats via preference flows. On a national basis, the 2.1% swing to the Coalition suggested by the final poll would allow the Coalition to pick up eight seats, plus Lyne and New England, for a comfortable majority.
However, making seat predictions in Queensland will be much harder even with state breakdowns because of the strong support for minor parties like Clive Palmer's PUP and the unpredictable nature of their preference flows. On-the-ground reports suggest Palmer is drawing voters from both Labor and the Coalition and preferences might not break 60:40 to the conservatives as has been assumed (and which is the basis for Essential's allocation).
A sample size of just 1 thousand seems a bit small to me, not enough to gauge what the nation thinks.
Also this is too good to not share; Flamboyant Australian billionaire Clive Palmer on Thursday said he plans to sue Rupert Murdoch over unflattering allegations and claimed the media mogul's estranged wife is a Chinese spy.
Also this is too good to not share; Flamboyant Australian billionaire Clive Palmer on Thursday said he plans to sue Rupert Murdoch over unflattering allegations and claimed the media mogul's estranged wife is a Chinese spy.
reptilescorpio
Member
Thank your lucky stars we don't live in Paraguay!
That assumes a two way dialogue, and that corrections are as prominent as the lie. These things are far from true in print and radio media.
I've learned the magic of sample sizes in the 50 vs 100ppp thread. From 100 votes to 1200 votes, the results stayed pretty much exactly the same.
This logic doesn't really pan out irl. Bolt and his views gets a lot of traction despite being based on misrepresentations and factual inaccuracies because much of the popular discourse doesn't bother to fact-check statements. Theoretically at least, that is the job of the fourth estate. And over time this aggregates and you end up with this world where an incredibly overtly exaggerated asylum seeker policy has somehow become a disproportionately powerful public issue because it already is - and any attempt to disprove it via facts is dismissed because it's contrary to the prevailing political climate.
A lie can get around the world before the truth can get its boots on.
roosters93
Member
He just got out of the sauna. Secret to his weight loss.
Just voted. I got all the way to 109 on the senate sheet before realising I'd skipped a number. Upon review, that was number 13, so I couldn't just fudge it. Asked for another one. Glad I didn't have to ask for another one on actual polling day. The booth was fairly busy as it was.
Sutton Dagger
Member
The Devil at play folks, such an unlucky number...
Ruthless_Barbarian
Member
No I don't think that. Although I guess the argument could be made, but that would be done on idealogical grounds (i.e. what exactly government exists for).
I'd prefer a basic common sense test as to whether it's for the greater public good, and whether it's a good use of tax payer dollars. Obviously the definition of that can vary from person to person, but I think those things are dumb, which is why I'm laughing at them.
Lamenting government waste doesn't necessarily have to follow a libertarian, small government mindset.
Just gonna pipe in and say mining companies should be taxed to the shithouse and back again. It sucks that them digging shit out of the earth pretty much gives no benefit for anyone except the company itself and arguably those who work there, even though they happen to live in towns with a ridiculously inflated cost of living. Then when it eventually runs out, oh shit everyone's unemployed and the town is a dump again. Dunno how Labor fucked that up so bad. Shame the issue is pretty much gone now.
That seems reasonable enough. I suppose I just err on the side of more money for research grants. I also think this coalition policy betrays a very... um, not sure how to describe it. Procedural? Formulistic? view of how research works.
Additionally 'common sense test' has always proven to be anything but, haha...
roosters93
Member
Also could further the quasi egalitarian aussie attitude experts ain't shit but hoes n tricks. Our standard of education is so high we now think we know better! woo
What does this mean?
What does this mean?
I mean I accidentally didn't put 13 in a box for anyone. Went straight from 12 to 14. I knew I was out when I got to the end, but I thought if it was a low enough number it wouldn't matter that what ever shitty party I was putting at 110 was going to be 80 or something. 13 is pretty high up though, so I didn't want to give them by 13th preference. So I started again.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Factually incorrect statements can be disproven, correct. However, even with the threat of legal actions and fines by regulatory bodies, factually incorrect statements and assertions are still prevalent in the media. The same goes for (what I meant by) harmful rhetoric; defamation, vilification, discrimination etc... As you said, people will generally lean towards the media they agree with more, which is why media regulation pretty much has to be all carrot and no stick. I don't see why freedom of speech is innately good and censorship innately bad if the rules and guidelines by which content is judged are well designed, open and transparent. It's not about blocking any particular view - Bolt wasn't imprisoned or barred from broadcasting as a result of any of his offences - it's about trying to discern where subjective opinion ends and misinformation begins, as well as (the admittedly more grey area) the limits of which opinions can be expressed in the public domain.
Also these.
If you are bored... there are these pages with numbers and little other detail. Just numbers. http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/2013 09 05 TABLE.pdf
Michael Pascoe seems unimpressed at best:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/bus...oses-campaign-with-a-joke-20130905-2t7ab.html
Pretty damning for anyone thinking the Libs will usher in some new age of economic management.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/bus...oses-campaign-with-a-joke-20130905-2t7ab.html
Pretty damning for anyone thinking the Libs will usher in some new age of economic management.
roosters93
Member
Don't we strictly speaking not have freedom of speech enshrined in law?
I might be being oblivious but I still don't follow.
Doesn't this mean if you leave out 13, your 14th preference becomes your 13th and then things move linearly again from there?
"The instructions say you must fill in every square, but the savings provision of the act require that only 90% of the squares be filled in, and will allow a maximum of three sequencing errors. A sequencing error is any doubling up of numbers and any break in the number sequence."
What I'm having trouble understanding is why would the party marked 110 get the 13th spot that you missed?
I might be being oblivious but I still don't follow.
Doesn't this mean if you leave out 13, your 14th preference becomes your 13th and then things move linearly again from there?
"The instructions say you must fill in every square, but the savings provision of the act require that only 90% of the squares be filled in, and will allow a maximum of three sequencing errors. A sequencing error is any doubling up of numbers and any break in the number sequence."
What I'm having trouble understanding is why would the party marked 110 get the 13th spot that you missed?
Not the party marked 110, the party not marked because I had run out of numbers. Had I have known that they allowed a few sequencing errors I would have just left it blank.
Anyone who currently says that clearly isn't about to start actually thinking about the concept any time soon, given that they clearly haven't until now.
We have at most an implied freedom of political communication power that has been read into the Constitution by the courts. Even that is not as powerful as you'd think - see Monis v The Queen and AG(SA) v Corporation of Adelaide for two rulings from this year alone that have set the limits on it. (Narrowly, in the case of Monis, if i recall correctly). Notably, it's a negative power, not a positive one; it just means that parliament can't legislate to take it away unless it's necessary on balance with other considerations.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked