IronicBeetCriminal posted:

Yeah I had a look for it afterwards, I guess my point is it's not being splashed out there and the majority of voters probably will never hear about it.

adamantium|wang posted:

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

Yes, and that was a bad thing. The fact that women get help with various aspects of their lives via the government is a good thing.

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

Yes, and that was a bad thing. The fact that women get help with various aspects of their lives via the government is a good thing.

When individuals are forced to provide things for themselves that pretty much everyone needs it's inefficient as hell. Individuals can't take advantage of economies of scale nor can they justify the expense of studying a problem to come up with an efficient solution. Leveraging these efficiencies is the whole reason large organizations like government and businesses exist! "No, no, lets all do these things on our own, by our bootstraps!" is loving stupid fetishizing of the idea of freedom, not good policy! Christ!

CrazyTolradi posted:

The furphy about the whole "back in X day, we managed" is that you can argue it for pretty much EVERY single loving thing we have today. 4,000 years ago, humans managed, but you don't see people clamouring to go back to living in a gatherer/hunter society with no modern medical treatments available. It's one of the arguments that basically says we, as a species, need not advance in any area or way because we can "manage".

shalcar posted:

It's also especially hilarious because technically speaking anyone/thing that couldn't manage back in the day doesn't have any living descendants. You are, by definition, part of an unbroken line all the way back to the first lifeform.

Since we all "managed" before money was a thing, presumably she's all for the abolition of property rights and wealth?

Jonah Galtberg posted:

I really feel that there's something uniquely Australian in that brand of "I suffered <hardship> so therefore nobody else is allowed to receive any kind of support or take action in defence of their rights when they're going through <hardship>"

My mum says that poo poo all the time. Gettin mad at mums

CrazyTolradi posted:

Using the "we managed' logic, we should all go back to being single cell life forms because we managed back then too.

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

Nah, it's a thing with conservatives. I see the same crab bucket attitude in the US, the posters in the UKMT also see that kind of thinking in the UK and I would bet that it's something you see from every culture to one degree or another.

Zenithe posted:

PPL gone. Wait no sorry, "deferred"

http://www.smh.com.au/national/tony-abbotts-paid-parental-leave-scheme-deferred-with-no-due-date-in-sight-20140802-zzsbl.html

Gough Suppressant posted:

I was going to post Stewart Lee on the UKIPs but it seems BBC has taken down all the videos of it.

Bomb-Bunny posted:

I know it's days old by now, but I still can't get beyond Erica's "when jobs are scarce, you apply for more jobs!" line. Has he never actually applied for a job, out of the blue, off of an ad, ever? Not once in his long life? Is he just twirling towards freedom and throwing up along the way?

He either:
- Believes that "jobs are scarce" meant either high employment or high unemployment. Both situations which see a reduction in job ads.
- Believes that employers push ads out into the aether.
- Lives on the tears of the unemployed, learned from the ancient magicks of the Ruddock, which he did practices on the refugees.

ewe2 posted:

So I watched Insiders, didn't I? What a fool. Highlights were well-off journos wondering why people aren't going for a miner's critique of welfare payments, and what's the problem with a welfare card anyway, and cheerfully expecting the Budget to pass, it's just going to be "complicated". Oh and the government moving refugees around and some terrible stories about Nauru oh noes lets look at cartoons.

quote:

Conscience vote likely on same-sex marriage

Parliament is heading for a historic vote on same-sex marriage in which Liberal Party MPs will be free to vote with their conscience.

The Coalition party rooms are likely to decide on a conscience vote during the upcoming spring session of Parliament, with one Liberal MP saying it is now ''almost certain'' the party will dump its binding opposition to gay marriage.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott, whose sister Christine Forster is in a same-sex relationship, promised before the election that the Liberal party room would be free to decide on a conscience vote.

The matter is expected to come to a head in the next two sitting fortnights of Parliament in August and September after senior Liberals asked crossbench senator David Leyonhjelm to introduce his draft bill to legalise same-sex marriage.

The government wants his proposed legislation on the notice paper so it has time to scrutinise the exact wording.

Senator Leyonhjelm has agreed, reversing his stated position when he announced the draft bill last month. At the time, he said he would not introduce it until the Liberal party room opted for a conscience vote.

Senator Leyonhjelm said: ''I have heard from Liberal senators that a conscience vote is highly likely.''

But he said he was not ''counting my chickens'' on a vote for same-sex marriage on the floor of Parliament and a number of Liberal backbenchers said their ''gut feeling'' was it would be narrowly defeated even with a conscience vote.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten is a strong advocate of same-sex marriage and Labor MPs have already been granted a conscience vote. But a proposal that would call on them to bind in favour of same-sex marriage was defeated at last week's NSW Labor conference.

A Liberal MP, who would vote against same-sex marriage, said: ''I don't think even Tony Abbott will stand up in the party room and argue against a conscience vote. It would appear to go against Liberal principles. I don't think you would find any of my colleagues who would say a conscience vote was a bad idea.''

Another MP said the party would prefer to deal with Senator Leyonhjelm's bill than delay and potentially deal with ''a more radical proposal put up by the Greens''.

Senator Leyonhjelm, who represents the Liberal Democrats, has appealed to the libertarians in Liberal ranks to back same-sex marriage.

''If it doesn't get through, I have six years to poke them,'' he said. ''At some point they will see I am not going to give up on this.''

Most National Party MPs are expected to vote against same-sex marriage.

Vladimir Poutine posted:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/conscience-vote-likely-on-samesex-marriage-20140801-3czl5.html

Bomb-Bunny posted:

"The welfare card isn't that bad and people won't be singled out"

So it won't work then? I mean, given that psychological humiliation is the exact loving point of the policy.

Lid posted:

http://www.smh.com.au/act-news/the-young-liberal-spy-network-20140802-zzofu.html?google_editors_picks=true

lol

Lid posted:

http://www.smh.com.au/act-news/the-young-liberal-spy-network-20140802-zzofu.html?google_editors_picks=true

lol

Gough Suppressant posted:

More than 5000 fascists are at a rally in Sydney.

ewe2 posted:

The surprising thing about the Forrest report is that, aside from ridiculous card ideas, it actually proposes proper training and support programs for jobseekers that cost money. That is guaranteed to never be implemented, of course. Still, the take-away for me was that well-off journos didn't for a second ask why is a miner who doesn't pay tax suddenly the best choice for a welfare program review.

in the miso soup posted:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/03/bob-hawke-nuclear-waste-storage-could-end-indigenous-disadvantage

Australia could end the disadvantage endured by its indigenous population by opening up traditional lands as dumping sites for nuclear waste from around the world, a former prime minister, Bob Hawke, has said.

Hawke said he was confident that the answer to long-standing indigenous socioeconomic problems was to allow radioactive waste to be stored on Aboriginal land, and use the revenue to improve living standards.

Cartoon posted:

Well the land we've left them with is utterly worthless so

Bomb-Bunny posted:

If you look at it from Twiggy's point of view it's not, it's another subsidy for him, government pays for training that, I'm sure, would conveniently be in the areas he needs skilled workers. I'm not saying that should negate the bleeding obvious, that job seekers should get real training. But as Malcolm Farr pointed out on Insiders, we need something like the old Commonwealth Employment Service, so that unemployment services aren't vulnerable to market manipulation and scamming. This thread alone is a font of evidence that that is not currently the case.

quote:

I'm glad that these things are getting a societal backlash, but I wonder whether the tories constant "WHERE ARE THE OTHER OPTIONS!" rhetoric won't get to wearing on people eventually.