Auspol March: Trump for Prime Minister, Clive Palmer for Deputy

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol March: Trump for Prime Minister, Clive Palmer for Deputy

«‹›79 »

Seagull: Oct 9, 2012; give me a chip

inhale the jenkem cat

# ? Mar 19, 2016 17:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 18:14

Nibbles!: Jun 26, 2008; TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

make australia great again as well please

Democracy is predicated on an informed populace. The fact that the actions of the Abbott government were a surprise speaks volumes as to how much our media holds them to account.

# ? Mar 19, 2016 17:32

Au Revoir Shosanna: Feb 17, 2011; i support this government and/or service

George Christensen

# ? Mar 19, 2016 22:13

BBJoey: Oct 31, 2012

Jumpingmanjim posted:

http://www.idiottax.net/2016/03/your-fairfax-weekender.html?m=1

This is so perfect oh my god.

this loving owns

Au Revoir Shosanna posted:

George Christensen

a grand piano should comically fall on him and crush him, imo

# ? Mar 19, 2016 22:42

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

Some big shifts in political thinking have been going on while we’ve been distracted by voting changes and shouty Senate pyjama parties and the “will he won’t he” speculation about a double dissolution election and the Coalition’s public stream-of-consciousness thoughts as it tries on different tax policies for size.

Australian thinkers, and political parties, have been grappling with a growing wave of thought that the economic challenges of the 2010s cannot be solved by the old 1980s political consensus – the consensus that said economic growth is best achieved by market deregulation and lower taxes and lower spending that generate growth, and allow “all boats to rise” by providing the revenue for governments to pay for social programs and do something or other about poverty.

The rethinking has been going on for quite a while internationally, from Thomas Piketty through to the major international economic institutions. And it turns the old consensus on its head – arguing that rising inequality harms growth, that smart social spending is not the kindly thing governments do after they raise the revenue, but rather a first order revenue-boosting exercise in itself, and asserting that governments need to intervene more to get their economies through this economic transition.

The IMF now says income distribution matters for growth. “Specifically, if the income share of the top 20% (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20% (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth. The poor and the middle class matter the most for growth,” an IMF discussion paper said.

The OECD is preoccupied with inclusive growth, too. “The linkages between the productivity and inequality challenges are still to be fully explored,” it said in a paper. “Each may have its own solution, but there is also good reason to think that there is a nexus between them.”

Former treasurer Wayne Swan, as a member of the Inclusive Prosperity Commission chaired by Lawrence Summers and Ed Balls, arguedthat around the world working people had “watched their wages stagnate and business profits soar, but didn’t necessarily see the quality jobs and higher living standards they were assured would follow.” The Chifley Research Centre is undertaking an Australia-specific version.

In a new essay for Griffith Review, Time for a New Consensus, Jonathan West and Tom Bentley argue that Australian politics has been spinning its wheels precisely because the 80s consensus won’t work in our current economic circumstance but we haven’t quite figured that out yet.

In his latest Quarterly Essay, writer George Megalogenis reaches a similar conclusion. “The debate we have to have is on the role of government in the economy,” he writes. “It is being forced on us by the market failures of the twenty-first century.

“Both sides cling defensively to the open model because it tells them a reassuring story of Australian success. But that open model has been exhausted by capitalism’s extended crisis and the end of the mining boom. It cannot guarantee prosperity in the future without an active state.

“The open model excels when the economy is strong, and in response to a global shock. But it struggles when the economy is in transition, because the market forces it is responding to are compromised …

“The political system cannot restore public confidence without a more responsive government. And the economy won’t stabilise without a more active government. The default setting of politics in the twenty-first century – to trust in the market – has proven to be bad economics, even for Australia, the only high-income nation to avoid the Great Recession. It has left us with gridlocked cities, growing inequality and a corporate sector that feels no obligation to pay tax.

“If politics waits any longer to address these issues, we will muddle into a recession and government will have to prop up the economy, but from a position of weakness, with the budget in deficit and interest rates too low to cut in a meaningful way.”

So are politicians in Australia digesting these views?

In the case of Labor and the Greens, the answer is yes. It has been evident for some time that Bill Shorten is running a high-risk campaign based on these very ideas, using values-based policy to overcome the fact that he trails Malcolm Turnbull in a head-to-head popularity battle.

And I’d argue this is the real reason Labor is growing in confidence. Organisations tend to work best when they know what they are doing and why they are doing it. It helps to have a sense of purpose.

Labor’s answer was in part spelled out in a kind of foundation document released this week by Shorten and families spokeswoman Jenny Macklin.

Its starting point was that inequality is an impediment to growth, which means spending money on schools and universities and hospitals and employment programs are economic, as well as social, investments.

And this certainty of purpose also handily fits into Labor’s central political attack – the claim that Turnbull is inauthentic, a man who can’t govern in his own voice because his views are out of step with his party.

Shorten sounded convincing at the National Press Club this week when he said; “I don’t have to pretend to be who I’m not. My Labor party doesn’t have to pretend who it is not. Isn’t that one of the great challenges of leadership? It is hard to lead a nation when you have to pretend to be something that you’re not.”

I’d argue Labor’s new policy thinking is also part of the increasing vitriol between it and the Greens, along with other things like the deal on Senate voting changes.

It brings the two left-of-centre parties closer together, it makes their arguments a bit harder to distinguish. When Labor was holding firmly to the 1980s consensus, former finance minister Peter Walsh could dismiss the then Senate balance of power holders the Australian Democrats as “fairies at the bottom of the garden” when they advocated higher spending. But when Labor advocates cutting negative gearing and superannuation tax concessions to pay for health and education, and then the Greens say, let’s keep the 2% personal income tax deficit levy to raise even more, the difference is really one of degree.

And I’d argue uncertainty and disagreement about how to handle this shift is at the heart of the Turnbull government’s political difficulties.

Some of what the Coalition has done since the change of prime ministership fits the idea of more activist government, of some intervention and direction in the running of markets. Some of it has been a long way from what used to be considered truly “Liberal”.

For a start, Turnbull’s slogan has been “fairness, jobs and growth”.

He is reportedly considering issuing government bonds to invest in new economic infrastructure and to reshape cities. That would, of course, increase government debt, which was once so abhorred by the Coalition that it was depicted as a “bomb” on election posters.

Turnbull’s defence white paper was an example of government intervention that would have made 80s economists blanche, a massive investment in manufacturing and regional job creation that happens to be for defence purposes.

But his government has been giving mixed messages. Scott Morrison’s slogan is just “jobs and growth”. He describes Labor’s policies as “tax and spend”, which is, in his view, clearly a very bad thing, no matter what the money is spent on.

Asked about the idea that rising inequality is a drag on economic growth, Morrison responded on Friday as any treasurer in the 80s or 90s would have done.

“You have to grow the economy to share the proceeds ... if you don’t grow the pie there is not as much to share,” he said.

Turnbull says all policy will be judged dispassionately against the evidence. The treasurer pushed the old economic orthodoxy when he argued for a GST rise to pay for personal income tax cuts. The prime minister insisted on the modelling that showed the advantages didn’t add up.

Now the government is considering a reduction in superannuation concessions for the very wealthy and other revenue raising measures to fund a company tax cut. They are going to need some strong evidence that they know what to do about multinational tax avoidance to get away with that plan. And theat times unhinged scare campaign against Labor’s policy to reduce concessions for negative gearing hasn’t always been evidence-based either.

And all the while policies from the Abbott years remain on the books – including things like deep cuts to higher education that run entirely counter to the new economic thinking.

In short it’s a muddle, neither entirely sticking with the Abbott-era faith in the old consensus nor striking out with a national economic explanation that is new. Presumably all will be clear, and the differences reconciled, when the government brings down its budget in May – both from what it does and from the Abbott-era policies that it ditches.

But that’s very late in the electoral cycle to be telling voters what you believe in.

# ? Mar 19, 2016 23:10

Negative Entropy: Nov 30, 2009

LibertyCat posted:

Voted Yes for fixed terms, didn't bother submitting ballots for the rest. Compulsory voting is terrible.

you don't talk about democracy any more.

Nibbles! posted:

Democracy is predicated on an informed populace. The fact that the actions of the Abbott government were a surprise speaks volumes as to how much our media holds them to account.

This is a flaw, how can we solve it.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 00:14

Cleretic: Feb 3, 2010; Ignore my posts!
I'm aggressively wrong about everything!

Kommando posted:

This is a flaw, how can we solve it.

Fact checkers with authorization to shoot?

# ? Mar 20, 2016 00:43

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

Anidav posted:

I feel like Brisbane is trapped in a void where we elect mayors who want rubber wheeled trains in southbank.

you mean buses? Or trams?

# ? Mar 20, 2016 00:49

BBJoey: Oct 31, 2012

Kommando posted:

This is a flaw, how can we solve it.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 00:59

Au Revoir Shosanna: Feb 17, 2011; i support this government and/or service

Anidav posted:

Some big shifts in political thinking have been going on while we’ve been distracted by voting changes and shouty Senate pyjama parties and the “will he won’t he” speculation about a double dissolution election and the Coalition’s public stream-of-consciousness thoughts as it tries on different tax policies for size.

This is well said. Can I get a link?

# ? Mar 20, 2016 01:36

butthold: Apr 5, 2009

LibertyCat posted:

Voted Yes for fixed terms, didn't bother submitting ballots for the rest. Compulsory voting is terrible.

gently caress you

# ? Mar 20, 2016 01:55

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

# ? Mar 20, 2016 02:04

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Fixed terms are unarguably better.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 02:05

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

open24hours posted:

Fixed terms are unarguably better.

yes, but they were coupled to 4 year terms in the ballot which is bad in QLD where there is no upper house

# ? Mar 20, 2016 02:07

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

It's the same way in the ACT. Upper houses are overrated anyway.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 02:10

Divorced And Curious: Jan 23, 2009; democracy depends on sausage sizzles

open24hours posted:

It's the same way in the ACT. Upper houses are overrated anyway.

The ACT has Hare-Clark proportional representation in the lower house, though, so it doesn't need one.

I'm generally in favour of fixed terms but 4 years in a state with no PR and no upper house is madness.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 02:14

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

I voted yes too without really thinking about it but I am keen for a wild ride.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 02:26

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

4 years seems okay because the recent state governments really do only seem to think short term. Sure risk Springborg but it's a step closer to an upper house with the order scrambled :shrug:

# ? Mar 20, 2016 02:36

asio: Nov 29, 2008; "Also Sprach Arnold Jacobs: A Developmental Guide for Brass Wind Musicians" refers to the mullet as an important tool for professional cornet playing and box smashing black and blood

Anidav posted:

4 years seems okay because the recent state governments really do only seem to think short term. Sure risk Springborg but it's a step closer to an upper house with the order scrambled

gently caress you

# ? Mar 20, 2016 02:40

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

Anidav posted:

I voted yes too without really thinking about it but I am keen for a wild ride.

- Anidav

# ? Mar 20, 2016 02:49

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Thanks for nothin Anime Dave

# ? Mar 20, 2016 02:58

hooman: Oct 11, 2007; This guy seems legit.; Fun Shoe

Accelerationist Dave

# ? Mar 20, 2016 03:16

LibertyCat: Mar 5, 2016; by WE B Bourgeois

Redcordial posted:

What the gently caress.

Just gently caress off mate, your never funny gag is continuing to be non funny, you should consider holding your breath until I never say breathe.

Edit: I don't care if you're a troll account or just a fuckwit, you can get hosed and eat my frozen poo poo via your arsehole you loving slug.

OK what exactly did I say to prompt that?

That compulsory voting is Bad because you force the uninformed to vote?
That politicians are forced to appeal to the lowest common demoninator, many of who are in favor of policies you presumably disagree with?
That I made up 2 caricatures who wouldn't vote by choice, but if they're going to vote, would vote for whoever is harshest on refugees?

I am honestly bewildered.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 03:50

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Seagull posted:

inhale the jenkem cat

# ? Mar 20, 2016 03:56

norp: Jan 20, 2004; TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

let's invade New Zealand, they have oil

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-20/company-tax-cuts-to-benefit-workers-arthur-sinodinos-says/7261308

quote:

"Putting money into the hands of consumers obviously encourages more spending and disposable income and has good incentive effects. But cutting company taxes also has good effects," Senator Sinodinos said.

"It can encourage investment, it can encourage higher productivity, it can encourage more investment from overseas.

"And that ultimately there are lots of studies that show that that ultimately leads to higher GDP in the economy and higher wages for workers.

"At least 50 per cent of the impact of cutting company taxes goes in higher wages for workers. And higher employment."

It's really sad that this sort of poo poo goes unchallenged. It's absurd that reducing tax will increase wages, and 50% is even more crazy.
Companies that get charged less tax aren't going to just give workers that money, it was already excess to their business expenses so if they wanted to do that the tax wouldn't make a difference to it. I guess the laffer curve is appealing to neoliberals because it lets them justify screwing over poors

# ? Mar 20, 2016 04:00

Jonah Galtberg: Feb 11, 2009

LibertyCat posted:

OK what exactly did I say to prompt that?

That compulsory voting is Bad because you force the uninformed to vote?
That politicians are forced to appeal to the lowest common demoninator, many of who are in favor of policies you presumably disagree with?
That I made up 2 caricatures who wouldn't vote by choice, but if they're going to vote, would vote for whoever is harshest on refugees?

I am honestly bewildered.

haha you think you're "informed"

# ? Mar 20, 2016 04:04

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

It's a good thing that queensland hasn't had any history of electing radical right wing state governments or Anidav would look pretty dumb for supporting removing one of the very very few checks that remain against their power.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 04:05

LibertyCat: Mar 5, 2016; by WE B Bourgeois

Jonah Galtberg posted:

haha you think you're "informed"

What % of voters read political forums? What % read political forums that are inhabited by people they disagree with, just to understand the other side of the story?

Solemn Sloth posted:

It's a good thing that queensland hasn't had any history of electing radical right wing state governments or Anidav would look pretty dumb for supporting removing one of the very very few checks that remain against their power.

Democracy. Queenslanders obviously like "radical right-wing governments". TBH as a North Qlder if we are considered radically right-wing I'm a little worried at how left the rest of the country is.

LibertyCat fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Mar 20, 2016

# ? Mar 20, 2016 04:09

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

A typical Arsetralian voter posted:

I voted yes too without really thinking about it but I am keen for a wild ride.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 04:15

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

Solemn Sloth posted:

It's a good thing that queensland hasn't had any history of electing radical right wing state governments or Anidav would look pretty dumb for supporting removing one of the very very few checks that remain against their power.

Even with shorter terms we swing like wild and create super majority governments. Queensland is hosed anyway. Regardless of term length. Longer terms would stop stalling public transport infrastructure. We've been meaning to build the cross river rail for ages for example and the LNP wants some tunnel. A longer term may finally break some of these public transport endless stalls and get Queensland building something that isn't apartments and mines.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 04:24

LibertyCat: Mar 5, 2016; by WE B Bourgeois

It's one extra year, we're not moving to decade-long terms.

The entire State Government system is idiotic anyway. Qld as a whole isn't that much different from NSW or Victoria. Canberra shouldn't be governed that differently from Perth, and Birdsville from Coober Pedy. This is how we ended up with a bunch of inner-city dwellers who ride on busy roads enforcing bicycle helmets on people who ride on footpaths on quiet country roads.

If anything there should be a regional government for Urban areas like Brisbane/Melbourne/Perth, another for more regional cities, and another for everywhere else.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 04:25

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

That's entirely possible, petition your state government to devolve more of their powers to local councils.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 04:31

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

Even Pete Beattie agrees state governments are poo poo

# ? Mar 20, 2016 04:35

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Cunneen watch. A little late but :shrug:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-18/corruption-watchdog-boss-accuses-inspector-of-bias-over-cunneen/7257748

quote:

Corruption watchdog boss accuses inspector of bias over Margaret Cunneen probe By state political reporter Lucy McNally Updated Fri at 5:41pm

The commissioner of the state's corruption watchdog has hit back at its inspector, saying he has a clear bias against her.

Commissioner Megan Latham today responded to evidence that the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) inspector David Levine gave to a parliamentary inquiry on Monday, describing the agency's investigation into Margaret Cunneen's case as a "debacle" which led to "demeaning blood-letting" in the media. Mr Levine previously wrote a report which slammed the investigation into whether Ms Cunneen told her son's girlfriend to fake chest pains to avoid a breath test. This led to a high-profile feud between himself and Ms Latham. The matter is now being investigated by the state parliamentary committee into the ICAC. Ms Latham told the committee hearing that the commission was denied procedural fairness by the inspector. "The inspector does not refute it," she said. "In fact, he reinforced that denial in the course of his evidence, and I quote: 'I had no intention to engage with ICAC in a tit for tat debate about every alleged flaw, legal error, misunderstanding or non-understanding'." Ms Latham said Mr Levine's evidence on Monday showed he had already made up his mind about whether the Cunneen investigation was worthwhile before he had even looked into it. "Further, he said: 'Even if the doctrine and principles and practice of procedural fairness were applied at the purest level, the outcome would still be carved in granite'," Ms Latham said. "The inspector's evidence on Monday discloses 'actual bias' � that is a partial and prejudiced approach to the assessment of the commission's conduct, and my conduct."

Allegations cannot be described as 'legless': Latham

The ICAC commissioner referred to Mr Levine's choice of language on Monday to support her argument that he was biased against her. "[Words like] 'shenanigans' to describe the commission's procedures, grotesquery, obsession with power ... that my responses included an incomprehensible statement which was made out of desperation and not the exercise of reason," Ms Latham said. She said the ICAC inspector had gone much further in his attack on her on Monday than he had in the report itself. The ICAC commissioner again talked of the important role Ms Cunneen had as a Crown Prosecutor, and why the allegations against her were so serious. "The allegation being investigated cannot reasonably be described as legless or of fundamental triviality or no more than what an ordinary member of the community as a mother would do in the circumstances," Megan Latham said. "I invite the members of this committee to consider whether I would be thought fit to occupy the office of commissioner if I advised my son to feign a physical symptom at the scene of a car accident. I believed or suspected he had consumed alcohol before driving and I knew that such a symptom would result in his transfer to hospital with the consequent delay of ... a blood alcohol test. The answer to that question largely determines the gravity of the allegation that the commission was investigating."

Latham says she has no issue with Levine

Ms Latham admitted she had only met Mr Levine once, despite a memorandum of understanding that said the two should have regular meetings. She said she had no problem with him, but believed he had an issue with her. "I don't understand what the problem is," she said. "I've never had it explained to me why he thinks that I'm sullenly resentful." The chair of the parliamentary committee, MP Trevor Khan, quipped: "It sounds like a broken-down marriage � both parties say it's the other person's fault." The commissioner responded by saying she had never attacked Mr Levine the way he had attacked her. "Mr Khan, all I can say is I have never impuned the inspector's integrity," Ms Latham said. "I have never called him incomprehensible. I have never said that he had acted out of desperation rather than reason." The head of ICAC went further, saying Mr Levine had "no professional respect" for her. She added that she had no vendetta against Ms Cuneen, contrary to what some in the public might think. "I had had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Ms Cuneen professionally," Ms Latham said. "As a matter of objective fact, I had nothing to do with Ms Cuneen since 1994."

Mr Levine was sitting in the parliamentary inquiry room, occasionally muttering to himself as he listened to Ms Latham's evidence.

Shades of Godwin Grech. Once he has been used as their pawn I wonder the fate of mouth for 'hire' Levine? The points (about Cunneen) that Ms Latham make are the simple clear central 'truths' that any follower of the story would accept as being worthy of consideration. If anything this delay (in the hopes it will go away?) is more damaging to Cuneen than if she was granted her day in court.

This is more worrying than the ethical standards of a senior crown prosecutor however. Apologies for any overlap.

http://www.afr.com/news/icac-did-not-trust-nsw-police-with-margaret-cunneen-tapes-20160318-gnlwcb

quote:

ICAC did not trust NSW police with Margaret Cunneen tapes

Why was the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption not prepared to let NSW police hear the tapes of Crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen? by Geoff Winestock

The NSW Independent Commissioner Against Corruption has revealed she was not prepared to give NSW police the tapes at the centre of her inquiry into senior Crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen. ICAC commissioner Megan Latham fronted a NSW parliamentary inquiry on Friday to answer a report by the ICAC inspector David Levine, which has accused ICAC of "misconduct and maladministration" in an aborted investigation into allegations that Ms Cunneen coached her son's girlfriend, Sophia Tilley, to fake chest pains to delay a drug alcohol test after a car accident. The inquiry has grabbed headlines in NSW since Ms Latham invited the parliamentary committee to make up its own mind by handing it a series of phone taps made by the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) of Ms Cunneen talking to tow truck drivers around the time of the accident. According to media leaks, Ms Cunneen talked about how she had coached Ms Tilley and expressed concern that if Ms Tilley had been drinking it would render her insurance void. Ms Cunneen has said her words were just "puffery" in the tapes, although members of the inquiry say she was not joking.

The ACC, a federal body, handed its phone taps to ICAC because the possible corrupt conduct it suspected lay outside its jurisdiction. Ms Latham was asked on Friday why ICAC chose to investigate the tapes itself rather than refer them to the NSW police. She agreed with a suggestion that there were "operational reasons" which made it impossible to hand the matter to the NSW police. "There are reasons why that material was not disseminated to the NSW police," Ms Latham said. She did not explain which operation might have been compromised if the tapes were shared with the NSW police but said she could do so in private. The revelation raises questions about the mistrust between the various branches of justice in NSW that has been exposed by the case. The committee said on Friday it would not release the tapes and Ms Latham said she had never wanted them published. She said she had only handed the tapes to the inquiry to help the committee assess Mr Levine's report.

'WHAT ANY MOTHER WOULD DO'

Mr Levine said at the hearing on Monday that Ms Cunneen's behaviour was "no more than what any ordinary member of the community as a mother would do". Ms Latham said officials administering justice were judged by a higher standard, and she herself might deserve to be sacked as ICAC commissioner if she had coached her son to feign illness to avoid a blood alcohol test at an accident. She said the allegations against Ms Cunneen, if proven, were serious and amounted to perverting the course of justice. ICAC was never able to investigate the case because Ms Cunneen won a High Court challenge last year which narrowed the range of cases ICAC can investigate to those which involve allegations of a lack of probity by a public official in the course of their duties. Since then, The Australian newspaper and sections of the NSW Liberal party have led an attack on ICAC, which had already upset them with its 2014 investigation into Liberal party campaign financing. The Liberal-dominated committee seized on the Levine report as an opportunity to curb ICACs powers. But Ms Latham said at the inquiry on Monday that Mr Levine had openly admitted he was biased against ICAC. She said Mr Levine used improper emotive epithets such as "grotesque", "desperate" and "obsessed with power". Ms Latham said she was not to blame for this bad blood. "How can I sit down for a cup of coffee with someone who has used grossly pejorative terms and impugned my professional integrity?"

Are senior police in NSW corrupt? Of course they are. NSW has almost as notorious a reputation for police corruption as QLD. What I'd love to know is what are the links to senior politicians. And once again I assert that, based purely on history, it is sure as poo poo these also exist.

To Federal politics. The nongs who still supporting Abbott.

Where were they seated on the plane that Abbott was flying into the mountain? How can they possibly think that the electoral annihilation that was about to befall their golden child wasn't going to effect them too? It is becoming clear to even the 'great unwashed' (of the shooters and fishers party even) that Right wing scum bozo government MK II is essentially the same goods just sans the actual nazi paraphernalia. Do they think it was the right message just sold badly? If so then today's continuing stream of conscious Tax babble means they didn't hire the right sales team either. More likely it's more of the cold withered skeletal hands grasping at the phylactery of power until the very last possible moment. It would take two airliners and some substantial architectural damage to turn this government into a 'good' one.

I know nobody who actually listens needs to be told this but hope springs eternal: - Don't touch the poop. Please?

# ? Mar 20, 2016 04:36

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

The YES vote is going hit 56% so Queensland loves wild rides

# ? Mar 20, 2016 04:36

Gentleman Baller: Oct 13, 2013

LibertyCat posted:

What % of voters read political forums? What % read political forums that are inhabited by people they disagree with, just to understand the other side of the story?

Not a large amount.

Here's something to consider though: Do you believe the average American voter is more informed than the average Australian voter? Do you believe that Australia will simply continue to make it as easy for most people to vote once it's no longer mandatory, or will it be a huge constant fight? Do you believe that America's political discourse focuses less on the lowest common denominator than ours?

My personal fear with getting rid of this is that we will adopt some of the same issues that America has. If you do have any examples of countries without mandatory voting that do have the effects you've suggested you wanted I'd very much like to read up on them but from what I've seen it seems like a pretty blind risk.

Gentleman Baller fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Mar 20, 2016

# ? Mar 20, 2016 04:46

asio: Nov 29, 2008; "Also Sprach Arnold Jacobs: A Developmental Guide for Brass Wind Musicians" refers to the mullet as an important tool for professional cornet playing and box smashing black and blood

Anidav posted:

Even with shorter terms we swing like wild and create super majority governments. Queensland is hosed anyway. Regardless of term length. Longer terms would stop stalling public transport infrastructure. We've been meaning to build the cross river rail for ages for example and the LNP wants some tunnel. A longer term may finally break some of these public transport endless stalls and get Queensland building something that isn't apartments and mines.

the endless stalls is because they're corrupt your class traitor gently caress

# ? Mar 20, 2016 04:53

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

No if we just elected a dictator for life there'd be all the public transport you could ever want

# ? Mar 20, 2016 04:56

Au Revoir Shosanna: Feb 17, 2011; i support this government and/or service

LibertyCat posted:

Yo Cat, are you still keen to do the April thread?

# ? Mar 20, 2016 05:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 18:14

Sparticle: Oct 7, 2012

Anidav posted:

I voted yes too without really thinking about it but I am keen for a wild ride.

Classic Anidav. I hope everyone gave him poo poo at the meetup last night. I couldn't make it because my JSA set me up with a job that involves cleaning toilets (I wish I was joking).

# ? Mar 20, 2016 05:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol March: Trump for Prime Minister, Clive Palmer for Deputy

«‹›79 »