Auspol May - Crisis on Infinite Australias - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol May - Crisis on Infinite Australias

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

People probably said that about primary school before it was compulsory.

Of course it's going to be wet nurse for the dole.

# ? May 3, 2016 01:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 06:48

MonoAus: Nov 5, 2012

Just caught up on the overnight posts and have to say: LibertyCat and EvilElmo, in the interest of debate I'm not saying don't post but jesus christ do you both have some awful opinions.

# ? May 3, 2016 01:45

BCR: Jan 23, 2011

7/11 still being poo poo.

quote:

He says he received a flat wage of $13 an hour for working nights and no penalties for weekends or public holidays.

During his time working at 7-Eleven, Ali says he was verbally abused by his bosses, had to work without pay during the training period, and was expected to work unpaid after his shift to tend to the garden surrounding the store, and incurred a back injury.

"I worked 12 hours in those cold nights for just to make fee for my studies and survive in Australia which was hardly enough but I had no other opportunity," Ali told Fairfax Media.

"7-Eleven is definitely a corrupt company which used us as slaves made us working day and night and they were totally involved in all that scam; they knew that franchisees are paying us lesser than the award rates, I just want justice which is nowhere to be found."

$200,000 fine for one 7/11

quote:

Harmandeep Singh Sarkaria, who owns and operates the Blacktown 7-Eleven fuel outlet, underpaid two Pakistani staff $49,426 and routinely made false entries to the head office payroll system about the number of hours they had worked, the Fair Work Ombudsman found.

One of the workers was underpaid a total of $43,633 in the two years to March 2014. The ombudsman found the two workers were often paid the equivalent of $10 an hour, instead of the legal wage of $22 an hour and up to $29.27 an hour on weekends.

# ? May 3, 2016 01:46

MysticalMachineGun: Apr 5, 2005

Two things I'm thankful for:

1. Putting LibertyCat on ignore

2. Adelaide United winning the A-League so today's Advertiser has them on the cover rather than wanking over Scott Morrison.

If this budget is deliberately harsh then it's not going to help Scott Morrison's PM chances, even though he seems to be the anointed one if Turnbull goes again.

# ? May 3, 2016 01:49

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

Scotty from the Shire has his finger on the pulse of what's popular with white people I reckon

# ? May 3, 2016 01:54

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

Treasurer Scott Morrison will unveil a suite of multinational tax avoidance measures, including a diverted profits tax - commonly known as a "Google tax" - designed to raise billions of dollars over four years and head off claims he is only cutting taxes for business and the wealthy.

A new unit within the Australian Tax Office will also be handed more resources and staff to crack down on multinational tax avoidance.

Stronger protections for whistleblowers who provide information about artificial tax structures are also in prospect.

The government will also adopt Labor's tobacco tax hike of 12.5 per cent per year for four years - as foreshadowed by Fairfax Media last month - which according to the Parliamentary Budget Office will raise $3.8 billion over four years, and $47.7 billion over 10 years.

But in a major blow to the opposition, Treasury modelling of the tobacco tax hike - which will be included in the budget papers - has called into question Labor's claim the increase will pay for its funding promises, finding that it will only raise $2.3 billion over four years, and $28.2 billion over 10 years.

That, in effect, blows a $19.5 billion hole in the opposition's policy costings on election eve and will put pressure on the opposition to find additional savings or raise extra revenue.

Late on Monday night, Labor treasury spokesman Chris Bowen accused the government of a "desperate attempt to cover for the fact the government will be adopting, in full, Labor's policy on tobacco excise".

He conceded the revenue assumptions would be updated and stressed it had never been tied to Labor's school funding plans.

The trio of new multinational tax avoidance measures build on the Coalition's first set ofmultinational anti-avoidance laws, which was passed last December and will raise an estimated $700 million in the first year through stopping companies artificially structuring themselves to move profits to low tax countries.

Taken together, government sources said they expected the two tranches to raise more money than Labor's competing tax avoidance laws, which are designed to raise $2 billion over four years.

The changes mean both major parties go into the election advocating a crackdown on multinational tax avoidance, but the similarities do not end there.

The Coalition's tightened superannuation concessions are unlikely to blunt an attack from Labor, which is gearing up for an assault on the pre-election budget as a boon for the well-off, while giving nothing to the majority of low and middle-income earners.

Fairfax Media revealed on Monday that acompany tax cut would be introduced in the budget, while changes to the second top tax bracket of 37¢ in the dollar are also expected, as is an end to the deficit repair levy imposed in 2014 on the highest income earners.

Other measures include an extra $1.2 billion for schools, $2.9 billion for health, additional funding for corporate regulator ASIC and a possible extension of the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small business is in prospect.

The government is expected to argue that between tightening super tax concessions for the wealthy and its multinational tax crackdown, its budget will meet Mr Turnbull's stated aim of promoting fairness, while also stimulating jobs and growth.

Also in the budget is a replacement scheme for Labor's Low Income Superannuation Contribution scheme, which pays up to $500 to the accounts of people earning under $37,000 a year. The government still intends to wind up that scheme but, in a change of heart, will now replace it with another benefit, which a source said would remove the cost-penalty to the low paid when they pay income into superannuation accounts. This is expected to be beneficial to low-paid workers, the majority of whom are women.

In Parliament on Monday, the opposition attacked the government over what it said were plans to cut taxes for multinationals and for the top 1 per cent of earners while leaving workers earning less than $80,000 a year out in the cold.

"Data from the Australian Tax Office shows that four out of five Tasmania workers earn less than $80,000 a year. So why is the Prime Minister giving large multinationals a tax cut at the same time as leaving four out of five Tasmanian workers with absolutely nothing?" shadow treasurer Chris Bowen asked.

But Mr Turnbull fired back that the budget would be "responsible, fair and prudent" and would outline changes to the tax system, to make it "more sustainable, fairer and set us up for the 21st century for those great economic opportunities that await us".

Mr Morrison hammered home the point about fiscal rectitude and that "this is not a time to be throwing money around: you have to spend money wisely, you have to target it and the ultimate test is will it drive jobs and growth. We'll afford the things that need to be afforded in health and education and we have made our commitments plain there."

On Sunday, Mr Morrison had said the budget would offer tax relief for "people out there earning average wages"; he clarified on Monday that "the average full-time earnings in Australia is $80,000".

Tax stats from 2013-14 show there were 9,712,293 Australians with taxable income and 7,187,104 of them earned less than $80,000.

The multinational tax avoidance measures have been developed over the course of the last year after Australian Treasury officials went to Britain to work with their counterparts and understand how that country implemented the so-called Google tax.

Mr Morrison was handed a report by his officials in February that set out options for tackling multinational tax avoidance.

In Britain, the Google tax targets multinational companies that avoid paying tax by shifting thier profits to lower taxing countries, in that case Ireland. In Australia, numerous companies have been identified as using so-called "marketing hubs" such as Singapore to reduce their taxable profits in Australia.

And for the first time, the budget will put actual dollar figures on how much will be raised via the first and second tranche of tax avoidance measures.

# ? May 3, 2016 01:56

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

Fiscal rectitude

# ? May 3, 2016 02:04

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Doctor Spaceman posted:

https://twitter.com/wrongdorey/status/727113258243514368

Well you know you are living in bizzaro world when this guy is front page as a 'fixer'. As I said yesterday it is looking more and more like this is the strategy they are taking to the election. "We are the only safe hands!". Note the major play being given to an alledged 20 Billion dollar shortfall in the smoking taxation policy the LNP stole from the ALP.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-03/tobacco-excise-hike-confirmed-as-ahead-of-election-budget/7377936

quote:

Budget 2016: Tobacco excise hike confirmed as Scott Morrison prepares to deliver election budget AM By political reporters Naomi Woodley and Eliza Borrello Updated 19 minutes ago

Federal Treasurer Scott Morrison will hand down a budget tonight that will help to define this year's lengthy election campaign. The Government says it is a new, positive plan to create jobs and promote economic growth, but it is also adopting one of the Federal Opposition's biggest proposed tax increases. Finance Minister Mathias Cormann confirmed the budget would contain a 12.5 per cent annual increase in tobacco excise over the four years to 2020. But he said the budget would also reveal a $20 billion hole in Labor's plan. "We are implementing in the budget the same policy on tobacco excise as Labor has previously announced and what is very clear is that Labor's sums just don't add up," he said. Labor estimated its policy would raise almost $48 billion over 10 years, but a Treasury document seen by the ABC estimates the revenue at just over $28 billion. "This is just another example which demonstrates that Labor just doesn't know how to manage money, " Senator Cormann said.

But the Opposition has rejected the Government's attack.

"Labor's policy was costed by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office," Shadow Families Minister Jenny Macklin told AM. "Of course we have a significant number of savings that have been identified to help meet the cost of our very important promises, particularly our promises to properly fund schools. "We've got about $100 billion worth of savings that have been identified and all of those have been properly costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office." Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen accused the Government of leaking the figures to try to cover its embarrassment for adopting Labor's policy. But he said the Opposition would update its savings figures if the budget contained new modelling on smoking rates.

Scott Morrison to launch re-election bid

Tonight Mr Morrison will effectively launch the Coalition's bid to be re-elected when the country goes to a double dissolution election on July 2. Malcolm Turnbull has described the budget as a "new agenda" on which voters can judge the Coalition, but Labor is doing all it can to tie the Prime Minister to his predecessor, Tony Abbott. The Opposition said tonight's budget would retain cuts to family tax benefit payments that are yet to pass the Senate. "Millions of families will see themselves worse off as a result of the cuts to family tax benefits delivered by Mr Abbott and now confirmed by Mr Turnbull and they won't be receiving any of the benefits from tax cuts," Ms Macklin told AM. Labor is sharpening its efforts to brand the Coalition, and its policies, as fundamentally unfair, and it sees education as one of the key differences heading into the election. "How can you say that you're interested in jobs or growth if you're cutting $29 billion out of our schools, which of course is the place where children are getting the education of the future?" Ms Macklin said. The budget will include an additional $1.2 billion for schools over the next four years, but it falls short of Labor's promise of an extra $4.5 billion.

So what's supposedly in the fixers budget?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/budget-2016-what-we-know/7365762

quote:

Budget 2016: What we know so far By political reporters Stephanie Anderson, Francis Keany and Dan Conifer Updated about an hour ago

Election year budgets are usually full of juicy promises, but this year's will have a different flavour just days from a double dissolution poll being officially called. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Treasurer Scott Morrison have gone to great lengths to warn they want the Government to "live within its means", but it also needs to be the launch pad for a marathon election campaign. That's likely to mean a distinct lack of expensive promises � with a few exceptions � with the Coalition keen to prove it can responsibly manage the economy. Expect the term "jobs and growth" to feature prominently.

So what's in?

Education

The Federal Government will pump an extra $1.2 billion into the nation's schools, giving the states funding certainty until 2020. The pledge partially reverses the 10-year, $30-billion cut to education (30/10 = 3 so this is actually a cut of 1.8 billion) funding contained in the Abbott government's 2014 budget, but falls short of Labor's commitment to fully fund the Gonski plan. Federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham said the budget would contain an additional $1.2 billion for schools between 2018 and 2020 by increasing the rate of spending growth from 2.5 per cent to 3.56 per cent a year.

Superannuation

Treasurer Scott Morrison has confirmed wealthy Australians will pay more tax on their superannuation. The plan was first flagged last year, when Mr Morrison indicated interest in a proposal that would see contributions taxed at a rate 15 per cent below a person's income tax level. The plan is estimated to save the Government $6 billion next financial year. Labor has also announced its policy, which would see high income earners pay 30 per cent tax on contributions after their annual income (including super) passes $250,000.(This is good policy and how hard to go at it was always going to be a political decision).

Cigarettes

Smokers will be hit with another increase in the tobacco excise, which will increase 12.5 per cent over the next four years, with a packet of 25 cigarettes to cost more than $40 by 2020. The Coalition's proposal echoes Labor's plan with one major difference. While the Federal Opposition says its plan will raise about $48 billion over 10 years (costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office), the Government says the same plan will raise about $28 billion (according to Treasury officials). This leaves a $20 billion hole in Labor's costings.(If Labor were in government I'd be more inclined to give a poo poo about their numbers... This is mind boggling spin.)

Company tax rates

This is likely to be one of the big announcements in the budget. A couple of leaks so far indicate the Federal Government wants to change the definition of a small business. It would reclassify 74,000 medium-sized businesses so they qualify for additional assistance.(And it would be funded out of? ~thin air~ Going hard on an opposition while nicking their policies isn't a good plan when you announce policies that don't have a single feather to fly them, but this is obtuse technical financial matters and will get zero air play)

Transport

Commuters in Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria have been the big winners so far, with the Prime Minister announcing funding for a variety of road projects in recent weeks. The Federal Government announced on Monday it would provide $2.5 billion for the Melbourne Metro and Sydney Metro rail projects. The only catch is that it will use the existing $5 billion Asset Recycling Initiative, which requires state governments to sell off public assets to pay for it. There will also be additional infrastructure for Victoria and Western Australia. (This is a net 'meh' all the new good public transport stuff is virtually negated by gutting state government's ability to fund themselves into the future. Expect to hear the word 'productivity' spouted a lot).

Infrastructure

Fifty million dollars will be allocated towards supporting new infrastructure projects for the nation's cities. The plan will see the Commonwealth help broker finance for state and private infrastructure projects, rather than providing direct grants. (50 million? Thats less than half what the government spends on advertising ($107.1 million) (Source - http://www.finance.gov.au/sites/def...ort-2014-15.pdf) either that's an egregious typo (Black hole?). If it isn't a typo (it isn't) then we have just found the self mocking infrastructure announcement. Every time a Liberal pollie spouts 'infrastructure!' someone need s to bellow 50 MILLION!)

Health

The Prime Minister offered the states an extra $2.9 billion in funding for hospitals until 2020 at the COAG meeting earlier this year. Whether there is anything new in the May budget remains to be seen. The Government has since confirmed $5 billion over four years on a subsidised public dental scheme. (Remember when it was shown this was actually a serious cut. Yeah well there's that.)

And what's out?

Negative gearing

Changes to negative gearing, along with the capital gains tax discount, have been ruled out by the Federal Government. Labor promised to restrict negative gearing to new houses and apartments (while grandfathering existing schemes), but the Government argues it will hurt investor confidence and house prices. ()

Goods and Services Tax

The Federal Government will not touch this with a barge pole, despite debate about the prospect of increasing or broadening the GST from 10 per cent to 15 per cent late last year.(How about scraping it?)

A recent ANU poll found people were in favour of cutting negative gearing ahead of upping GST rates. (:shock:)

The unknowns

Income tax

There has been some budget speculation about possible changes to income tax, although there is unlikely to be widespread relief. One suggestion has been to change the point at which the second-highest tax bracket kicks in, which is currently $80,000. The Treasurer had earlier downplayed the prospect of income tax cuts, telling a business summit in March the Government could not afford to provide cuts to both company and personal taxes in the budget.

Submarines and defence

It is unclear whether there will be any money in the forward estimates for the future submarines project, but there could be money to help establish the $50 billion scheme, which is set to start construction in Adelaide from 2020.(Watch this enormous waste of money go through on a nod. This is almost literally the fish bicycle. Maybe it's the typo and it's only 50 Million.)

So it has all but been announced that the election strategy is "We are better economic managers". Yeah we could tell by the floppy shoes and clown noses. So innovative and agile, in fact, that pinching the oppositions entire economic plan is the way forward.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-02/matthewson-libs-to-play-the-imitation-game-in-budget-2016/7374640

quote:

Libs to play the imitation game in budget 2016 OPINION By Paula Matthewson Posted Mon at 8:38am

In matching or co-opting some of Labor's initiatives in the budget, the Government will hope to neutralise the Opposition's attack and clear the battlefield of all but the key points of differentiation before the election, writes Paula Matthewson.

When Treasurer Scott Morrison delivers his first budget tomorrow night, he will tell the people of Australia that the measures contained therein are all about jobs and growth. But as is often the case with politicians, the Treasurer will be telling only half the story. The Turnbull/Morrison budget will be focused not only on the economy but also on the election, and therefore will also be about neutralising Labor's most threatening policy initiatives. We won't know until election day whether Opposition leader Bill Shorten and the Labor Party were brilliant or foolish when they decided to release a small number of signature policies courageously early in the electoral cycle. The election result will determine our retrospective assessment of that strategy. Not since Liberal leader John Hewson released the longest political suicide note in history, the 600 page Fightback policy manifesto, has an opposition been prepared to risk showing its hand so far out from an election. Conventional thinking suggests the long lead-time simply gives the Government one of two free kicks - either an extended period in which to criticise any policies that have been announced early, or the option of stealing them altogether.

Nevertheless, Shorten and his strategy team decided to throw caution to the wind, releasing Labor's first post Rudd/Gillard policy 18 months before the next election was due. That was the policy to crack down on tax avoidance by multinational corporations, which is now supported by the vast majority of voters. The following month, Labor broadened its scope from fat-cat corporates to cashed-up retirees, announcing plans to cut tax concessions for wealthy superannuants. This has also become a popular policy. Labor now has almost two dozen "positive policies" listed on its party website. Unsurprisingly, the list is dominated by education initiatives, given that policy area is a traditional strength for Labor. There also appears to be residual good will in the community, if not necessarily for the Gillard government's Gonski reforms, then at least to increase education funding.

Other budget measures proposed by Labor that appear to have captured the public's imagination include proposed changes to negative gearing, and increases to the taxation of tobacco products. Popular policies such as these pose an electoral risk for the Turnbull Government, a risk that must be neutralised either through co-option or by providing a credible alternative. One of the biggest points of differentiation has been, until now, on the funding of education. The Government sought to narrow that gap on the weekend by announcing an increase of $1.2 billion to education funding for the final two years of the Gonski package, was well as an additional year. This move stops Labor from saying the Government has abandoned Gonski, although the Opposition will still be able to point out that it is promising $4.5 billion in extra funding. It will be left to voters to judge which party is more likely to keep its word, and which commitment is more economically responsible.

Both questions will be on the minds of voters after the budget, as we commence the long walk to an election on July 2: "Can we afford this policy?" and "Who do I trust to run the economy?" Treasurer Morrison has done his best to establish that frame of thinking, saying on the weekend that now is not the time for "throwing money around". The PM has also done his bit, saying we must "live within our means". The Coalition's decision not to tamper with negative gearing clears the way for it to depict Labor's reforms as a tax increase rather than a housing affordability issue. ranted, neither admonition seems to have applied to the recent awarding of a $50 billion submarine contract to the French, but that will be of little concern to the voters in South Australia who have been concerned about their job prospects in that beleaguered state.

The Government also appears likely to steal a couple of Labor's initiatives, firstly the tobacco excise increase, and cuts to superannuation perks for wealthy retirees. Morrison confirmed on the weekend that the budget will include measures to "better target the concessions" in superannuation, while some leaks to the media have suggested the Government has decided to up the ante on this point, lowering the threshold even further than the Opposition to minimise those getting an enhanced tax benefit. It has also been recently suggested the Government will announce a crackdown on the tax minimisation/evasion tactics of multinational corporations, emulating the spirit of Labor's policy, if not the detail. In matching or co-opting some of Labor's initiatives in tomorrow's budget, the Government hopes to reduce the number of fronts on which it has to defend itself from Labor and clear the battlefield of all but the key points of differentiation.

One of those contrasts will be tax, which the Government plans to make a proxy for economic management. The Treasurer said on the weekend that the budget was configured to ensure the overall tax burden will not rise, and that the Government would save more than it spent over the forward estimates to reduce the deficit. Accordingly, Labor will be depicted as the spendthrift, irresponsibly ratcheting up taxes but still spending more than it earns. The Coalition's decision not to tamper with negative gearing clears the way for it to depict Labor's reforms as a tax increase rather than a housing affordability issue. This will be a compelling argument for voters still disposed to the view that Labor cannot be trusted with the keys to the Treasury coffers. The Ipsos poll found just a few weeks ago that only 25 per cent of voters said they believed Labor had the best policies for managing the economy, while 43 per cent nominated the Coalition.

We will likely see in Bill Shorten's budget reply later this week how Labor intends to deal with that perception deficiency.

And then voters will be off to the polls. When July 2 finally arrives, it will be time to cast judgement on Labor's go-early strategy, the Government's neutralisation tactics, and the policies being offered by both parties. Even so, the final decision could rest on which party voters distrust the least.

tl;dr The LNP are about to lie their way to an easy election win and may god have mercy on our souls.

A first and final plea for the new month. Please try something new and don't respond to the trolls. Go on. See if it makes a difference. I once thought that slamming my balls in the desk draw every ten minutes was a way to reduce my blood pressure but then I stopped and the results were amazing....

BCR posted:

Despite all the past actions of the Americans, China are being such shitheads, that America is seen as a necessary and positive player by Vietnam, Phillipines, etc
Despite all the past actions of the Japanese, China are being such shitheads that Japan is being seen positively by players in the south china sea dispute
Link
Link
Link
Link

Chinese fishermen destroying coral reefs, rare species

Basically google south china seas in the news section and have a read

I have read plenty about China and the South China Sea. I have already agreed that China are being poo poo heads. I again ask you. Why do we have to choose between the US and China? And if we did...The US are absolutely worse on any metric than China (Iraq, Panama, Cuba, I could literally go on for pages) The US are all about shoot first and ask questions later. The US are using (And therefore magnifying) China's activities in the region (Which incidently is at least close to China) as a way to project their already considerable influence in the region. Call me paranoid but the US getting involved isn't likely to lead to hugs and puppies. China are poo poo heads, the US are poo poo lords by standing behind either one of them we are making our selves poo poo heads/lords by proxy. How about we don't and instead encourage dialogue through the available forums. A dialogue we can not honestly enter into while we are a proxy poo poo head/lord.

# ? May 3, 2016 02:12

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Can't even rely on the Liberal party for cheaper cigs these days.

[edit

Cartoon posted:

I have read plenty about China and the South China Sea. I have already agreed that China are being poo poo heads. I again ask you. Why do we have to choose between the US and China? And if we did...The US are absolutely worse on any metric than China (Iraq, Panama, Cuba, I could literally go on for pages)

This is insane. ]

open24hours fucked around with this message at 02:25 on May 3, 2016

# ? May 3, 2016 02:22

BCR: Jan 23, 2011

Well, because China is only interested in one on one dialogue where it can bully the smaller countries into submission leading to the country's involved (Vietnam, Phillipines, etc) acting collectively with the US to counter that.

So Australia ends up defacto on the US side, because the US wants to use dialogue and international forums to reach a settlement and China does not.

# ? May 3, 2016 02:23

BBJoey: Oct 31, 2012

Cartoon posted:

I have read plenty about China and the South China Sea. I have already agreed that China are being poo poo heads. I again ask you. Why do we have to choose between the US and China? And if we did...The US are absolutely worse on any metric than China (Iraq, Panama, Cuba, I could literally go on for pages) The US are all about shoot first and ask questions later. The US are using (And therefore magnifying) China's activities in the region (Which incidently is at least close to China) as a way to project their already considerable influence in the region. Call me paranoid but the US getting involved isn't likely to lead to hugs and puppies. China are poo poo heads, the US are poo poo lords by standing behind either one of them we are making our selves poo poo heads/lords by proxy. How about we don't and instead encourage dialogue through the available forums. A dialogue we can not honestly enter into while we are a proxy poo poo head/lord.

extremely lomarf

# ? May 3, 2016 02:38

thatfatkid: Feb 20, 2011; by Azathoth

All the more reason to significantly increase our defence spending and separate entirely from such international disputes/conflicts.

# ? May 3, 2016 02:47

Zenithe: Feb 25, 2013; _{Ask not to whom the Anidavatar belongs; it belongs to thee.}

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-03/dutton-says-asylum-seekers-encouraged-to-self-harm-by-advocates/7378938

quote:

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has hit out at "advocates and others" who he believes are pressuring asylum seekers to self-harm.

Can we get some mashed potato over here please?

# ? May 3, 2016 02:50

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

The thing is that China sees itself as a great power and after a century of humiliation restoring it's rightful place in the world. Trying to stand up to Chinese assertions in the SCS/the 9 dash line is a balancing act because, domestically, the CCP can't lose face by giving in. So doing freedom of navigation ops may end up being counterproductive because China then escalates by putting in an air defence identification zone.

# ? May 3, 2016 02:51

BBJoey: Oct 31, 2012

it would be tragic imo if dutton was burnt alive

# ? May 3, 2016 02:54

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

It's really disgusting that "advocates" would encourage people to self harm just to further their own pathetic agendas

# ? May 3, 2016 02:56

Zenithe: Feb 25, 2013; _{Ask not to whom the Anidavatar belongs; it belongs to thee.}

Negligent posted:

It's really disgusting that "advocates" would encourage people to self harm just to further their own pathetic agendas

It would be for sure. Is there any evidence to suggest this is the case though?

# ? May 3, 2016 02:58

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Come on, who is going to take Negligent's bait?

# ? May 3, 2016 03:04

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

open24hours posted:

Can't even rely on the Liberal party for cheaper cigs these days.

[edit This is insane. ]

BBJoey posted:

extremely lomarf

Don't be shy guys, give us the benefit of your superior grasp of geopolitics then. I've got no hope that open even understands what Cartoon wrote, but BBJoey is usually more insightful.

BCR posted:

Well, because China is only interested in one on one dialogue where it can bully the smaller countries into submission leading to the country's involved (Vietnam, Phillipines, etc) acting collectively with the US to counter that.

So Australia ends up defacto on the US side, because the US wants to use dialogue and international forums to reach a settlement and China does not.

Australia is defacto US because we sign up to everything they say and have their bases on our soil. It didn't just happen because China is being mean to the locals. All this "oh noes we have to pick sides", the last time I looked, I didn't see India rushing to one side or the other. But then they're a bit more grown-up than us as a nation, even though they're half our age. Painting the US like good international citizens is just hilariously one-eyed. Very lazy of you BCR, you're usually better than this.

Negligent posted:

The thing is that China sees itself as a great power and after a century of humiliation restoring it's rightful place in the world. Trying to stand up to Chinese assertions in the SCS/the 9 dash line is a balancing act because, domestically, the CCP can't lose face by giving in. So doing freedom of navigation ops may end up being counterproductive because China then escalates by putting in an air defence identification zone.

How is it possible that Negligent is showing you geniuses up? Almost like he did history in school or something useless like that, enabling him to have some background on current events.

# ? May 3, 2016 03:04

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

I know that when someone tells me to kill my are self I take that on board and give it the weight and consideration it deserves.

# ? May 3, 2016 03:07

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

ewe2 posted:

Don't be shy guys, give us the benefit of your superior grasp of geopolitics then. I've got no hope that open even understands what Cartoon wrote, but BBJoey is usually more insightful.

Well, why don't you tell us why it's a good idea?

ewe2 posted:

All this "oh noes we have to pick sides", the last time I looked, I didn't see India rushing to one side or the other. But then they're a bit more grown-up than us as a nation, even though they're half our age. Painting the US like good international citizens is just hilariously one-eyed. Very lazy of you BCR, you're usually better than this.

Yes, a nuclear power with over a billion people has the same decisions to make as Australia.

open24hours fucked around with this message at 03:11 on May 3, 2016

# ? May 3, 2016 03:09

LibertyCat: Mar 5, 2016; by WE B Bourgeois

I'll stop posting here for as long as Negligent shuts up about ~~Scott Morrison~~ Bill Shorten. Brain fart.

# ? May 3, 2016 03:09

BBJoey: Oct 31, 2012

ewe2 posted:

BBJoey is usually more insightful.

please do not mischaracterise my illustrious shitposting career

My main objection is to what I perceive (perhaps incorrectly) as a 'US are jerks so China should be allowed to be jerks as well' equivocation. US foreign policy is an utter nightmare and will become worse when Hillary is elected next year, but that doesn't mean every position they take is worthy of scorn by association. The Iranian negotiations, for example, were a huge success, and my (admittedly ill-informed) understanding of the South China Sea tensions is that the US is on the side of reason. There are definitely issues to be argued with tactics employed by the US on this issue but the strategy is fairly sound, I feel.

now look what you've made me done I've gone and effort posted, gently caress

# ? May 3, 2016 03:12

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

Bill Shorten will be the next Prime Minister

# ? May 3, 2016 03:13

MonoAus: Nov 5, 2012

BBJoey posted:

it would be tragic imo if dutton was burnt alive

I tried to roast some potatoes in coals once and burnt them pretty bad. That's sorta the same thing, right?

# ? May 3, 2016 03:15

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

Anidav posted:

Bill Shorten will be the next Prime Minister

# ? May 3, 2016 03:15

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

You can post that gif all you like. shorten has improved considerably in public speaking since then.

# ? May 3, 2016 03:17

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

Zenithe posted:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-03/dutton-says-asylum-seekers-encouraged-to-self-harm-by-advocates/7378938

Can we get some mashed potato over here please?

Maybe dutton should have another moss review, the palid little piece of dog poo poo

# ? May 3, 2016 03:22

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

Anidav posted:

You can post that gif all you like. shorten has improved considerably in public speaking since then.

He's checked in with the focus groups and worked out what will be most popular to believe

# ? May 3, 2016 03:30

BCR: Jan 23, 2011

ewe2 posted:

Australia is defacto US because we sign up to everything they say and have their bases on our soil. It didn't just happen because China is being mean to the locals. All this "oh noes we have to pick sides", the last time I looked, I didn't see India rushing to one side or the other. But then they're a bit more grown-up than us as a nation, even though they're half our age. Painting the US like good international citizens is just hilariously one-eyed. Very lazy of you BCR, you're usually better than this.

The US are not saints, in the South China sea dispute they are clear water better international citizens than China in this one theatre.

India is picking sides. The US and non chinese side.

quote:

India is set to participate in a multinational maritime exercise in the strategically important South China Sea

The participants of the exercise, to be held in Brunei, include Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Myanmar and South Korea. It is being held at the South China Sea.

Link

quote:

India and the United States are in talks to help each other track submarines in the Indian Ocean, military officials say, a move that could further tighten defense ties between New Delhi and Washington as China steps up its undersea activities.

Both the United States and India are growing concerned at the reach and ambition of the Chinese navy, which is taking an increasingly assertive stance in the South China Sea and is challenging India's domination in the Indian Ocean.

Link

quote:

India, Japan and the United States will hold joint naval exercises each year, Indian government sources said, as the three countries kicked off the first such drills in the Bay of Bengal in eight years, a move likely to concern China.

The last time New Delhi hosted multilateral drills in its waters in 2007 prompted disquiet in China where some saw it as a U.S. -inspired security grouping on the lines of NATO in Europe.

But Prime Minister Narendra Modi has signaled a more robust security policy, seeking stronger strategic ties with the United States and Japan while keeping a lid on border tensions with China.

Link

BCR fucked around with this message at 03:37 on May 3, 2016

# ? May 3, 2016 03:32

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

Doesn't calling something a freedom of navigation exercise sort of defeat the purpose of a freedom of navigation exercise?

# ? May 3, 2016 03:37

BCR: Jan 23, 2011

It makes the Chinese look bad if something happens to the ship that loudly and clearly announced what its doing, peacefully and in international waters.

It also is a visible sign of support for non Chinese govts

# ? May 3, 2016 03:41

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

BCR posted:

It makes the Chinese look bad if something happens to the ship that loudly and clearly announced what its doing, peacefully and in international waters.

It also is a visible sign of support for non Chinese govts

Right, but wouldn't you be better off not provoking the reaction and hoping they either let it go through without issue, or interfere anyway at which point you are acting from a stronger position to criticise them?

# ? May 3, 2016 03:45

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

But you see the Chinese have mastered the art of provocation. They send fishing boats and coast guard vessels to disputed territories not warships so as not to provoke a military response.

# ? May 3, 2016 03:51

Mexican Cat Farm: Dec 11, 2010

Why are the Australian population not just happy with murder and torture by proxy, but want more of it?

# ? May 3, 2016 03:54

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

Not sure, maybe ask refugee "advocates"

# ? May 3, 2016 03:55

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

https://twitter.com/a_rigby/status/727328470817075200

# ? May 3, 2016 03:55

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

open24hours posted:

Well, why don't you tell us why it's a good idea?

Yes, a nuclear power with over a billion people has the same decisions to make as Australia.

Thought you'd chicken out, I didn't say anything was a good idea.

But: being a yes-man for the US definitely isn't. China will do what it wants to do and other than a lot of macho yelling and screaming nothing will change that. Maybe you feel they don't have a right to flex their muscles but given their treatment from the West and Japan in the last two centuries I'm frankly surprised there aren't more nuclear craters.

The degree of side Australia takes with the US will have repercussions. On the plus side, the US is emboldened to talk up poo poo and some of our neighbours might like that. But no one is under the illusion we're anything but US lapdogs. Of course when the US charges in like a bull at a gate and this worries the same neighbours, that yes-man position won't look as good. we may not depend on them economically, but it's the political barriers to further integration into Asia we might rue.

And we need China economically more than we need the US. Shouldn't we worry more about China thinks, or don't we need all those export dollars when they flex those muscles? Why didn't we go for the Japanese sub contract for instance, open? We have a finer line to tread than just echoing whatever the imperialist US running dog says. This is diplomacy, I don't expect you to understand it.

Re your second hilarious comment. India is a good deal more mature as a diplomatic country than Australia because they took the position of independence from all sides from the start of their nationhood, not because they have a bunch of people, oh and started from a much weaker economic base than we did. Somehow, they owe less even to their former colonial masters than we do, and have not had to suck up to the US either. As an Asian country they get more respect from the region than we do, they are part of international Asian treaties and groups that we are barred from, and generally show us up in diplomatic terms. We should be aspiring to be more like them but we're far too comfortable being a US lapdog, and that's how the region sees us.

BBJoey posted:

My main objection is to what I perceive (perhaps incorrectly) as a 'US are jerks so China should be allowed to be jerks as well' equivocation. US foreign policy is an utter nightmare and will become worse when Hillary is elected next year, but that doesn't mean every position they take is worthy of scorn by association. The Iranian negotiations, for example, were a huge success, and my (admittedly ill-informed) understanding of the South China Sea tensions is that the US is on the side of reason. There are definitely issues to be argued with tactics employed by the US on this issue but the strategy is fairly sound, I feel.

China is reacting to its sense of nationalism after a couple of centuries being everyone's bitch. It's not going to be pretty. I deplore their heavy-handedness, but I'm not so stupid as to think they're going to stop if threatened. All the "naval exercises" are just bluster, but they're alo diplomacy.

Unfortunately the US thinks it has a right to tell China what it can and cannot do, and its a fundamentally broken strategy, guaranteed to annoy China and make it even more determined to push smaller countries around to show the US it doesn't have the power it think it does. I think behind the scenes many people on both sides of this issue agree China will generally get what it wants, but it never does well to say so aloud. If China wants the South China Sea, it's going to get it, full stop short of a major war that everyone is trying to avoid.

I agree, Hilary is a hawk and could well be tempted to put her foot in it, she has a very close association with the armed forces. But there is no "side of reason", the strategy is about US feelings of international relevance more than anything else. It's been poking and prodding the Japanese to be more self-reliant in its defence, for example and of course the prospect of an arms race is publically deplored (and privately welcomed). I expect a good many decades of yelps and pantomime horror and not a lot of serious action however. My point is that whatever the US position, its Australia's win or loss how we tread that diplomatic line.

BCR posted:

The US are not saints, in the South China sea dispute they are clear water better international citizens than China in this one theatre.

India is picking sides. The US and non chinese side.

Two of your links clearly indicate India's main concern is its own waters and the other is being a good Asian citizen. Oh, and saving the US time and money tracking subs for them, that'll avoid the US wanting a loving base somewhere nearby to "help" with the China "problem". That's really picking sides, yeah. It's never simply a matter of being a "good citizen" either, there's always self-interest involved.

# ? May 3, 2016 04:15

Halo14: Sep 11, 2001

Doctor Spaceman posted:

https://twitter.com/a_rigby/status/727328470817075200

Hmm they still don't know how the internet works.

# ? May 3, 2016 04:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 06:48

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

ewe2 posted:

Thought you'd chicken out, I didn't say anything was a good idea.
[...]
This is diplomacy, I don't expect you to understand it.

Come on man, you're better than this.

ewe2 posted:

And we need China economically more than we need the US. Shouldn't we worry more about China thinks, or don't we need all those export dollars when they flex those muscles? Why didn't we go for the Japanese sub contract for instance, open?

I don't know, you tell me?

# ? May 3, 2016 04:23

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol May - Crisis on Infinite Australias

«‹›90 »