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

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

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

For goodness sake people, if you get one of those forms with a reply paid envelope, but the blank form in it (so as not to give the game away) and then fill it with glitter, or some kind of white powder if you are feeling really adventurous.

# ? May 14, 2016 01:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 19:09

CrazyTolradi: Oct 2, 2011; It feels so good to be so bad.....at posting.

Anidav posted:

Jokes on the LNP, Negligent would do it for free.

Wouldn't be shocked if it was him. He must be really kicking himself because of that 7 day probation preventing him from his Minimum Viable Product trolling and now has turned to Twitter as an outlet for his frustrations.

# ? May 14, 2016 01:33

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

Imagine being the LNP Campaign Manager

Imagine being told to buy people to like facebook pages and hate the opposition leader on twitter

Imagine a gun on the desk but the CHAMBER IS EMPTY

# ? May 14, 2016 01:38

GorgeOnMySyphilis: Mar 3, 2012

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/economy/2016/05/07/reagan-voodoo-economics-the-heart-scott-morrisons-budget/14625432003219

# ? May 14, 2016 01:49

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

GorgeOnMySyphilis posted:

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/economy/2016/05/07/reagan-voodoo-economics-the-heart-scott-morrisons-budget/14625432003219

Pay walled and common knowledge.

# ? May 14, 2016 01:52

Redcordial: Nov 7, 2009; TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

lol the country is fed up with your safe spaces and trigger warnings you useless special snowflakes, send the sjws to mexico

Are there any videos or streams available to watch last nights debate?

I've tried the Google with no success and I'm eagerly awaiting being able to watch it.

# ? May 14, 2016 01:58

GorgeOnMySyphilis: Mar 3, 2012

Cartoon posted:

Pay walled and common knowledge.

I read the whole article without issue, didn't realise it's paywalled?

# ? May 14, 2016 01:58

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Inside, it had the energy of a nursing home. Many of the mostly grey-haired patrons looked rather bemused by the invasion of journalists and other political hangers on.

"I am here to win a raffle," Joe Turner, an RSL regular and retired Pitt Town police officer, said when asked why he had come to the debate.

# ? May 14, 2016 02:03

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

Cartoon posted:

Pay walled and common knowledge.

Common knowledge is right.

quote:

Reagan ‘voodoo economics’ at the heart of Scott Morrison's budget

MIKE SECCOMBE

Following a sponsored visit by Reagan adviser Arthur Laffer, Malcolm Turnbull’s budget is based on the fallacy of his trickle-down economics.

AAP Image

Former economic adviser to Ronald Reagan, Arthur Laffer, in Australia last year.

YOU ARE READING1 / 1FREE ARTICLES THIS WEEKSUBSCRIBEFrom less than $2 a week

"" style="box-sizing: border-box; max-width: 100%; border: 0px; vertical-align: bottom;">

The story goes that in 1974, at the Two Continents restaurant of the Hotel Washington, a conservative economist named Arthur Laffer met with two rising stars in the Republican Party, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

As they ate, they talked economics. The United States was in a recession at the time, and Laffer sketched out on a serviette something which became famous as the “Laffer curve”.

Bloomberg media, in a story that reunited the three men 40 years later to share recollections of the historic meal, described this curve as “the napkin doodle that launched the supply-side revolution”.

Laffer’s theory became an article of faith among certain economists, politicians and, of course, business leaders and wealthy individuals. It goes by various names: supply-side economics; trickle-down economics; Reaganomics; or, in the famous phrase of president George Bush snr, voodoo economics.

The fundamental premise of Laffer’s argument was simple. If the rate of tax is zero, the government gets no money. But if tax rates are 100 per cent, the government also gets no money, because no one bothers to work. Somewhere between those extremes there had to be an optimal point that maximised both the return on endeavour and government revenue. Laffer suggested that by cutting tax rates, government would stimulate economic activity and ultimately benefit from higher revenue. And the whole economy would benefit from – and this phrase might sound recently familiar – a boom in jobs and growth.

Laffer became an economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan, who proceeded to implement his prescription. Reagan progressively cut taxes, including reducing the marginal rate from 70 per cent to 28 per cent. British prime minister Margaret Thatcher also became a devotee, again employing Laffer, and from there the “tax cuts spur growth” philosophy spread.

And no wonder. You may have heard economist J. K. Galbraith’s famous quote that conservatives are engaged in one of mankind’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: “that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness”.

The Laffer curve provided one. Give the wealthy more, it said, and all will benefit.

Rates of economic growth were higher when corporate taxes were higher.

More than 40 years later, Laffer is still spruiking his economic vision and is still beloved of the rich and tax averse. Only last year the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry brought him to Australia to assist in their campaign for lower business taxes. They took him to Canberra, where he did the rounds of government.

He met with many key figures, particularly at a lunch with an informal grouping of Liberal Party free marketeers called the Modest Members, one of whose co-chairs, Kelly O’Dwyer, has since become assistant treasurer. The other co-chair is Scott Ryan, now minister for vocational education and skills. Former assistant treasurer Josh Frydenberg tweeted a picture of himself grinning with Laffer.

John Osborn, former chief operating officer and now economics policy adviser to the chamber of commerce, and Laffer tour organiser, also arranged for him to speak to the usual right-wing think tanks – the Institute of Public Affairs and Gerard Henderson’s Sydney Institute – as well as to various media outlets.

Some interviews went better than others. On St Patrick’s Day, Laffer was interviewed by Fran Kelly on ABC Radio National Breakfast, where he boasted that Reagan’s adoption of his policy gave the US “the most phenomenal economy of all time, [the] best recovery in US history”.

Kelly challenged him: “That’s a pretty rosy view of the Reaganomics there. The critics would say the biggest impact of those Reagan tax breaks was to double the US deficit to $155 billion and triple government debt to more than $2 trillion.”

Laffer made excuses. There had been a lot spent on defence. The deficits were “nothing” compared with those of more recent US administrations. But he acknowledged Reagan had not done enough to cut spending. He also said that when it came to encouraging enterprise and growth, “All taxes are bad, Fran.”

Kelly had put her finger on one of the big flaws of the supply-side theory, though. Far from maximising revenue to government, it reduces it. Therefore, its proponents argue, government should get smaller. But voters demand government services and so governments increasingly take on debt.

An OECD study from last year, “Sovereign Debt Composition in Advanced Economies: A Historical Perspective”, illustrates the phenomenon graphically. The debt-to-GDP ratio of all major nations had fallen sharply from its peak in World War II until the 1970s. Then, coincident with the ascent of the supply-siders, it began to rise. And then rise even faster after the global financial crisis. By 2010 – the end point of the OECD numbers – it had trebled. It continues to zoom upwards even as economies sink into deflation.

“Jobs and Growth”

For decades, the dominant belief was that if you look after the rich it will ultimately benefit all, but there is actually precious little evidence that is true. To the contrary, there is growing evidence that it does the exact opposite and increases inequality, which in turn reduces economic growth. The empirical data are increasingly leading people to the conclusion that the current global malaise is substantially a consequence of misplaced faith in trickle-down economics.

Which is where the 2016 budget comes in.

In the 30 minutes of Treasurer Scott Morrison’s budget speech on Tuesday night he uttered the phrase “jobs and growth” 13 times. It was said many times more before and afterwards.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, and other members of his government, also chant the mantra endlessly.

Why are they giving $5.3 billion of tax cuts to business over the next four years and, as Treasury revealed on Friday after several days of obfuscation from the government, $48.2 billion as the cuts apply to ever-larger businesses over 10 years? To encourage “jobs and growth”.

Why are they giving $4 billion worth of tax cuts to the top 25 per cent of income earners over the next four years? “Jobs and growth.”

Take The Saturday Paper reader survey and win $3000.

Why are they cutting the taxes of the top 2 per cent of income earners – those on more than $180,000 a year – by a further 2 per cent, at a cost of about $1.2 billion?

Why is the government prioritising tax cuts for high-income earners over other things, such as health, education, welfare, the environment, et cetera?

It’s always the same reason: “jobs and growth”.

It’s the classic supply-side argument: reduce tax and regulation on capital, and the benefits will flow down to all.

How else can you explain the spending priorities of the 2016 budget, summed up in three figures by the chief economist of The Australia Institute, Richard Denniss? “Forty-seven per cent of the value of those personal tax cuts goes to the top 1 per cent of income earners. Seventy-five per cent goes to the top 10 per cent. Zero goes to the bottom 65 or so per cent.”

It’s harder to determine how much of the business tax cuts will flow to top-income earners, in part because not all small and medium businesses are equally profitable and in part because so many of them are dodging tax anyway.

One can safely assume, however, that most of the benefit of the budget’s tax cuts will flow to wealthy people, even if their tax returns don’t fully indicate that wealth.

It has to be done, though, because, as Morrison said on Wednesday night: “If we wish to continue to see our living standards rise with more jobs and higher wages, we need to ensure our tax system encourages investment and enterprise.”

Tax cuts and inequality

But do lower tax rates result in stronger growth?

In 2012, the US Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan body charged with advising US lawmakers, set out to “clarify” whether there was any association between the tax rates paid by the highest income earners and economic growth.

It found no correlation.

That’s pretty amazing when you consider it was comparing the current low US tax rates with postwar rates above 90 per cent.

There was no conclusive evidence, the report found, of “a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment or productivity growth.”

But the report was even more damaging for supply-siders. It also found that “the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution”.

In other words, tax cuts did not encourage growth but did promote inequality.

In Australia, according to analysis from the Australian Council of Social Service, inequality grew more rapidly between 2000 and 2008 than in all but two other developed countries.

The council also highlighted some other indicators of increasing inequality. Over the 25 years to 2010, real wages increased by 14 per cent for those in the bottom 10 per cent of the income distribution range compared with 72 per cent for those in the top 10 per cent.

And wealth is far more unevenly distributed than income. The top 20 per cent have about 70 times more wealth than the bottom 20 per cent. The top 10 per cent of households own 45 per cent of all wealth; the bottom 40 per cent of households own just 5 per cent of wealth.

A recent OECD report on the subject noted that beyond its impact on social cohesion, “growing inequality is harmful for long-term economic growth”.

It estimated the increased inequality in the 20 years to 2005 knocked 4.7 percentage points off growth. The “key driver” it found, was the growing gap between the bottom 40 per cent on income earners and the rest.

Do we need business tax cuts to encourage jobs and growth?

Bureau of Statistics data, crunched by The Australia Institute, show that since 1960 private business investment in Australia has trended slowly down as a share of GDP. The interesting thing is that corporate tax rates have jumped around a lot over those 55 years. Before Australia caught the Laffer bug in the late 1980s, they averaged well above 40 per cent. Then they came down in a series of steps to 30 per cent. But there was no more investment as a result.

The same long-term trend is even more apparent in economic growth. The supply-siders would have us believe that lower corporate taxes would, as Turnbull repeats endlessly, lift growth. The reverse is the truth. Rates of economic growth were higher when corporate taxes were higher.

Up to 1988, under the higher corporate tax regime, the economy grew by 3.8 per cent a year on average. Thereafter, it dropped to 3 per cent. In recent years, it has been lower still. The estimate for the coming year is 2.5 per cent.

As for tax cuts boosting jobs and wages, the data shows unemployment rates were lower when corporate taxes were higher, and that since those company rates have been lowered, the share of GDP accruing to capital has risen significantly and that going to wages has declined.

In short, business is inclined to simply pocket the benefits of tax cuts.

Stiglitz responds

Forty years of supply-sidism, says Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, have now inflicted on the world “the economics of this inertia”.

He says it is “easy to understand, and there are readily available remedies. The world faces a deficiency of aggregate demand, brought on by a combination of growing inequality and a mindless wave of fiscal austerity. Those at the top spend far less than those at the bottom, so that as money moves up, demand goes down.”

Stiglitz’s answer: “An increase in government spending matched by increased taxes stimulates the economy.”

But that is not what Laffer was preaching when he sat down with members of the government last year, in his black suit and silver tie, still selling his napkin theory to whomever would listen. And it is Laffer’s prescription, rather than Stiglitz’s, that Turnbull and Morrison have offered in their budget.

# ? May 14, 2016 02:06

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

Redcordial posted:

Are there any videos or streams available to watch last nights debate?

I've tried the Google with no success and I'm eagerly awaiting being able to watch it.

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/PeoplesForumLive.html

I watched it later and was pretty underwhelmed by the whole thing. There was a lady asking an asinine question and waffled on for what seemed like forever. Not only did the moderator not cut her off, he gave the mic back to her to let her waffle on some more.

Tokamak fucked around with this message at 02:18 on May 14, 2016

# ? May 14, 2016 02:15

clusterfuck: Feb 6, 2004

Malcolm looked very sweaty. I notice SMH claimed no clear winner although those present and even the Daily Telegraph called it for Shorten.

Has anyone got that copy of Abbott's contract mailout? "Please keep this contract so you can hold us to account." I'd like to gaze wistfully at it, then read this again.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/how-the-coalition-has-failed-on-three-key-economic-promises

clusterfuck fucked around with this message at 02:20 on May 14, 2016

# ? May 14, 2016 02:17

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

Tokamak posted:

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/PeoplesForumLive.html

I watched it later and was pretty underwhelmed by the whole thing. There was a lady asking an asinine question and waffled on for what seemed like forever. Not only did the moderator not cut her off, he gave the mic back to her to let her waffle on some more.

The one talking about using superannuation to pay for a house? gently caress she was annoying.

# ? May 14, 2016 02:21

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

^^
You guessed it.

Although after that debate I thought, I can't believe that Bill Shitten will become our PM.

# ? May 14, 2016 02:22

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

bold this part

quote:

Why is the government prioritising tax cuts for high-income earners over other things, such as health, education, welfare, the environment, et cetera?

It�s always the same reason: �jobs and growth�.

It�s the classic supply-side argument: reduce tax and regulation on capital, and the benefits will flow down to all.

How else can you explain the spending priorities of the 2016 budget, summed up in three figures by the chief economist of The Australia Institute, Richard Denniss? �Forty-seven per cent of the value of those personal tax cuts goes to the top 1 per cent of income earners. Seventy-five per cent goes to the top 10 per cent. Zero goes to the bottom 65 or so per cent.�

It�s harder to determine how much of the business tax cuts will flow to top-income earners, in part because not all small and medium businesses are equally profitable and in part because so many of them are dodging tax anyway.

One can safely assume, however, that most of the benefit of the budget�s tax cuts will flow to wealthy people, even if their tax returns don�t fully indicate that wealth.

It has to be done, though, because, as Morrison said on Wednesday night: �If we wish to continue to see our living standards rise with more jobs and higher wages, we need to ensure our tax system encourages investment and enterprise.�

Tax cuts and inequality

But do lower tax rates result in stronger growth?

In 2012, the US Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan body charged with advising US lawmakers, set out to �clarify� whether there was any association between the tax rates paid by the highest income earners and economic growth.

It found no correlation.

That�s pretty amazing when you consider it was comparing the current low US tax rates with postwar rates above 90 per cent.

There was no conclusive evidence, the report found, of �a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment or productivity growth.�

But the report was even more damaging for supply-siders. It also found that �the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution�.

In other words, tax cuts did not encourage growth but did promote inequality.

# ? May 14, 2016 02:27

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

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

The one talking about using superannuation to pay for a house? gently caress she was annoying.

I still couldn't get over the fact that neither of them actually gave her a real answer, as in, "no this is dumb and will only raise house prices ". There was one old mate who talked for a real long time.

# ? May 14, 2016 02:31

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

starkebn posted:

bold this part

That was the debate in a nutshell. Turnbull saying tax cuts are good for jobs and growth, asset sales where it makes sense, and getting the best value for your dollar in health/education/etc. Shorten said the opposite, we should tax businesses, keep our assets and spend more on health/education/etc, and people ate it up. He pretty much hoisted Turnbull by his own ideological petard, because people are sick of letting banks and big businesses get away with murder and government services being perpetually underfunded.

# ? May 14, 2016 02:36

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

Uh miss that's not the point of superannuation

# ? May 14, 2016 02:40

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

Her reasoning is valid though. The money spent on interest over ~25 years of mortgage repayments is less than the equivalent would earn in a super account. It's still a terrible, terrible idea though.

# ? May 14, 2016 02:48

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

Why can't my kids spend their retirement money renting out my investment property while I enjoy my retirement asked curious boomer

Bill Shorten chuckles, "you mean the chaos emeralds?"

# ? May 14, 2016 02:49

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

GorgeOnMySyphilis posted:

I read the whole article without issue, didn't realise it's paywalled?

Well lucky you. Sometime while I was reading up on politics I inadvertently must have already had my one free view. Thanks for helping out though!

# ? May 14, 2016 02:58

Mr Chips: Jun 27, 2007; Whose arse do I have to blow smoke up to get rid of this baby?

Cartoon posted:

Well lucky you. Sometime while I was reading up on politics I inadvertently must have already had my one free view. Thanks for helping out though!

use a private/incognito brower session to bypass their cookies.

# ? May 14, 2016 03:06

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

I guess they know their audience with that 12 bottles of spirits offer.

# ? May 14, 2016 03:15

Halo14: Sep 11, 2001

Casino Mike not too popular:

Council merger fallout widens for Baird and Turnbull as administrators questioned

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/council-merger-fallout-widens-for-baird-and-turnbull-as-administrators-questioned-20160513-goutzb.html

quote:

The Baird government's council amalgamation agenda threatens to disrupt Malcolm Turnbull's re-election campaign in key marginal seats in NSW as more councils face the axe in the next seven weeks and as federal politicians distance themselves from the scheme. The mass sacking of councils also posed a public relations threat to the Baird government's development plans in Sydney, many of which were predicated on the involvement of councils that would now be without elected officials for the next 15 months.

As councillors in 42 councils across Sydney and NSW grappled with the realisation on Friday that they no longer held offices, the political and policy fall-out of the sackings remained uncertain.
Mr Baird and Local Government Minister Paul Toole have argued amalgamations were needed to make councils more efficient, save ratepayers money and to allow councils to better deliver major projects.
One government source said resistance to council mergers was not registering as an issue in state-wide polling.

But conservative MPs in marginal electorates continued to speak up about it. Nickolas Varvaris, whose electorate of Barton falls into the newly formed Georges River Council, Canterbury-Bankstown Council and Inner West Councils, said the mergers would provide "nothing but personal political benefit to a small cabal".
"The contempt that Mike Baird, Paul Toole and the NSW government have shown towards the electorate is nothing short of breathtaking and displays how out of touch they collectively are," Mr Varvaris said.

Andrew Gee, the Nationals candidate for the federal seat of Calare and the state member for Orange, said councils had been "thrown under the bus".
"I do not believe that there was appropriate consultation with individual MPs prior to this announcement being made, and I made this known to the Premier before walking out of the meeting," Mr Gee said.

The Baird government on Thursday created 19 new councils, to be run by administrators until local government elections are held in September 2017.
And if litigation that has prevented the creation of another nine new councils across the state was resolved in the government's favour, further tension could emerge in the weeks leading up to the July 2 poll.
A judgment in Woollahra Council's challenge to its amalgamation was expected within weeks. If Woollahra was unsuccessful, the path would be clear for an eastern suburbs mega-council.

Challenges by Sydney councils Mosman, Hunters Hill, North Sydney, Strathfield, Ku-ring-gai and Botany Bay, and regional councils Cabonne, Oberon, Gundagai could also be resolved by July 2.
The Hunters Hill and Strathfield challenges could affect the tightly-held seats of Bennelong and Reid.

Surveyed by Fairfax Media this week, most federal coalition candidates in NSW whose electorates were affected were keen to distance themselves from Baird's reform.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, whose inner-Sydney electorate is home to Woollahra Council, declined to comment.
Other senior Liberals, including Treasurer Scott Morrison, Major Projects Minister Paul Fletcher, Health Minister Sussan Ley and Assistant Cities Minister Angus Taylor also either refused to comment or express an opinion on the proposed mergers.

The member for Bennelong, John Alexander, said he did not think a proposed merger of Hunters Hill, Lane Cove and Ryde would be a factor at the federal poll.
"Everyone will be happy here as long as their favourite member gets re-elected," Mr Alexander said.
Former prime minister and member for Warringah Tony Abbott said he could "see the arguments both ways" and, when pushed, said he would probably prefer a single Northern Beaches Council

Ousted councillors in areas to be affected by major infrastructure projects, such as The Bays Precinct, WestConnex and the North Parramatta redevelopment scheme, also questioned whether community views would be adequately represented.
"Quite frankly, there will be nobody there to promote the concerns of residents," outgoing Parramatta lord mayor Paul Garrard said.
The administrators will have all the powers of the former council, which means they will be able to decide which projects proceed and how funds are spent on upgrades up until the next council elections in September 2017.

New councils will also have an implementation council of about six, probably made up of the mayors and deputy mayors .
And there will be local representative committees, which are expected to be drawn from those councillors who have indicated they are willing to serve.
Greens MP David Shoebridge criticised the appointment of a former planning official as administrator of a new Inner West council, where the WestConnex motorway is controversial.

There is likely to be controversy over John Turner, a former Nationals MP, being appointed administrator for the merger of Gloucester, Great Lakes and Taree councils.
Gloucester Council had opposed the development of coal seam gas in the region.
A spokesman for UrbanGrowth NSW said the organisation had been and would continue to collaborate with councils and the community on its projects.

# ? May 14, 2016 03:15

SadisTech: Jun 26, 2013; Clem.

Duncan Storrar is now reportedly on suicide watch after the Murdoch nationally publicised character assassination he underwent for daring to ask a question on a TV show.

http://theaimn.com/is-everybody-happy-now/

# ? May 14, 2016 03:47

CrazyTolradi: Oct 2, 2011; It feels so good to be so bad.....at posting.

SadisTech posted:

Duncan Storrar is now reportedly on suicide watch after the Murdoch nationally publicised character assassination he underwent for daring to ask a question on a TV show.

http://theaimn.com/is-everybody-happy-now/

How about an RC into Newscorp?

# ? May 14, 2016 04:02

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

# ? May 14, 2016 04:11

Amethyst: Mar 28, 2004; I CANNOT HELP BUT MAKE THE DCSS THREAD A FETID SWAMP OF UNFUN POSTING
plz notice me trunk-senpai

Baird installed hand picked councillors for 18 months just in time for the unpopular Westconnex bullshit to be waved through. It's disgraceful.

# ? May 14, 2016 04:35

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

Why did fact check become poo poo?

# ? May 14, 2016 04:37

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

Anidav posted:

Why did fact check become poo poo?

Because the ABC were under review for being biased. :ssh:

Have to overcorrect to make sure their funding isn't cut.

# ? May 14, 2016 04:42

AgentF: May 11, 2009

Just finished watching the Leaders Debate. Sorry, Negligent, but Bill Shorten is going to be prime minister.

# ? May 14, 2016 06:08

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

As much as I would love to cheer on Bill. The only people who watch debates are those who have already made up their mind. The average voter is Gary the Ute Beaut who only pays attention to the newspaper while he's on his break at a BP or Burger King.

# ? May 14, 2016 06:15

AgentF: May 11, 2009

Fine by me. Around Adelaide I'm happy for people to not pay attention to the newspapers.

# ? May 14, 2016 06:53

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Lee Lin Chin is hosting mixup on triple j tonight at 9pm.

# ? May 14, 2016 07:32

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Anidav posted:

As much as I would love to cheer on Bill. The only people who watch debates are those who have already made up their mind. The average voter is Gary the Ute Beaut who only pays attention to the newspaper while he's on his break at a BP or Burger King.

It deeply bothers me that our governments are decided by swinging voters in swinging seats, i.e. idiots who can't decide which basic political ideology they want to get behind and vote based entirely on personalities.

# ? May 14, 2016 08:11

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

From Elder's recent blog:

quote:

This is why "campaign trail journalism" is so lame and such bullshit:

* Firstly, Tim Crouse belled that cat in 1972, and since then this sub-genre has never been bettered or redeemed.

[I prefer Hunter S Thompson's Fear And Loathing On The Campaign Trail '72 because it dispenses with the myth that journalists are objective observers anyway, particularly in a political campaign.]

* Secondly, Australian journalists do not have the feel for local communities that older-style US journalists had. Regional and suburban journalism has been all but wiped out in Australia, and it was rarely a first step for national journalists as it was in the US or UK. Campaign-trail journalists waft in off the bus and make half-witted, shallow observations about communities, which discredits those media outlets for paying customers who live in them ("if they're wrong about our community, what else are they wrong about? Why are we watching this?"), to which news directors respond by making each successive campaign more and more vacuous.

* Thirdly, who appointed the media the "on message" police? When Duncan Storrar or Melinda ask about educational and employment opportunities, they're not going "off message" - they're trying to relate life in Australia as they know it to life in Australia as politicians would describe it. Politicians need to relate to voters, and vice versa: the media are meant to be the conduit for this, not to get in the way or pretend the dialogue is about something else. Party hacks have an imperative to be "on message" - that's their job, not the journalists', and not members of the public who are the point of every election. To hell with "on message", and to hell with the fewer than a thousand people across the nation who overestimate its importance.

* Fourth, cross-continental smirking while waiting for someone to gaffe is tiresome, and fatal to the engagement media organisations crave for survival and relevance. Journalists become mobile jukeboxes of cliches, idly wondering if there are enough such cliches to keep them going for two months. There aren't, of course. The reason why press gallery journalism sucks so hard is because they sit around Canberra for two-and-a-half years ignoring actual policy and governing and stuff, wishing they were on the campaign trail; and when on the campaign trail, they half-heartedly complain about the shallowness of it all, without admitting that they couldn't do policy if they tried. Their political cliches are exhausted before the writs have been issued. The engagement media organisations need for their very survival becomes swamped by the apathy they themselves have engendered.

* Fifth, you can't explain why Shorten and Labor are competitive without reference to policy. Given that Shorten hasn't had a charisma transplant, vacuous non-policy theatre-review analysis simply can't and won't work. Coverage of policy is done better off the campaign trail than on it (wtf does "tapdance a little faster" really mean, and would anyone with more than 10 minutes' experience of politics honestly believe more hype and stunts would improve anything?).

* Sixth, for media organisations looking to cut costs, two months of junkets to produce audience-repellent content is unsustainable. The 'romance of the road' leads to in-jokes and inability to communicate with those who weren't there at the time; which is everyone, and that defeats the very idea of journalism. Everything you had wanted, or will want, to say about the 'romance of the road' has been done in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sUXMzkh-j this song . - thanks anyway. The major parties are increasingly creating their own content and are happy to provide it direct to the newsroom for free (no Alice, staffers are not playing journalist, they are working to replace you and you are helping them).

# ? May 14, 2016 08:26

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

loving hell Elder is good.

# ? May 14, 2016 09:10

spamman: Jul 11, 2002; Chin up Tiger, There is always next season...

Jumpingmanjim posted:

For goodness sake people, if you get one of those forms with a reply paid envelope, but the blank form in it (so as not to give the game away) and then fill it with glitter, or some kind of white powder if you are feeling really adventurous.

I received one from Adam Bandt the other day. I think it's just something the sitting MP is entitled to do.

# ? May 14, 2016 09:51

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Yeah I got one from my local Labor MP - I think it's actually one of their responsibilities?

# ? May 14, 2016 09:57

Snod.: Oct 3, 2014

I got one from both LNP and ALP in the past week, and got one from the LNP for the local election earlier in the year. The thought of putting a power in the envelope crossed my mind but I'd rather limit the reasons to be suspected of terrorism.

# ? May 14, 2016 10:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 19:09

Cpt Soban: Jul 23, 2011

http://theaimn.com/is-everybody-happy-now/

quote:

�I am friends with the Storrar family, they�re currently being hounded by media, and outsiders picking apart half truths and misconstruing versions of the truth.
Yes Duncan has had a hard life, some of which are his own choices, some due to mental illness, and some due to circumstances that I won�t go into, however his poor elderly mother is at her wits end and extremely distressed, and Duncan is now under suicide watch. His poor mum can�t bare to lose another child � she�s already buried one son.
This week, Duncan has been pushed to the brink of suicide. The character assassination needs to stop.
It�s scaring me how much this is effecting the Storrar Family. And I hate seeing Duncan�s message to the politicians being lost by this witch hunt.
Thank you again for trying to bring back the focus to the issues that Duncan raised, rather than crucifying his character like so many others are doing�

# ? May 14, 2016 12:11

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

«‹›90 »