|
freebooter posted: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. Is there any way to actually stop this being a thing?
|
# ? May 14, 2016 12:41 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 09:03 |
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Is there any way to actually stop this being a thing? Larger multi-member electorates would remove the regional factor.
|
# ? May 14, 2016 12:47 |
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Is there any way to actually stop this being a thing? A more proportional Electoral system.
|
# ? May 14, 2016 12:51 |
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Is there any way to actually stop this being a thing? Professional voters. edit: Representative Representative Democracy
|
# ? May 14, 2016 13:37 |
|
Magog posted:Professional voters. I'm seeing like, a near-future dystopian comedy of some kind here. Who do we get for the lead? I don't want to say Sean Micallef not because he can't do it, but because he's already busy and a bit of an obvious choice.
|
# ? May 14, 2016 13:55 |
|
Magog posted:Professional voters.
|
# ? May 14, 2016 14:04 |
|
Proportional representation would go some of the way. I guess maybe this sounds arrogant from an urban voter's perspective - people out in the country see it differently - but the idea of a local representative standing up for Are Local'l Areaaaa is outdated. Even the fuckwit swinging voters who make up their mind on election day know that they're putting pen to paper to elect a government, not to pick a local representative for Donger Beach. So why bother with the charade? When I lived in the UK and was working for BBC Parliament I was struck by how much MPs there will actually stick up for their electorates. They break ranks all the time, in both parties, and you'll constantly see backbench MPs levelling hard questions at the government even if they're from the same party. It's telling that Dorothy Dixer is an Australian term.
|
# ? May 14, 2016 14:47 |
|
Yeah and 100% party discipline on voting has always annoyed me, but I guess you have to keep a tight grip on people's votes when the lower house determines who forms government.
|
# ? May 14, 2016 14:50 |
|
Those dirty Poms are getting cigarette plain packaging, now if only we could find a way to encourage them to shower more.
|
# ? May 14, 2016 15:20 |
|
Forgive me for my ignorance, and it could be because I'm poor/not an economist, but how exactly is the Coalition plan of trickle-down economics going to create Turnbull's vision of a Strong New Economy. Actually it looks like the same type of economy we've had for a while and all it's really done is widen the inequality gap so I'm not sure how this is going to help families.
|
# ? May 14, 2016 23:44 |
|
By giving families the flexibility of paying rent to boomer overlord we creating a strong new economy for us. For you however, maybe you should get rich parents. *huffs Penfolds glass*
|
# ? May 14, 2016 23:48 |
Recoome posted:Forgive me for my ignorance, and it could be because I'm poor/not an economist, but how exactly is the Coalition plan of trickle-down economics going to create Turnbull's vision of a Strong New Economy. Actually it looks like the same type of economy we've had for a while and all it's really done is widen the inequality gap so I'm not sure how this is going to help families. Best not action questions like this on Q&A, or Fairfax and News Ltd will go digging through your personal life to loving destroy you for asking questions, you peasant
|
|
# ? May 14, 2016 23:53 |
|
Cpt Soban posted:http://theaimn.com/is-everybody-happy-now/ All will learn. you will be destroyed for speaking out
|
# ? May 14, 2016 23:53 |
|
Recoome posted:Forgive me for my ignorance, and it could be because I'm poor/not an economist, but how exactly is the Coalition plan of trickle-down economics going to create Turnbull's vision of a Strong New Economy. Actually it looks like the same type of economy we've had for a while and all it's really done is widen the inequality gap so I'm not sure how this is going to help families. Get back in your loving box! And it's the Hon. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to you, Pinko scum.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 02:56 |
|
Recoome posted:Forgive me for my ignorance, and it could be because I'm poor/not an economist, but how exactly is the Coalition plan of trickle-down economics going to create Turnbull's vision of a Strong New Economy. Actually it looks like the same type of economy we've had for a while and all it's really done is widen the inequality gap so I'm not sure how this is going to help families. 1/Tories in charge, economy gets better - See we told you so. 2/Tories in charge, economy gets worse (or just doesn't get notably better) - Imagine what it would have been like if those other dolts had been in? Am I right? 3/Alternative Tories in charge, economy gets worse (or just doesn't get notably better) - See we told you so. 4/Alternative Tories in charge, economy gets better - Oh gently caress now we are going to have to actually do some thinking and stuff! Errr, No it didn't! It actually sucks donkeys balls now because ~reasons~ (AKA THe Wayne Swan is an idiot defence) or maybe the corollary to the 'Tories in charge economy gets worse' explanation: Well obviously with such positive externalities the economy was going to improve. This was based entirely on the heavy lifting done while we were in government. If we had been able to see our brave vision through rather than languishing in opposition we would all now be flying around in our personal Leer jets so thanks for nothing Alternative Tory muppets! This also allows 'one' to play with the completely nebulous definition of 'economy'. Cherry pick vaguely technical sounding slices of the bigger picture that suit your current narrative: Well underlying term by term futures in agriculture continue to rebound strongly and blah blah blah. I made that up but Googling it reveals I'm on solid ground http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/21543/1/sp99fa02.pdf especially as today's journalists consider it a significant win if they manage to regurgitate a government press release with all the original typos and grammatical errors.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 03:39 |
|
Did you even read the first paragraph of that paper?
|
# ? May 15, 2016 03:51 |
|
The political assassination of Wayne Swan makes me so sad. Then the polls came out and people started saying they believe Joe would a better treasurer. I bet Wayne was drinking heavily that night.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 03:58 |
|
You will never get shitfaced with Wayne Swan and talk about Keynesian Economics
|
# ? May 15, 2016 03:59 |
|
open24hours posted:Did you even read the first paragraph of that paper? Here's a quick loving tip for you. Rather than make supercilious questions as answers, how about explaining what your actual point is. Would have saved me this post.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 04:13 |
|
Anidav posted:You will never get shitfaced with Wayne Swan and talk about Keynesian Economics Honestly people have achieved more difficult things.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 04:16 |
|
Cartoon posted:No (well actually Yes)? Your point? It only relates vaguely to my made up jargon and could probably be made to argue either way if I really felt like going to all that trouble, which clearly no Newcorpse 'journo' ever does or we wouldn't ever say the LNP are better economic managers because they aren't. That's a paper about a particular modelling methodology, and appears to be completely irrelevant to your point.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 04:22 |
|
open24hours posted:That's a paper about a particular modelling methodology, and appears to be completely irrelevant to your point.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 04:49 |
|
freebooter posted:Proportional representation would go some of the way. I guess maybe this sounds arrogant from an urban voter's perspective - people out in the country see it differently - but the idea of a local representative standing up for Are Local'l Areaaaa is outdated. Even the fuckwit swinging voters who make up their mind on election day know that they're putting pen to paper to elect a government, not to pick a local representative for Donger Beach. So why bother with the charade? If you merge country seats together politicians will quit paying even lip service to problems outside cities. I don't think country voters would give a poo poo if you started merging capital city electorates though.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 05:12 |
|
It me, the democrats voter who wants licit drugs criminalised
|
# ? May 15, 2016 05:43 |
|
This is the guy who represents conservative "balance" on ABC Radio National. This is the most bizarre thing I've read by a Liberal commentator who isn't a shill like Bolt, Devine, or Albrechtsen. So I'm going to rant about it.quote:Malcolm Turnbull will lose if he doesn't win back the Liberal base
|
# ? May 15, 2016 11:45 |
|
Switzer is an IPA Libertarian, so of course the ABC uses him for balance.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 11:52 |
|
ewe2 posted:This is the guy who represents conservative "balance" on ABC Radio National. This is the most bizarre thing I've read by a Liberal commentator who isn't a shill like Bolt, Devine, or Albrechtsen. So I'm going to rant about it. And to think that guy is head and shoulders above every other conservative commentator I've read.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 11:54 |
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Switzer is an IPA Libertarian, so of course the ABC uses him for balance. Well that figures, he wants his policy executed by the Right Salesman without any idea of how politics works. Why don't they just do what he tells them? Because people hate your ideas Tom, and noone can sell them. Birdstrike posted:And to think that guy is head and shoulders above every other conservative commentator I've read. He's completely naive. Anidav knows more about how politics works than he does.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 12:06 |
|
Recoome posted:Forgive me for my ignorance, and it could be because I'm poor/not an economist, but how exactly is the Coalition plan of trickle-down economics going to create Turnbull's vision of a Strong New Economy. Actually it looks like the same type of economy we've had for a while and all it's really done is widen the inequality gap so I'm not sure how this is going to help families. It's not intended to improve the economy. It's designed to benefit the rich and any benefits that flow to anyone else is purely coincidental. It's easier to keep pumping rich peoples' veins with even more money and rely on News Corpse to convince the lumpenproletariat they've never had it so good or distract them with stuff like disabled people getting pensions.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 12:19 |
|
Haha I'm closer to the cold black heart than most of you fuckers.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 12:33 |
|
I talk to it every weekday!
|
# ? May 15, 2016 12:34 |
|
Anidav posted:I talk to it every weekday! TRUMP! click
|
# ? May 15, 2016 12:50 |
|
Solemn Sloth posted:It me, the democrats voter who wants licit drugs criminalised I don't want alcohol criminalized, I want to be able to keep alcoholics and problem drinkers from doing stupid poo poo that can kill people WITHOUT punishing people who are doing the right thing.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 17:08 |
|
ScreamingLlama posted:I don't want alcohol criminalized, I want to be able to keep alcoholics and problem drinkers from doing stupid poo poo that can kill people WITHOUT punishing people who are doing the right thing. Three strikes laws are well noted for how they never result in hosed up outcomes.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 18:06 |
|
ScreamingLlama posted:I don't want alcohol criminalized, I want to be able to keep alcoholics and problem drinkers from doing stupid poo poo that can kill people WITHOUT punishing people who are doing the right thing. I dunno, maybe we'd be better off looking for the personal and societal root causes of substance abuse and like, doing something about those instead
|
# ? May 15, 2016 21:32 |
|
gay picnic defence posted:I dunno, maybe we'd be better off looking for the personal and societal root causes of substance abuse and like, doing something about those instead True, but that's only one part of the equation.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 23:24 |
|
ScreamingLlama posted:True, but that's only one part of the equation. If the government couldn't manage your case properly why would you trust them to properly manage this?
|
# ? May 15, 2016 23:32 |
|
ScreamingLlama posted:I don't want alcohol criminalized, I want to be able to keep alcoholics and problem drinkers from doing stupid poo poo that can kill people WITHOUT punishing people who are doing the right thing. If there's one thing we've learnt it's that you can break people's addiction with the threat of jail time. Bonus points for you apparently having never worked or met anyone who has worked hospitality/bottle-o in your life if you think a loving register of every prohibited person is even remotely enforceable.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 23:38 |
|
ScreamingLlama posted:True, but that's only one part of the equation. It's the answer to the equation you loving idiot.
|
# ? May 15, 2016 23:40 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 09:03 |
|
gay picnic defence posted:you loving idiot. This is the other side of the equation
|
# ? May 15, 2016 23:41 |