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

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

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

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 00:36

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

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

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Is there any way to actually stop this being a thing?

A more proportional Electoral system.

# ? May 14, 2016 12:51

Magog: Jan 9, 2010

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Is there any way to actually stop this being a thing?

Professional voters. :v:

edit: Representative Representative Democracy

# ? May 14, 2016 13:37

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

Magog posted:

Professional voters.

edit: Representative Representative Democracy

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

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

Magog posted:

Professional voters.

edit: Representative Representative Democracy

# ? May 14, 2016 14:04

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

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out in the country see it differently - but the idea of a local representative standing up for Are Local'l Areaaaa is outdated.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

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

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

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

tithin: Nov 14, 2003; [Grandmaster Tactician]

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

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

Cpt Soban posted:

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

quote:
uote:
“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”

All will learn. you will be destroyed for speaking out

# ? May 14, 2016 23:53

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

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

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

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.

And welcome to the great non sequitur that is political discourse in our wide and brown land. This means that the only possible circumstance that does not suit our Tory overlords is when the economy gets better under the other rabble's rule. This is out of the four broad possibilities only a 1 in 4 in any case:

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

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Did you even read the first paragraph of that paper?

# ? May 15, 2016 03:51

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

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

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

You will never get shitfaced with Wayne Swan and talk about Keynesian Economics :smith:

# ? May 15, 2016 03:59

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

open24hours posted:

Did you even read the first paragraph of that paper?

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.

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

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

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

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

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.

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.

That's a paper about a particular modelling methodology, and appears to be completely irrelevant to your point.

# ? May 15, 2016 04:22

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

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

slorb: May 14, 2002

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

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

It me, the democrats voter who wants licit drugs criminalised

# ? May 15, 2016 05:43

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

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

Tom Switzer
Published: May 16, 2016 - 12:00AM

Only a few months ago, there was widespread gloom and despondency on Opposition benches. Many Labor MPs were preparing for political oblivion. Bill Shorten's prospects had been written off and his leadership regarded as no more than a joke. The knives were being sharpened.

There was, of course, much truth in the criticisms. Shorten had the great misfortune of leading Labor after the disastrous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era. He was not very good at attracting positive press. The polls showed he was the most unpopular opposition leader since the notoriously useless, though honourable, Brendan Nelson. The royal commission into corrupt unions was supposed to sound the death knell for the embattled former head of the AWU.

[Oh sure, the ALP is BAD, Tom says. But....]

Yet such is the magic of politics, here we are seven weeks before the federal election and Shorten could be our sixth prime minister in as many years. The Labor leader gave Turnbull such a good thumping in their first TV debate on Friday night, you almost expected the moderator David Speers from Sky News to step in to end the bout on grounds of compassion. While the PM was dull and dithering, ill at ease with answering questions from ordinary Australians about hip-pocket issues, Shorten was sound in style and substance. An audience of undecided voters gave it to the challenger by 42 to 29. Add to this the latest Newspoll that shows Labor leading the Coalition 51-49 on a two-party-preferred basis and the election is suddenly up for grabs.

[Suddenly, Tom? No, there's nothing sudden about this. As you seem to acknowledge between the lines.]

Meanwhile, the Dyson royal commission has come and gone, and punters wonder what all the fuss was about. From tax reform to negative gearing to the banking sector, Shorten and his highly impressive shadow treasurer Chris Bowen have exposed a Prime Minister with no coherent direction, exhibiting poor judgment, and swimming increasingly out of his depth.

[Ah soundbite wars, yeah this is some deep analysis]

It takes something close to genius to topple a first-term federal government, something that has not happened since 1931. Yet against all the odds and in defiance of conventional wisdom Shorten could do it. No wonder the Canberra press gallery is coming to believe that he is a more formidable politician than has all too often been portrayed.

Nor is it merely Shorten's weakness that has been exaggerated. So has the strength of his opponent. The impression is steadily growing that the PM has lost his way. Against expectations, Turnbull, who at first seemed so capable and confident, is coming to resemble Kevin Rudd in the first half of 2010: adrift, vacillating and at the mercy of events.

No one could deny that he has made a series of mistakes. Who can forget the failure of nerve when he backed off at the very last moment from prosecuting long-overdue tax reform � and shafting his Treasurer in the process? Or the former merchant banker's advice for young Australians struggling to buy their first home: that their parents should just "shell out" money for them? The Labor party's attack ads are practically writing themselves.

[Hang on. If Turnbull is guilty of anything, it's not repudiating the 2014 budget, or put out a budget that was any different, to say nothing of pushing the rest of the toxic Abbott agenda. He's Abbott lite. That's the problem.]

It was not meant to be like this. When Turnbull backstabbed Tony Abbott last September, the overwhelming media and political consensus was that the former republican activist was bound for greatness. He was, we were told, the new Whitlam, the great reformer who would transform Australia into a beacon of progressiveness. There was a real sense of excitement. In an echo of Harold Macmillan's famous declaration in 1959 that Brits had "never had it so good," Turnbull declared: "There's never been a more exciting time to be an Australian."

But the trouble for any politician exciting high expectations is that they can almost never be fulfilled. And no Australian politician in recent times has ever excited such expectations as Turnbull. His gifts of individuality, intelligence and image management did a terrific job in winning the Liberal leadership. They are of less use in governing, especially in the relentless digital media cycle when every setback and screw-up is magnified.

[People thought he might not be Abbott. But he is, just a really poo poo Abbott who doesn't even eat onions.]

You might say that although the race has narrowed there is still no way Turnbull could fall to a former union leader who knifed two sitting prime ministers. A score of seats, after all, is a lot to lose. But nothing is certain in politics: circumstances can change quickly, and without warning.

Winston Churchill defeated fascism in 1945 only to lose that year's election to a socialist in one of the biggest landslides in British history. George H.W. Bush won the Gulf War and brought the Cold War to a peaceful end only to lose to a womanising, draft-dodging, dope-smoking governor from a backwater state. And John Howard presided over nearly 12 years of unprecedented prosperity before losing to a nerd from Nambour who dined on his own ear wax.

[Uhh what. And excusing the bizarre analogy you seem to be drawing, just why do you think those guys lost, Tom? It's not because you don't like the guys who won, there's a hint.]

What's different about Turnbull is that he has not actually done anything to explain his rapid downhill trajectory. He is no Paul Keating or Campbell Newman, legislating unpopular big-bang reforms in the national interest or spending cuts to rein in budget deficits as far as the eye can see. Contradicting himself almost every week, Turnbull has stood fast in indecision. He has been consistently indecisive.

[I don't see Turnbull being indecisive at all. I see him as not repudiating Abbott's mistakes with any strength at all. They wanted a change and the only backstabbing is from the guys who don't agree.]

I carry no brief for Shorten. I've voted Liberal in every federal election since I was eligible in 1990. But I know many life-long Liberal partisans who won't vote for the Coalition on July 2. Most will even put Labor above Liberal on the ballot paper.

Why? Because they feel Turnbull does not represent their ideals and interests: he won't prosecute the case against Labor's ETS, nor will he unashamedly defend tough border protection. His proposal to change superannuation is just the latest example of betrayal. The party of Menzies, Howard and Costello, remember, is the custodian of the centre-right tradition in Australian politics. He has seven weeks to confound his critics.

[What. Just what. Noone gives a poo poo about the ETS out there. And Dutton is the darling of cattallxyfiles.com. And noone cares if he wins the base, that's not the problem. He's not winning anyone else.]

Tom Switzer is a presenter on ABC's Radio National.

# ? May 15, 2016 11:45

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

Switzer is an IPA Libertarian, so of course the ABC uses him for balance.

# ? May 15, 2016 11:52

birdstrike: Oct 30, 2008; i;m gay

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

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

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

gay picnic defence: Oct 5, 2009; I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS

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

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

Haha I'm closer to the cold black heart than most of you fuckers.

# ? May 15, 2016 12:33

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

I talk to it every weekday!

# ? May 15, 2016 12:34

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Anidav posted:

I talk to it every weekday!

TRUMP!
click

# ? May 15, 2016 12:50

GrandTheftAutism: Dec 24, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

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

Senor Tron: May 26, 2006

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

gay picnic defence: Oct 5, 2009; I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS

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

GrandTheftAutism: Dec 24, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

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

birdstrike: Oct 30, 2008; i;m gay

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

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

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

gay picnic defence: Oct 5, 2009; I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 00:36

birdstrike: Oct 30, 2008; i;m gay

gay picnic defence posted:

you loving idiot.

This is the other side of the equation

# ? May 15, 2016 23:41

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

«‹›90 »