|
Rowan Dean in the Terrorgraph has multiple orgasms as he considers the triumph of Trump and the return of Abbott:paywalled but transparently bypassable posted:Rowan Dean: Why axing Abbott was a big mistake
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
ewe2 posted:Rowan Dean in the Terrorgraph has multiple orgasms as he considers the triumph of Trump and the return of Abbott: Pissssssssssssssssssssssssssss
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
quote:Abbott certainly made mistakes in his first term, and pandering to climate change activism was among them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Rowan Dean in the Terrorgraph has multiple orgasms as he considers the triumph of Trump and the return of Abbott: Some people just want to watch the world burn
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
No, he thinks he's funny as well as insightful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Rowan Dean is a terrible person and shouldn't be listened to even ironically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
i hope rowan dean is murdered, no offence
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Left Renewel should either come out and put their money where their mouth is or shut the gently caress up
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
quote:Wrong that Malcolm Turnbull would be a better prime minister than Abbott. He isn’t. Wrong that Turnbull would win more seats than Abbott would have at the last election. He didn’t. Wrong to stoop as low as Labor and tear down their own leader. Wrong to freak out Liberal “bed-wetters” by exaggerating Abbott’s weaknesses and playing down his strengths. I fully endorse this author and his ideas, because if they returned Abbott to power not only would they be completely recreating Labors last term in government, we would see them get smashed to bits at the subsequent election.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
I love the whole snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory feel about it, as if it wasn't plain that Turnbull only just managed to save them from oblivion by boring the electorate to death. But really this idiotic poo poo is generated by their fear that One Nation will erode their base (no poo poo, it already has) and somehow Abbott will claw it back. Just forgetting that the rest of the country will not countenance his return in any fashion. There's no real question of what is worse for the country, its bad as it could be anyway. Tudge is getting away with utter lies about centrelink while they stonewall the entitlements scam. But Ley could have the last laugh there. Please please please go to the crossbench, it would be so much fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
lol if u think she'll defect, she'll meekly return to the backbench and angle for a ministry again in a few years
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:lol if u think she'll defect, she'll meekly return to the backbench and angle for a ministry again in a few years That or retire at the next election. Her seat is incredibly safe for the Coalition too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Whatever faults she has, she's got strong support in her electorate, the Nats didn't even bother putting up a candidate against her. The ALP candidate only mustered 30% to her 70%. If she wanted to go independent, she could from a position of strength. But as you say, maybe she's not brave enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
What are some really marginal LNP seats that would benefit from a thorough examination of their claimed expenses?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Periphery posted:What are some really marginal LNP seats that would benefit from a thorough examination of their claimed expenses? Dickson 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Tudge is actually backing down, a bit, sort of. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/centrelink-data-system-to-be-refined/news-story/6b778d4fc3ce8df54943842c4f71ae52 quote:Centrelink’s controversial data-matching program will be “refined”, as the Turnbull government tries to deflect mounting political pressure from welfare groups and Labor for it to be suspended.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Holy gently caress, so all the reports of them getting it wrong up to now is only 10% of the total?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
So about 7.5% of the population of the entire country is going to get a threatening letter from centrelink.... what the actual gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Whatever faults she has, she's got strong support in her electorate, the Nats didn't even bother putting up a candidate against her.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
hooman posted:So about 7.5% of the population of the entire country is going to get a threatening letter from centrelink.... what the actual gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
I am loving gobsmacked that they want to send out 1.7 ~million~ letters
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
I'm torn between wanting to spare people the stress and annoyance of dealing with all those bullshit Centrelink letters and wanting all those people to get mad as hell from having to deal with all those bullshit Centrelink letters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Recoome posted:I am loving gobsmacked that they want to send out 1.7 ~million~ letters
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Recoome posted:I am loving gobsmacked that they want to send out 1.7 ~million~ letters I would not be wanting to work in HR right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
It would be nice if it made people realize when politicians talk about dole bludgers that they're talking about them (people, not politicians) not not some other group of bad people, like is usually imagined
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
"Tudge conceded he was not sure whether the $300m figure was the amount of debt recovered or simply the amount that had been identified. His office later confirmed that the $300m related to identified debt only, not debt that had been recovered." Holy loving gently caress how loving incompetent are these guys?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Wow. Now call me a cynic, but would they be taking care to target electorates that might not be a problem in an election? Because lol if they aren't. 1.7 million people are going to change their vote based on this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
hooman posted:"Tudge conceded he was not sure whether the $300m figure was the amount of debt recovered or simply the amount that had been identified. His office later confirmed that the $300m related to identified debt only, not debt that had been recovered." so how much money has been recovered??? this shouldn't be really difficult.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
quote:Leaked memo tells Centrelink staff not to process debt disputes  How does this keep getting worse
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:
Because the adults are back in charge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
haha gently caress me i work in the APS and my senior management are pretty stupid but whatever's going on at DHS is clearly on another level
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
It is that time to rewrite history on Abbott already?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
According to my napkinomics, the government wants to reclaim $4 Billion from approximately 1.7 million people, which works out as $2352.91 per "identification". The problem as I see it is that the 4 billion figure is probably some estimate with the assumption that everyone who has been identified as having a debt is actually owing money. I thought they said that of all the letters they sent out, 70% were settled without documentation (so if you extrapolate upwards, 1,190,000 letters will be false positives), with only 2.2% actually requiring real documentation and possible repayments (37,400 people in total). This raises some pretty big red flags as there is a supermassive error rate here which is just mind boggling. You really wouldn't be getting away with this anywhere else, or if this already wasn't such a marginalised/disenfrachised group of people. The Government literally decided to cast what is probably the largest potential debt dragnet in history, sending out 1.7 million notices to capture approximately 37,400 people. Now this is where it gets messy. 37,400 people probably won't owe 4 billion, it works out to over $100k per person. From what they've said (which isn't hyper clear), they've identified approximately $300 million from the 169,000 notices they've already sent. For this, we'll assume that they expected to get the full figure from that number of notices, which means the average alleged debt is about $1775.15 per case. Extrapolating this to the full figure (1.7 million notices), gives us a number slightly over $3 billion (honestly this is pretty close given the figures we've been given, which is poo poo). What is interesting to me as a person who does statistics is that this doesn't make sense at all. By this time, they'd have some pretty good idea about the money they actually are recovering vs. the money they wanted to recover, which would allow for more accurate estimates of the money they'll recover as it centers around the true mean. What I want to know is whether 2.2% required to show documentation represent the absolute upper limit of potential debt, or whether it's the remaining 27.8% which isn't touched on. If we use the 2.2% as the maximum limit of debt and using the two average debt levels, the government should only be expecting to recover anywhere from $6 million to $9 million with what has already been sent. I'm using a lot of assumptions here and the other issue is that people may have a debt, but it only be much below what they claimed (that one guy only had like $50-$150 out I think) so I'm not really sure where they are pulling numbers from beside their rear end. If the system and everything was peachy, why can't they release a more detailed data about this to shut up the dumb nay-sayers. Fake edit:The Arsetralian thing said that there was an error rate of approximately 1 in 5. Any idea how this fits in because I can't make this really jive with the numbers they've released. It doesn't make any sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
I think those are wishy numbers, going by the insanity plain in the rest of the Centrelink news. You'll only get truthiness out of these people even as the program crashes and burns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
Like I'm having a hard time reconciling the numbers. Either they actually don't know how much money they will recover, or they are misleading the public on purpose. Because it's all a big numbers game, I am sure they'd know how much money they have recovered thus far, so the numbers don't actually make sense as it stands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
This centerlink debacle makes me wonder that if I, as a permanent resident who lives overseas who has also used their services some time in the past decade, get a letter of redress: where are they going to send it? It's not like I keep a PO box running for just-in-casies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
EDIT: ^^ To whatever the last address they had on file for you was.Recoome posted:Like I'm having a hard time reconciling the numbers. Either they actually don't know how much money they will recover, or they are misleading the public on purpose. It's almost certainly the first, because even if debts do get served and start getting repaid you have no idea how long it will take, whether people will stay solvent, die etc. etc. I do wonder how much of this is because the bureaucrats are hosed. I mean surely it was so clear this was completely idiotic, anyone with any shred of understanding would have gone, hey wait a second people are going to loving hate us for this, so I wonder if the top decision makers just aren't getting the information and all they're getting from the people below them is "everything is fine, we've recovered 300million, everything is going to plan!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
My best guess is that once the dust settles the actual debt identified will be in the tens of millions not billions and the costs associated with all the appeals (when taken across the whole of government) will vastly out strip it. I base this from having worked in the debt recovery area of a revenue raising department. You can't employ all the staff you need to recover all the debt there becomes a point of diminishing returns. This whole plan looks like some consultant from private enterprise punched in a bunch of numbers came up with the 4 billion dollar figure and then did a power point presentation to the Minister over the objections of all of the departmental staff present.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
A Queensland One Nation candidate has called the photo of a drowned three-year-old Syrian refugee “fabricated” news in a blog post, saying “as it turns out this kid was alive and well”. The post, titled “The drowned boy, the lie that changed the world”, was written by Peter Rogers, the One Nation candidate for the Queensland state seat of Mulgrave. Rogers argues that world leaders are to blame for giving credit to the “farcical drowned boy story”, and opening the floodgates for “fraudsters” (refugees) to come to Australia. He says former prime minister Tony Abbott was duped by the fake photo into bringing “tens of thousands of refugees” to Australia. “The greatest social changes that happen in Australia are founded on total lies and a fabricated incident. Look at Port Arthur,” Rogers writes. There is a conspiracy theory that convicted mass murderer Martin Bryant was not responsible for the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, an incident that led to then prime minister John Howard changing gun laws and initiating a gun buyback. “Abbott couldnt act quick enough to get more of these so called poor people in here… The whole photo thing was fabricated, As it turns out this kid was alive and well.” Rogers doesn’t provide evidence for how he thinks the photo was faked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 07:30
|
|