X13Fen posted:

Don't all the current, real-world examples of UBI have people working whilst receiving it and shock, everyone still works normally?

bell jar posted:

again, why would parliament need to be sitting for a party to change leaders. does the government just not function/operate outside of sitting weeks? honestly the dumbest rebuttal in this page and amethyst has been kind enough to post here too

Hobo Erotica posted:

/\/\ Well done

You guys are being really weird and mean here

MysticalMachineGun posted:

Amethyst is a serial shitposter who trolls and runs

Amethyst posted:

I do NOT run.

tithin posted:

No idea. Presumably the prime Minister becoming the prime minister involves something to do with parliament? Voting to affirm them?

Not being facetious by the way.

Whitlam posted:

Just gonna quote this from the previous thread.

bell jar posted:

again, why would parliament need to be sitting for a party to change leaders. does the government just not function/operate outside of sitting weeks? honestly the dumbest rebuttal in this page and amethyst has been kind enough to post here too

drunkill posted:

a non sitting week makes sense too, gives time for a changeover before labour lambasts them for a week straight of question times.

BBJoey posted:

all the current, real-world examples of UBI are on completely different scales compared to the idea of introducing a nation-wide UBI

like come on i’m not opposed to a well thought out UBI proposal but “well it works when you apply UBI to a tiny subset of people so we should introduce it immediately everywhere” is retarded

BBJoey posted:

the politicians all go home to their electorates on non-sitting weeks, so they’re dispersed all over the country. if they wanted to call a party meeting they’d all need to pack up on a plane and come to canberra or wherever which would be a pain in the rear end for everyone. there’s nothing stopping them from holding a party room meeting in a non-sitting week but logistically it’s too much of a pain in the rear end to bother.

hooman posted:

There was a discussion that this wouldn't be accurate because apparently as it's not a sitting week the LNP would be scattered to the 9 winds, and as such would be a bad time to hold a party meeting.

The Before Times posted:

what's the bet someone's whispering in Dutton's ear and building him up to think he'll be GREAT for LNP leader; meanwhile they know Dutton will lose the next election in a landslide and the leadership will change hands once again to ScoMo or Julie 'I litigated people to death' Bishop (though I am convinced she's too smart to ever go for LNP leader).

The Before Times posted:

what's the bet someone's whispering in Dutton's ear and building him up to think he'll be GREAT for LNP leader; meanwhile they know Dutton will lose the next election in a landslide and the leadership will change hands once again to ScoMo or Julie 'I litigated people to death' Bishop (though I am convinced she's too smart to ever go for LNP leader).

wikipedia posted:

Under Liberal Party rules, any Liberal member of parliament or senator can propose a motion to spill the party's leadership. The leader of the party then invites a discussion of the motion at a party room meeting and makes a decision whether to call a vote on the matter based on the sentiments which are expressed.The leader chooses whether to conduct the vote through a public show of hands or a secret ballot; historically it has been conducted by secret ballot.

If a vote on the spill motion is conducted and a majority supports a spill, the leadership is declared to be vacant. Candidates then nominate for the position and a vote is held among the members present at the meeting. If more than two people nominate, multiple rounds of voting take place, with the lowest-placed candidate being eliminated until only two candidates remain. The winner of the ballot is the candidate who then receives the majority of votes.

BBJoey posted:

the politicians all go home to their electorates on non-sitting weeks, so they’re dispersed all over the country. if they wanted to call a party meeting they’d all need to pack up on a plane and come to canberra or wherever which would be a pain in the rear end for everyone. there’s nothing stopping them from holding a party room meeting in a non-sitting week but logistically it’s too much of a pain in the rear end to bother.

hooman posted:

Does that mean the LNP leader could just decide never to call a spill?

Sentiment in the room is "gently caress yall, I'm leader".

ewe2 posted:

That's what I'm thinking but some people are certain that once Dutton gets PM he won't lose for 20 years. I think Dutton makes a fine patsy, the only issue being why wouldn't they prefer Malcolm to lose the election if they're certain they'll lose it.

Snowman_McK posted:

Dutton's job for the last several years has been to be the face of a whole bunch of unpalatable policies. As a result, he's utterly loathed, and not just due to his own staggering lack of charisma. He's exactly the guy you don't make leader.

So, of course, they'll make him leader.

Birdstrike posted:

they’re not going to do it before the budget

JBP posted:

Actually those are the popular policies Australians like.

JBP posted:

Actually those are the popular policies Australians like.

hooman posted:

Isn't this exactly how trials work? Like at what point does it move from "We have trialed this in an area" and "we have rolled this out"?

Birdstrike posted:

they’re not going to do it before the budget

Hobo Erotica posted:

You guys are being really weird and mean here

quote:

Someone walks into a championship tournament, says "GEE I THINK I MAY HAVE TRANSCENDED THE UNDERSTANDING OF SOME OF YOU GRANDMASTERS HERE, WANT TO JOIN MY NEW SCHOOL OF CHESS STRATEGY?", then loses by scholar's mate twice in the first round.

This person then refuses to leave his seat, claiming that he needs additional proof that the queen in f7 actually ontologically exists before he will admit defeat, and that the rules of the CHESS ESTABLISHMENT were unfairly biased against him by disallowing the possibility of his king being able to leapfrog pieces.

Then he pulls out an ancient shopping list from 1905 and claims that "1. Eggs" means 'The King', "2. Butter" means 'can', and "3. Milk" means 'leapfrog'. This is admissible evidence for his case because he has lived according to the dictates of this list since he was a teenager, and it has drastically improved his quality of life. When the referees tell him that this makes no loving sense, he drags them into a three hour debate over the precise meaning of the words 'makes', 'no', 'loving', and 'sense'.

When people point out that there is more than enough evidence to suggest his list is just a scrap of paper from some long-dead housewife's purse, he rather proudly points out how close-minded they are in dismissing outright the possibility that the list was in fact a secret coded message on the best way to live life, originally formulated by Atlanteans and passed down through the ages disguised as everyday documents. After all, if one starts with the presupposition that such a document exists, then it would be very fair to argue that it is indeed in the form of his shopping list.

Never mind that his previous interpretations of the list led to three convictions and time served for robbery, hate crimes, and murder. These were just unfortunate misinterpretations on his part of the list's true intentions, he says. The list itself is blameless. In fact, the Atlanteans deliberately obfuscated the true meaning of the list in this way, so that it would require multiple failed misinterpretations before one would happen across its TRUE meaning, and in doing so appreciate it all the more.

In fact, he does have some evidence to back up his claims. Why, just last week during his daily meditation on the list, he felt it telling him that something good was about to happen in his future. And yesterday, wouldn't you know it, he found a twenty dollar note on the sidewalk! Evidence of the list's prophetic powers if I ever saw one. And believe him, he has many more stories where that came from.

By now, the debate has splintered off into innumerable tangents, with the one man against literally every other player and referee present at the tournament. Finally, he graciously accepts the possibility of defeat in some of the myriad topics now being covered. OK, maybe the tallest player doesn't always get to go first. Fine, I will concede that there isn't much evidence to support my third-invisible-knight hypothesis. But that's all irrelevant. What he wants to concentrate on, and what nobody has yet been able to disprove, he adds, is the ability of the king to leapfrog over other pieces.

The argument drags on for weeks. Finally, one afternoon, the beet-faced referee exhausts his last reserves of decency and throws his arms up in frustration and despair. "YOU loving RETARD, HOW CAN YOU LAY CLAIM TO KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT CHESS STRATEGY WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN GRASP THE MOST BASIC RULES!?" He shouts, just as a new entrant walks through the door. "I'm sorry," replies the man calmly, "I simply cannot discuss the rules of chess with such an 'official' if you insist on using such strong and uncouth language. Please retract your insults or I will be forced to plug my ears whenever you say anything from now on."

Seeing only this last exchange, the new entrant pipes up. "He's right, you know. If he did something wrong, then you as the referee have every right to tell him he is so, but it should be done with a patient and thorough explanation of the details of his error. Hurling ridicule at him solves nothing and won't change anyone's mind."

The lazy eye of the retarded List-following, King-leapfrogging man twitches almost unnoticeably, as he cranes his head towards the source of this new voice. A welcoming smile cracks, inch by beaming inch, across his face. He licks his lips. He clears his throat.

"So glad to know decent people like you still value a polite discussion. Care for a game?"

Doctor Spaceman posted:

JBP posted:

Actually those are the popular policies Australians like.