bowmore posted:

any news on how the election is going?

bowmore posted:

any news on how the election is going?

norp posted:

The point of the UBI is that you set up the tax system to pay it back in a progressive way you doofus's

Although it should probably come out before deductions to stop the rich people gaming it with their artificial "low" incomes.

TheIllestVillain posted:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/872990507353485315

this is what happens when you don't have preferential voting, what a clusterfuck

Lid posted:

This is the dumbest of things.

aejix posted:

Is... is Murdoch's empire finally losing it's ability to successfully direct people to vote against their own interests*? Could this be the tipping point where enough people have finally just completely tuned all of his loving shitrags out?

I always assumed we'd have to wait for that walking amalgamation of scrotum skin to take his rightful place in a grave before his empire would devour itself but maybe... just maybe one can dream.

_{*offer not valid in the USA}

Nibbles! posted:

Please identify the alternative leader that would have done better.

BBJoey posted:

https://twitter.com/AlboMP/status/873030015608168448

look out bill he's coming for your zingers

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

Bogan King posted:

This is the manifesto of one of the people running in Theresa May's electorate







I hope all the UK goons voted Lord Buckethead.

Futuresight posted:

Man. I never really listened to Bill Shorten and thought people were exaggerating. I mean I've heard him talk but always in a half paying attention kind of way. But actively reading those 2 paragraphs made me feel as though all capacity for enthusiasm had been sucked from my body. How is it possible to make the many not the few so loving dry?

JBP posted:

DEATH IS A LIE. HOPE IS CERTAIN.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

https://twitter.com/latikambourke/status/873035299311370240

ewe2 posted:

No, she was always about horse-race hot takes and never really got a grip on anything.

SMH posted:

Jeremy Corbyn's success leaves the ALP reflecting on way forward to next election

The success of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn at the UK election hasn't just left the British political class searching for answers.

Predicted to lead his party to a resounding defeat in the UK snap election, Mr Corbyn instead defied expectations, winning an additional 30 seats and sweeping away the ruling Tory party majority, forcing leader Theresa May into a coalition with the Democratic Unionist Party in order to stay in Downing Street.

His message of "for the many, not the few", as well as his unapologetic focus on generational inequality and service cuts has resonated with Australian Labor MPs, as the nation's major parties attempt to map out their paths to the next election.

The success of the Corbyn campaign has "huge lessons" for the ALP, according to Senator Sam Dastyari, who spent the last week volunteering in the UK election.

"But if we are lazy, we will take the wrong ones," he said. "It would be lazy and wrong to simply look at what worked superficially – a few slogans and stickers – and not look at the underlying causes."

Senator Dastyari said the lessons he took from the result was "everyone hates the political establishment and you can't be anti-establishment enough", a need for strong grassroots campaigning and authenticity.

"Standing for something will always beat standing for nothing – even if people aren't invested in what that something is," he said.

"People are desperate for conviction over empty platitudes."

But Senator Dastyari, who sits in the Labor right faction, doesn't believe that means his party should shift to the left, instead interpreting it as "having clear, firm positions".

Victorian Labor MP Andrew Giles also saw the need for conviction, taking to social media following the UK results with the message "hope, authenticity, and policies which respond directly to the challenges of inequality are the best antidote to cynical austerity".

Mr Giles wasn't the only left-wing Labor MP to praise Mr Corbyn's performance – Doug Cameron also highlighted his "progressive policies, a focus on tackling inequality and a commitment to fairness" in his message, while others co-oped the "for the many, not the few" slogan.

As did ALP leader Bill Shorten, who responded to the UK results on Friday with a warning to Malcolm Turnbull to "look at the popularity of that message in the context that he is giving a tax cut to a few millionaires and to a few multinationals and he's increasing taxes on the many".

On Saturday, he was still pondering that slogan – and how it related to his opponent.

"I think Mr Turnbull should look carefully at that message – Australians want to see governments delivering for them, not just the top end of town," he said.

However senior lecturer in politics at Monash University, Nick Economou, cautioned Australia's political parties from reacting too rashly in response to the UK result.

"The first thing that should always be said is while there are great similarities between the British political system and the Australian one, British elections are very different," he said.

"There you have optional voting not compulsory voting and you don't have preferential voting and we also don't have that strong third party system that we see in Britain.

"So, because of compulsory voting, because of how the electorate is structured, it would be very unwise for Australian Labor to take a lead from British Labour in how to tailor a message to the voters."

That's because Australia's elections are usually won by voters in the outer-urban and inner regional seats, Dr Economou said, who tend to be "more pragmatic".

However he did see a similarity between Mrs May's ill-fated campaign and the result of Mr Turnbull's double dissolution.

"Let's call it 'shooting-yourself-in-the-footism'," he said. "There is a sense that the people running politics in the centre, are not really in touch with the people who count."

Mr Turnbull is yet to comment on whether he sees any lessons from the UK result, but has left a message for Mrs May "passing on his congratulations", with a phone call scheduled between the two leaders for Saturday night.

JBP posted:

Australia has compulsory voting so the Corbyn campaign is completely irrelevant.

QUACKTASTIC posted:

Requesting a name change to Meme Loving Cuck

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Also there are no rivalries there. Melbourne is better and Brisbane is worse.

Spectator posted:

May made Malcolm’s mistakes

Prime Minister May’s election campaign succeeded in the near impossible through turning a projected 100 plus seat majority into minority government, shocking the British political and media establishment. How could she do so poorly against such an extremist leader like Jeremy Corbyn?

But the flawed strategy that led to this outcome should have been obvious to all. Worse still, the two central mistakes of the British campaign are being committed by the Coalition in Australia.

In attempting to court the soft left vote, May violated a cardinal rule of politics: When you cede the intellectual argument to your opponents and play on their turf, you will always lose as a result. Not only are they much better at it than you are, voters will always choose the ‘real deal’ to the pretender.

With a decade-long stagnation in wages and insecurity about the future, reformist pro-growth policies would have mobilised the base and provided voters with desperately needed hope about the future. Instead of this positive vision however, the Tory’s election strategy explicitly attempted to win the soft-left vote with a policy platform significantly to the left of Tony Blair’s Labor.

Rather than a platform of free market solutions to the problems genuinely have, the Tory Manifesto’s core messages included promising price controls in the energy sector, a crackdown on executive remuneration, controls on capital investment, significant increases in the National Living Wage, slashing the flexibility of “gig economy” workers, significantly expanded “rights” to leave, tax increases were not ruled out, and “workers representatives” on company Boards.

In addition to this, lines like “some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet. We disagree” were positively anathema to younger voters, as was the overwhelming sense that the establishment believed in little other than their own power.

Is it little wonder then with neither party supporting free markets then that voters chose to vote for the candidate who at least appeared to believe in what he was saying? Yet this is precisely the approach taken in the 2017-18 Australian Budget.

Understandably praised by Anthony Albanese as an “overwhelming victory” for Labor”, the budget was a down the line shopping list of centre-left policies, from tax increases, attacks on the “evil” banks, and spending increases in almost every portfolio. Predictably, this budget delivered no polling advantage to the Coalition. And why would it? When presented with a “Labor Budgets” by both sides of politics, you might as well actually go with the original.

Furthermore, it is impossible to deny the international tide of discontent that politics as usual has failed, and voters were desperately seeking hope for the future. Yet rather than seeking to provide any sort of positive vision or to capture the yearning for change, rather than provide a powerful emotional narrative that would lift up the soul and provide the optimism so desperately yearned for, the antiquated campaigning playbook of fear and negativity was rolled out.

Almost all UK advertising focused on drumming up fear about dangers of Corbyn, whilst almost nothing positive about the Conservatives – or why you should vote for them – was said. And in this environment, there was probably nothing worse that could be done. Yet once again you look at the Coalition advertisements here, the same mistakes are being made. All fear, no hope.

It is testament only to Jeremy Corbyn’s repeated bungles that the Tories were able to scrape through with a minority government. Fortunately for the Coalition, the robotic Shorten does not pose the challenge a more authentic figure such as Albo would, yet unless the Coalition changes track and embraces the insights of the UK experience, at the next election the swing against them will be too high for them to overcome.

We have the opportunity to bring about a transformation in society. Big-government programs have clearly failed people and they are desperate for change. It is through demonstrating our vision and bringing them with us that prosperity shall be restored. So called “moderates” have consistently argued the necessity of being “pragmatic”. Yet history has demonstrated time and time again that this is a failing strategy. The conviction politics of Thatcher, Reagan, Howard won resounding electoral success. The attempts to pitch to the left have consistently failed.

Rather than being in conflict, the principled is the pragmatic. We have the ideas that have been proven time and time again to not only work, but to win. They connect deeply with the core values in our national psyches, with the disenchantment of governments, and will resonate with electorates. It is time someone in our political classes remembered this and actually gave them a go.

Schlesische posted:

I'm fucken jelly right now

GoldStandardConure posted:

Winner takes the losers cards/models, loser is shot and thrown into the Swan River.

bowmore posted:

10k added on to an initial purchase isn't unreasonable though, the cheaper energy bills would take pressure off your mortgage repayments

Freudian Slip posted:

Yeah, I am not sure Japan is the best place to be buying property since they already have a shrinking population.

Guardian posted:

Dreamworld inquest: former CEO Deborah Thomas to get $3,000-a-day fee

The outgoing chief executive of the company that owns Dreamworld will receive a $730,000 payout, and get $3,000 a day to attend an inquest into the deaths of four people in last year’s accident on the Thunder River Rapids ride.

Deborah Thomas left Ardent Leisure earlier than initially scheduled on Friday and has been replaced by Simon Kelly.

Thomas, who was involved in the company’s dealings with bereaved families during the tragedy, will also get a payout of more than $730,000, equivalent to 12 months’ remuneration.

Kate Goodchild, Luke Dorsett, Roozi Araghi and Cindy Low were killed when the ride malfunctioned on 25 October 2016.

A timeframe for the inquest has not been set and it could be a year or more before it begins.

Thomas had been slated to take up a role overseeing the recovery of Dreamworld after stepping down, but will now leave the company.

Ardent Leisure said Thomas would provide consultancy advice and support to the new chief executive, senior management and its board before the inquest.

“Ms Thomas will be paid a consultancy fee of $3,000 per day, for each day reasonably expended in relation to the coronial inquest,” it said.

You Am I posted:

lol as if they old boys club at Melbourne would be the change within. They'd be spitting their cognac in disgust.

Don Dongington posted:

^ check out Eddie's mate here

ABC posted:

Christian lobby FamilyVoice moves to stop mentally ill from attending church services

A national Christian group is lobbying for the Disability Discrimination Act to be changed so that it can discriminate against people with mental illnesses, on the basis they could upset the "sacred" nature of church services.

FamilyVoice has called for a religious exemption to the Act, arguing it interferes with freedom of religion.

In a submission to a federal parliamentary inquiry on freedom of belief, FamilyVoice said a person with a mental illness had the potential to interfere with a church service.

"For very good reasons a religion may not wish to engage a person who has a mental illness and displays disturbed behaviour," the submission read.

quote:

"Such behaviour would adversely affect a church service, which is sacred in nature.

"A simple provision should be added for an exemption from the act for persons ... whose conscientious beliefs do not allow them to comply."

FamilyVoice says sex change 'delusional'

FamilyVoice, which is an Adelaide-based national Christian organisation, also wants the Sex Discrimination Act changed, stating the laws as they stood directly contradicted the moral values of the Christian faith.

The Sex Discrimination Act bans the discrimination of people on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and relationship status.

FamilyVoice has described these matters as "highly controversial", and in its submission called sex change "delusional".

"The reality is that 'sex change' is a myth. Neither hormone treatment nor surgery can actually change a person's sex," the submission said.

Conflict over the anti-discrimination laws is "almost inevitable", according the submission.

"The effect of the Act is to empower those who have espoused one value system to impose their beliefs on those with contrary beliefs," it said.

"Far from fostering social harmony, the Act is likely to exacerbate social divisions."

The group's social media accounts show FamilyVoice takes a stance against same-sex marriage, transgender people, abortion, euthanasia and unisex bathrooms.