• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Yagharek
Member
(05-09-2016, 03:02 AM)

Originally Posted by legend166

I don't know who to vote for. My political views are now so far out of align with any of the major parties I might have to try and find a smaller party to vote preference as 1.

Historically which sorts of people have you more aligned with?
Omikron
Member
(05-09-2016, 03:11 AM)
Omikron's Avatar
Following along, but I am already over it. Probably because it feels like the election campaign started with Turnbull took over.
Yagharek
Member
(05-09-2016, 03:12 AM)

Originally Posted by Omikron

Following along, but I am already over it. Probably because it feels like the election campaign started with Turnbull took over.

To me it feels like the Liberal Party are throwing the same ongoing tantrum they have been since the hung parliament of 2010.
Omikron
Member
(05-09-2016, 03:15 AM)
Omikron's Avatar

Originally Posted by Yagharek

To me it feels like the Liberal Party are throwing the same ongoing tantrum they have been since the hung parliament of 2010.

Possibly.

Did you watch Morrison throw a tantrum on Insiders? Poor kid.
Shaneus
Member
(05-09-2016, 03:16 AM)
Shaneus's Avatar

Originally Posted by Aarglefarg

I would like to think they couldn't convince anyone because they are so transparent, but obviously I would be wrong.

If they were any more transparent, they'd be printing on wax paper.

Originally Posted by Omikron

Possibly.

Did you watch Morrison throw a tantrum on Insiders? Poor kid.

Was that the "alleged" tanty he threw? At least that's making it's way around social media. He must've completely forgotten he's an arsehole.
bobnowhere
Member
(05-09-2016, 03:24 AM)
bobnowhere's Avatar

Originally Posted by Shaneus

If they were any more transparent, they'd be printing on wax paper.

Check out Scott Morrison as Clarke Kent/Superman! About as transparent as it gets.

Originally Posted by Omikron

Possibly.

Did you watch Morrison throw a tantrum on Insiders? Poor kid.

That was pretty funny, Morrison was doing quite well up until that point but as soon Barry brought out the Save the Children fiasco Scottie went straight into political survival mode and just started thowing out talking points hoping he could outlast the satellite feed and drown out the host. I think he stopped taking breaths at one point, turned red and started visibly sweating. Rabbit in the headlights moment.
Fredescu
Member
(05-09-2016, 03:25 AM)
Fredescu's Avatar
Have to admit having an actual transparency is pretty cool, despite them being cunts. I don't mind Malcolm Farr though.
Shaneus
Member
(05-09-2016, 03:27 AM)
Shaneus's Avatar

Originally Posted by bobnowhere

Check out Scott Morrison as Clarke Kent/Superman! About as transparent as it gets.

Oh yes, I forgot about that. Perhaps they didn't get the irony.
darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 03:30 AM)

Originally Posted by bomma_man

The problem I have with liberal employment policies is that there's a fundamental dishonesty about them. This isn't the worst, but generally they portray unemployment as an individual moral failure. But they don't want 0% unemployment, nobody does. 'Full' employment is about 4.5% iirc. They know that there will always be unemployed people, and they have no desire to change that. So why blame the individual that has no control?

It's just rhetoric. Unemployment benefits keep a proportion of the population out of work. A very minor one, but they still exist.

I'd prefer the LNP kept unemployment benefits at about 40-50% of MW and stopped their automatic renewal after nine months, which is what Hewson had in Fightback! This would keep it for those who need it while stopping with the moral hazard that they provide for others.

Ever since I've stopped listening to the parties rhetoric, I've found I've gone towards the LNP and away from the ALP and Greens. I think I fundamentally disagree with the way they sell it, but agree somewhat with the policies themselves.

Except for their asylum seeker policies. Fuck those.
elfinke
Member
(05-09-2016, 03:32 AM)

Originally Posted by SmartBase

This election's parties and policies are like the movies in an episode of "Best of the Worst", they're all shit. Might just give the Greens a pity vote since my electorate's an eternal LNP quagmire.

A fun movie, worth watching during every election cycle just for Pryor's tilt at 'running' for NY Mayor:





Saw Barnaby this morning, talking about how this election will be run on policy and not personality. That's lucky/unfortunate, as there's fuck all personality in either party, and almost about the same amount of worthwhile, engaging *cough*innovative*cough* policy, too.

But BJ especially has to say that, as Windsor runs rings around him on the personality metric.

Originally Posted by seanoff

I'd like to see a govt of either side that had a pair but that wont happen

a lot of them. who i work with BTW, are only in it for the politics. read the bios, they come out of uni, work for a member of parliament, move up the chain, end up in a ministers office.then get preselected and end up an MP. yay fuckers have no actual experience except playing politics

Iain Walker, a panellist on QANDA recently spoke to this (from about the 33rd minute):

"We have a system that is skewed that benefits those inside. We did a little bit of Excel analysis on the 220-odd people in our Federal Parliament - 226, I should say. It’s based on the last parliament. Have they had more than five years’ experience in a non-paid political job? Have they been student politicians? Have they worked as a political adviser? Knock those three criteria out. Do you want to know what the number is? It’s only a tick over 20. It is actually a very small number and it makes sense. These are not bad people but if you've got an intent, as you might, to run for office, your smart play is to work inside a Minister's office, is to understand the network and the contacts"

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4431394.htm
Fredescu
Member
(05-09-2016, 03:38 AM)
Fredescu's Avatar

Originally Posted by darkace

Unemployment benefits keep a proportion of the population out of work. A very minor one, but they still exist.

True, but I think you just have to accept that as part of any functioning welfare system. Nothing is perfect. The fact that it is good ACA style fear mongering fodder is a problem, I'll admit.
Rubixcuba
Banned
(05-09-2016, 03:49 AM)
Rubixcuba's Avatar

Originally Posted by seanoff

I'd like to see a govt of either side that had a pair but that wont happen

a lot of them. who i work with BTW, are only in it for the politics. read the bios, they come out of uni, work for a member of parliament, move up the chain, end up in a ministers office.then get preselected and end up an MP. yay fuckers have no actual experience except playing politics

Hmm, this covers a huge swath of Young Libs/Labor I know and its disappointing. At a recent Young Labor meeting, the amount of people which worked for a local MP was kinda amazing. Not that there's anything wrong with that, bulk of work is just public servicey stuff.Yet it was clear that many of them can see a 'career' in the work they do.

At this point, I'm going to mention that Young Libs/Labour/Green arguing on Facebook is the best worst thing ever.
darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 03:53 AM)

Originally Posted by Fredescu

True, but I think you just have to accept that as part of any functioning welfare system. Nothing is perfect. The fact that it is good ACA style fear mongering fodder is a problem, I'll admit.

Without ACA how would I know about the dodgy obese Lebanese tradies that are making our children racist and stealing our welfare.
legend166
Member
(05-09-2016, 03:54 AM)
legend166's Avatar

Originally Posted by Yagharek

Historically which sorts of people have you more aligned with?

Historically, the Coalition. However I think their economic polices over the last decade have moved way too close to the US-style, trickle down, Republican economic policy. I also really dislike their housing policies (negative gearing and capital gains) - not just because I'm a 27 year old trying to buy my first house, but because I philosophically disagree with treating housing as a investment vehicle rather than an essential of life.

Although, maybe they were like that all along and I just never noticed.

I'm a free-market capitalist who understands that capitalism is a means to an end, and not the end itself. So on that front I'm more than happy for the government to step in where to do so is in the best public interest and/or the free market would do a terrible job, i.e. health care, public transport, etc. I feel like the LNP used to act like this as well, but again it could just be me projecting. Turnbull, before he actually became PM, seemed to have this philosophy too. But I haven't really seen it much since he actually became PM.
Fredescu
Member
(05-09-2016, 03:56 AM)
Fredescu's Avatar

Originally Posted by seanoff

a lot of them. who i work with BTW, are only in it for the politics. read the bios, they come out of uni, work for a member of parliament, move up the chain, end up in a ministers office.then get preselected and end up an MP. yay fuckers have no actual experience except playing politics

Rundle wrote a good bit on this, how most of the current crop of pollies are career politicians who started out in student politics: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/...14395608002248
Dryk
Member
(05-09-2016, 03:59 AM)
Dryk's Avatar

Originally Posted by Fredescu

Rundle wrote a good bit on this, how most of the current crop of pollies are career politicians who started out in student politics: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/...14395608002248

It's one of the reasons I have a low opinion of most student politicians. They're pretty transparent about just jostling for a job as a backbencher's secretary.
Jintor
Lit himself on fire to get
a mod to tag him
(05-09-2016, 04:00 AM)
Jintor's Avatar
AEC only accepts actual signatures not digital ones so I gotta find a scanner... blargh.
Yagharek
Member
(05-09-2016, 04:24 AM)

Originally Posted by legend166

Historically, the Coalition. However I think their economic polices over the last decade have moved way too close to the US-style, trickle down, Republican economic policy. I also really dislike their housing policies (negative gearing and capital gains) - not just because I'm a 27 year old trying to buy my first house, but because I philosophically disagree with treating housing as a investment vehicle rather than an essential of life.

Although, maybe they were like that all along and I just never noticed.

I'm a free-market capitalist who understands that capitalism is a means to an end, and not the end itself. So on that front I'm more than happy for the government to step in where to do so is in the best public interest and/or the free market would do a terrible job, i.e. health care, public transport, etc. I feel like the LNP used to act like this as well, but again it could just be me projecting. Turnbull, before he actually became PM, seemed to have this philosophy too. But I haven't really seen it much since he actually became PM.

I can't recall Howard being specifically pro-housing over housing as an investment, though I can't recall him being in favour of investment instead. His rhetorical bundle of "pro-battlers/anti-bludgers" could be spun either way as far as revisionists are concerned.

The problem with capitalism (14yo Marxism warning) is when it encounters market failure for essential services. Living in WA you see this a lot, basically anywhere outside of Perth. It is too fucking expensive and near impossible to access essential health services for many people living in the more remote areas in a timely manner (including crisis support for mental health or domestic violence issues). The Liberal government in WA just pissed away a once in a century mining boom and has nothing to show for it in terms of improved services. Am I convinced Labor would have done any better? Not really, but then I haven't seen a WA Labor gov't since moving here so I have no reference.

For me there are basically two issues of the one theme that I will be voting for. Labor and Liberal are functionally the same on most points, although I do believe Labor are stronger in terms of health, education and economic policy than the LNP are. LNP just have the reputation hangover from Howard's interest rates are lower mantra.

I think I've voted for each of the main parties in the last 4 elections (except the Nationals because they're fruit loops.) This year I'll probably vote Green but preferences to Labor because I think the LNP/Labor refugee policy is as inhumane as the stolen generation or institutional child sex abuse by the churches. You can argue until the cows come home whether you want them here or not, but it is cruel to keep them locked up for years without certainty in a prison. The Greens are probably the only party who could help drag the debate back to a humanitarian angle and perhaps push for some regional level of negotiation. Dutton would rather burn them, and Labor would do whatever the newspapers tell them the voters allegedly want.
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
(05-09-2016, 04:38 AM)
Antiwhippy's Avatar
Literally anyone other than Peter dutton would move the refugee situation at nauru to a more humanitarian direction.
Aarglefarg
Member
(05-09-2016, 04:44 AM)
Aarglefarg's Avatar

Originally Posted by Antiwhippy

Literally anyone other than Peter dutton would move the refugee situation at nauru to a more humanitarian direction.

They'll find a way to prove you wrong.
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
(05-09-2016, 04:46 AM)
Antiwhippy's Avatar
I remain unconvinced that there is a bigger piece of shit than dutton in the whole of australia.
darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 04:49 AM)

Originally Posted by Yagharek


The problem with capitalism (14yo Marxism warning) is when it encounters market failure for essential services.

I don't think there's anything 14yo Marxist about this. The market will always underinvest in health, education, infrastructure (inc. digital) and emergency services.

That said, the LNP aren't following down the Republican path of literally cutting funding to schools. Funding will still increase, just at a lower long-term trajectory.

I do like Gonski though, I hope the ALP provide long-term funding for it if they're elected.
Bernbaum
Member
(05-09-2016, 04:50 AM)
Bernbaum's Avatar

Originally Posted by Antiwhippy

I remain unconvinced that there is a bigger piece of shit than dutton in the whole of australia.

Mr. Tone
Member
(05-09-2016, 04:50 AM)

Originally Posted by Antiwhippy

I remain unconvinced that there is a bigger piece of shit than dutton in the whole of australia.

Ahem.
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
(05-09-2016, 04:53 AM)
Antiwhippy's Avatar
Same piece of shit, it's a close call though.

Originally Posted by darkace

I don't think there's anything 14yo Marxist about this. The market will always underinvest in health, education, infrastructure (inc. digital) and emergency services.

That said, the LNP aren't following down the Republican path of literally cutting funding to schools. Funding will still increase, just at a lower long-term trajectory.

You mean like how the Vic liberals increased funding to tafes?

Oh wait, no, they kind of crippled the tafe system for quite awhile.
darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 04:54 AM)

Originally Posted by Antiwhippy

Same piece of shit, it's a close call though.



You mean like how the Vic liberals increased funding to tafes?

Oh wait, no, they kind of crippled the tafe system for quite awhile.

Is this the Victorian state election thread? Silly me, I must have gotten lost.
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
(05-09-2016, 04:57 AM)
Antiwhippy's Avatar
And how is turnbull trying to end federal support for public schools not just the same thing?
Fredescu
Member
(05-09-2016, 05:01 AM)
Fredescu's Avatar

Originally Posted by darkace

That said, the LNP aren't following down the Republican path of literally cutting funding to schools.

They would love to given the opportunity though. They have put the feelers out about it already. Once that overton window has nudged a little in the right direction they'll be all over it.
darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 05:02 AM)

Originally Posted by Antiwhippy

And how is turnbull trying to end federal support for public schools not just the same thing?

Might need you to source me that this is a policy they are running on.

Originally Posted by Fredescu

They would love to given the opportunity though. They have put the feelers out about it already. Once that overton window has nudged a little in the right direction they'll be all over it.

Eh, I doubt it was anything more than a thought bubble. Not just because it's bad policy but because it's also electoral suicide.
Fredescu
Member
(05-09-2016, 05:05 AM)
Fredescu's Avatar

Originally Posted by darkace

Eh, I doubt it was anything more than a thought bubble. Not just because it's bad policy but because it's also electoral suicide.

The means test public schools thing got more traction than just a thought bubble.
darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 05:12 AM)

Originally Posted by Fredescu

The means test public schools thing got more traction than just a thought bubble.

Because means-testing things isn't necessarily bad policy straight-up. I wouldn't be for it in public schools though. It creates some perverse incentives for states and wealthy parents.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-2...ooling/6562562

The options here are what the government could consider. Personally I'd be in favour of option four given the ability for states to raise revenue is usually awful (and I think Gonski was an attempt towards this as well). It would need a serious change-up of the distribution in taxation though.
Yagharek
Member
(05-09-2016, 05:18 AM)

Originally Posted by darkace

I don't think there's anything 14yo Marxist about this. The market will always underinvest in health, education, infrastructure (inc. digital) and emergency services.

Indeed, it was only a tongue in cheek comment.

The fact that persistent, endemic problems exist within each of those sectors illustrates perfectly that our current political and economic system have serious flaws and failures. Its really a consequence of media lobbying, business lobbying and political corruption where former MPs wind up working in sectors linked to party donors, their former portfolios, or Panama.
Fredescu
Member
(05-09-2016, 05:25 AM)
Fredescu's Avatar

Originally Posted by darkace

Because means-testing things isn't necessarily bad policy straight-up. I wouldn't be for it in public schools though. It creates some perverse incentives for states and wealthy parents.

Agreed, means testing some things, good. Means testing some things, bad. Means testing public schools is a pre cursor to cutting spending on public schools. Publicly discussing means testing public schools says to me that they have strongly considered going down that road and are putting the feelers out to see where the electorate is at about it.
Yagharek
Member
(05-09-2016, 05:32 AM)

Originally Posted by Fredescu

Agreed, means testing some things, good. Means testing some things, bad. Means testing public schools is a pre cursor to cutting spending on public schools. Publicly discussing means testing public schools says to me that they have strongly considered going down that road and are putting the feelers out to see where the electorate is at about it.

This. It's almost always the case they test opinion before implementation of these plans. We know it's an end goal. Kind of perverse when they instead insist of increasing private school funding but I guess you gotta keep the donors happy.
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
(05-09-2016, 05:35 AM)
Antiwhippy's Avatar

Originally Posted by darkace

Might need you to source me that this is a policy they are running on.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-3...g-plan/7286650

They've walked it back with the new federal budget but I remain unconvinced that it isn't on the coalition's agenda to prioritise private school funding over public, which is asinine.
darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 05:43 AM)

Originally Posted by Antiwhippy

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-3...g-plan/7286650

They've walked it back with the new federal budget but I remain unconvinced that it isn't on the coalition's agenda to prioritise private school funding over public, which is asinine.

Well if you're assuming they're running on policy that they've explicitly ruled out multiple times then there's not much I can say otherwise.

Yes I also remember Abbott but he was a gibbering moron. Turnbull isn't anything like him.

That said I do think a fundamental rethink of our education funding is necessary. Our current setup is wasteful and inefficient (just like health). Although like many of our problems it stems from the existence of the states. Which we should abolish.

If the LNP reduced funding to schools because they increased efficiency through a better distribution of the state/federal division I'd be ok with it.
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
(05-09-2016, 05:52 AM)
Antiwhippy's Avatar
Problem for me is that Turnbull seems to be unable to shake off the far right in the Coalition.
Yagharek
Member
(05-09-2016, 05:54 AM)

Originally Posted by Omikron

Possibly.

Did you watch Morrison throw a tantrum on Insiders? Poor kid.

Just finished watching it then.

Allegedly is his new favourite word.

Jobs. Growth. Allegedly.
darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 05:59 AM)
That's my big problem with the LNP as well. If the far-right didn't exist and it was solely Turnbull's they'd have my vote in a heartbeat. The current budget is genuinely good, reducing the company tax rate is the single best fiscal policy any government could undertake. Assuming the budget shows the LNP's direction for the next three years (focus on structural barriers to unemployment that they have the advantage in, super reform, increasing wages and investment, fixing bracket creep) then I'd really have no problem with them.

That said, the lunatics are always on the brink of taking back the asylum. And I want Gonski, a carbon tax and an NBN that wont need to be replaced in a decades time. So torn.
Arksy
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:02 AM)
Arksy's Avatar

Originally Posted by Antiwhippy

Problem for me is that Turnbull seems to be unable to shake off the far right in the Coalition.

As an insider I can tell you the war will continue for years yet. Win or lose the election. The liberal party has always housed both the liberal and conservative traditions but they've often been in direct conflict. It's just that Howard was really good at placating the liberal camp and keeping the broad church together.

I don't think that's a reason (in and of itself) not to vote for them though, the same thing happens in the ALP. It's just that it's been more public in the coalition recently. There's been somewhat of a purge of more conservative candidates losing pre-selection, being put down on the ticket, demoted and the rest.

They're throwing a lot of tantrums at the moment and getting the most minor victories while basically being purged. I don't necessarily agree with it but whatever. I would prefer a more open market less interventionist and more liberal government...but the war going on within the party isn't going to be good for it.
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
(05-09-2016, 06:11 AM)
Antiwhippy's Avatar
When you say a more liberal government where do you want it to stop? Privatising institutions like health and education or just businesses having less burden from the federal government?
dity
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:25 AM)
dity's Avatar
I ain't votin' for Liberal nuh uh no way
Arksy
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:26 AM)
Arksy's Avatar

Originally Posted by Antiwhippy

When you say a more liberal government where do you want it to stop? Privatising institutions like health and education or just businesses having less burden from the federal government?

Personally? No. I don't like how the government privatises sectors (in brief I prefer a public monopoly to a private one if I had to choose). I like where our health care system is currently. I want less (not zero) regulation for a lot of sectors and I want more personal freedoms.
Yagharek
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:28 AM)
Has the LNP mentioned the ABCC since calling for a DD?
bobnowhere
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:30 AM)
bobnowhere's Avatar

Originally Posted by legend166

Historically, the Coalition. However I think their economic polices over the last decade have moved way too close to the US-style, trickle down, Republican economic policy. I also really dislike their housing policies (negative gearing and capital gains) - not just because I'm a 27 year old trying to buy my first house, but because I philosophically disagree with treating housing as a investment vehicle rather than an essential of life.

Although, maybe they were like that all along and I just never noticed.

I'm a free-market capitalist who understands that capitalism is a means to an end, and not the end itself. So on that front I'm more than happy for the government to step in where to do so is in the best public interest and/or the free market would do a terrible job, i.e. health care, public transport, etc. I feel like the LNP used to act like this as well, but again it could just be me projecting. Turnbull, before he actually became PM, seemed to have this philosophy too. But I haven't really seen it much since he actually became PM.

Sounds a lot like classic Third Way Labor party beliefs to me. The best of the left socially and right economically. Capitalism with checks and balances, not just laissez-faire where I suspect many in the coalition would head. Think the likes of Chris Bowen, Andrew Barr and of course Hawke/Keating. Shorten? Who the hell really knows 2bh.
darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 06:32 AM)

Originally Posted by Yagharek

Has the LNP mentioned the ABCC since calling for a DD?

Hawke never mentioned the Australia Card. Historically DD's have very little to do with the issue they're called over. This DD has nothing to do with the ABCC and everything to do with removing the populist tools from Senate.

Also Turnbull is third-way Labor (or small-l liberal, they're basically identical outside of IR), just in the LNP. I think Keating and Turnbull are pretty much a match ideologically.
Fredescu
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:35 AM)
Fredescu's Avatar

Originally Posted by Arksy

It's just that Howard was really good at placating the liberal camp and keeping the broad church together.

I kinda think that this is a strength of Shorten. Yeah his performances aren't great, but he can arrive at palatable consensus position and keep the faction warring to a minimum. Howard was considered weak and unconvincing as an opposition leader too.
Dryk
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:35 AM)
Dryk's Avatar

Originally Posted by Arksy

They're throwing a lot of tantrums at the moment and getting the most minor victories while basically being purged. I don't necessarily agree with it but whatever. I would prefer a more open market less interventionist and more liberal government...but the war going on within the party isn't going to be good for it.

I would prefer such a wide division to take the form of separate parties but the electorate apparently can't handle that so what can you do.
Arksy
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:40 AM)
Arksy's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dryk

I would prefer such a wide division to take the form of separate parties but the electorate apparently can't handle that so what can you do.

I would to, but the divide between the two ideological camps exists in one party in the UK and Canada as well. It used to exist in the US before the schism in the GOP.
Fredescu
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:42 AM)
Fredescu's Avatar
The tories, united, will never be.. something something.

Thread Tools