• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

legend166
Member
(05-09-2016, 05:44 AM)
legend166's Avatar

Originally Posted by bobnowhere

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.

Well where it all falls over for me is that I'm not left socially.

*runs*
darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 05:44 AM)

Originally Posted by Fredescu

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.

TBF though, the LNP has far more ideological divisions than the ALP. The LNP is comparable to if the ALP formed a party with the Greens.
Jintor
Lit himself on fire to get
a mod to tag him
(05-09-2016, 05:49 AM)
Jintor's Avatar

Originally Posted by legend166

Well where it all falls over for me is that I'm not left socially.

*runs*

I'll go get the tar and feathers...
Arksy
Member
(05-09-2016, 05:50 AM)
Arksy's Avatar

Originally Posted by darkace

TBF though, the LNP has far more ideological divisions than the ALP. The LNP is comparable to if the ALP formed a party with the Greens.

I was just talking about the liberal party proper.
Fredescu
Member
(05-09-2016, 05:52 AM)
Fredescu's Avatar

Originally Posted by darkace

TBF though, the LNP has far more ideological divisions than the ALP. The LNP is comparable to if the ALP formed a party with the Greens.

I'm not sure about that. For one, Joe de Bruyn. For another, I think that certain factions on the right have become much more intransigent lately, Tea Party and all that, which makes the factional differences seem much louder, but not necessarily bigger.


Originally Posted by legend166

Well where it all falls over for me is that I'm not left socially.

*runs*

I mean, actively wanting public health and education kinda puts you over here these days.
Yagharek
Member
(05-09-2016, 05:57 AM)
Yagharek's Avatar

Originally Posted by legend166

Well where it all falls over for me is that I'm not left socially.

*runs*

Explain socially right leaning then?

Aside from standard flashpoint topics like SSM and presumably reproductive choice, what does a socially right viewpoint look like?
darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 05:57 AM)

Originally Posted by Arksy

I was just talking about the liberal party proper.

I was too. A party with both Cory Bernandi and Turnbull is one that is the literal definition of a broad church. They have almost nothing to offer each other ideologically.

The ALP has a much narrower belief system, with the exception of the old DLPers. They're a party built around IR that expanded from there. There aren't many real divisions in the ALP outside of asylum seeker policy and gay marriage. The Liberal party has a group of people that includes everything from true believers in the free market to people that don't give a shit about the economy and are just seriously socially conservative to big government conservatives as well. And they're in a coalition agreement with socially conservative agrarian socialists.
Last edited by darkace; 05-09-2016 at 06:01 AM.
Arksy
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:00 AM)
Arksy's Avatar
I'm socially right wing too! Because I believe in individual freedoms like the right to marry whoever and choose what to do with your own body.

*Also flees*
bobnowhere
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:02 AM)
bobnowhere's Avatar

Originally Posted by legend166

Well where it all falls over for me is that I'm not left socially.

*runs*

I'm going to have to think a little harder then!

Have you considered the DLP? :P

/runs
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
(05-09-2016, 06:04 AM)
Antiwhippy's Avatar

Originally Posted by Arksy

I'm socially right wing too! Because I believe in individual freedoms like the right to marry whoever and choose what to do with your own body.

*Also flees*

That's... like the opposite of socially right wing?
Yagharek
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:04 AM)
Yagharek's Avatar
When people say "runs" I assume that means they're putting their hand up for a senate seat yeah?
legend166
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:05 AM)
legend166's Avatar
The more I think about it, the more I think a nationwide minimum wage is pretty dumb, right? Median rent for an apartment in Sydney is 20% higher than the closest capital city (I'm going rental for apartments as I doubt someone on minimum wage is doing anything other than renting an apartment if they don't live with their parents. Also I'm excluding Darwin because I don't understand why it's the same as Sydney. Military housing maybe?) It's almost twice the median rent in Adelaide. Of course the danger with leaving this up to the states is that SA just chooses to lower the minimum wage rather than NSW increasing it. But I don't know if a one size fits all works.
SmartBase
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:07 AM)
SmartBase's Avatar
Speaking of running, how hard is it to be taken off the electoral roll?
Yagharek
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:08 AM)
Yagharek's Avatar

Originally Posted by legend166

The more I think about it, the more I think a nationwide minimum wage is pretty dumb, right? Median rent for an apartment in Sydney is 20% higher than the closest capital city (I'm going rental for apartments as I doubt someone on minimum wage is doing anything other than renting an apartment if they don't live with their parents. Also I'm excluding Darwin because I don't understand why it's the same as Sydney. Military housing maybe?) It's almost twice the median rent in Adelaide. Of course the danger with leaving this up to the states is that SA just chooses to lower the minimum wage rather than NSW increasing it. But I don't know if a one size fits all works.

Darwin cost of living is higher because of a few reasons. Remoteness is one. Building to cyclone standards is another. And then there is defence housing where people buy houses, lease them to defence for fixed terms and have a nice safe income for that period with an assurance it will be in pristine condition when they get it back.
darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 06:10 AM)

Originally Posted by legend166

The more I think about it, the more I think a nationwide minimum wage is pretty dumb, right? Median rent for an apartment in Sydney is 20% higher than the closest capital city (I'm going rental for apartments as I doubt someone on minimum wage is doing anything other than renting an apartment if they don't live with their parents. Also I'm excluding Darwin because I don't understand why it's the same as Sydney. Military housing maybe?) It's almost twice the median rent in Adelaide. Of course the danger with leaving this up to the states is that SA just chooses to lower the minimum wage rather than NSW increasing it. But I don't know if a one size fits all works.

Statewide MW's actually work pretty well in the US. The differences between NY and rural Mississipi are comparable to rural Tassie and Sydney, and our minimum wage should take account of that. I'd like a MW tied to the median income of the electorate, or a sector-dependent one like they do in Scandinavia.

But yea, nationwide minimum wages are dumb.
Last edited by darkace; 05-09-2016 at 06:12 AM.
JesseEwiak
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:15 AM)

Originally Posted by darkace

Statewide MW's actually work pretty well in the US. The differences between NY and rural Mississipi are comparable to rural Tassie and Sydney, and our minimum wage should take account of that. I'd like a MW tied to the median income of the electorate, or a sector-dependent one like they do in Scandinavia.

But yea, nationwide minimum wages are dumb.

No, they actually don't. The only reason statewide MW's are as "high" as they are in large swathes of the country is because the federal government says, "hey numbskulls, you have to pay people at least this small amount."

If it were up to the fine legislatures of Mississippi or Oklahoma, there wouldn't be a minimum wage. Now, the nationwide MW for Australia may be too high, but you need a nationwide floor to stop a race to the bottom.
Arksy
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:15 AM)
Arksy's Avatar

Originally Posted by SmartBase

Speaking of running, how hard is it to be taken off the electoral roll?

So you don't have to vote? IIRC you have to go through your MP who then refers it to the AEC.

Someone I know who's an anarchist and who's against democracy as a principle had it done.
Fredescu
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:19 AM)
Fredescu's Avatar
Thread title:

darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 06:21 AM)

Originally Posted by JesseEwiak

No, they actually don't. The only reason statewide MW's are as "high" as they are in large swathes of the country is because the federal government says, "hey numbskulls, you have to pay people at least this small amount."

If it were up to the fine legislatures of Mississippi or Oklahoma, there wouldn't be a minimum wage. Now, the nationwide MW for Australia may be too high, but you need a nationwide floor to stop a race to the bottom.

You don't get a race to the bottom as a result of decentralising MW laws. Wages also wouldn't fall that far even if you totally removed it, you still need to pay people money for their labour. Equilibrium wage and all that jazz. Minimum wages would obviously fall as a result of decentralising them, but towards a MW that makes sense in the area, not a race to the bottom.

State MW's take into account differences between the states. The south overwhelmingly has much lower COL, so it has lower MW's. Places like NY and Seattle can afford much higher, so they do. State legislatures aren't retarded, they don't need the federal government to step in for them.
JesseEwiak
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:26 AM)
I'm not getting into the economic argument with you because it'll come down to, we disagree, but on your last point...

Originally Posted by darkace

State legislatures aren't retarded, they don't need the federal government to step in for them.

Um, have you looked into American state legislatures. Because if you did, they'd easily disabuse you of that notion with their own actions. A lot of them are basically legislatures filled with Tony Abbott's, only without the tact and more ideological and it's impossible to defeat them because the electorate cares more about making sure people they don't know can't get abortions easy than economic performance.
SmartBase
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:29 AM)
SmartBase's Avatar

Originally Posted by Arksy

So you don't have to vote? IIRC you have to go through your MP who then refers it to the AEC.

Someone I know who's an anarchist who's against democracy as a principle had it done.

Interesting. I was under the impression you needed to not be living in the country any more to even be considered by the AEC for removal, which is my situation after this election.
Last edited by SmartBase; 05-09-2016 at 07:02 AM.
darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 06:34 AM)

Originally Posted by JesseEwiak

Um, have you looked into American state legislatures. Because if you did, they'd easily disabuse you of that notion with their own actions. A lot of them are basically legislatures filled with Tony Abbott's, only without the tact and more ideological and it's impossible to defeat them because the electorate cares more about making sure people they don't know can't get abortions easy than economic performance.

I think that would change if the fed MW didn't exist. Hard to say though. Legislatures just reflect population wishes.
Arksy
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:34 AM)
Arksy's Avatar

Originally Posted by SmartBase

Interesting. I was under the impression you needed to not be living in the country any more to even be considered by the AEC for removal, which is my situation.

Oh, if you're out of the country. Here. Form at the bottom.
JesseEwiak
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:38 AM)

Originally Posted by darkace

I think that would change if the fed MW didn't exist. Hard to say though. Legislatures just reflect population wishes.

...and some of us believe that part of the point of having a nation instead of a bunch of smaller states who have a common self defense pact is that the federal government can step in and protect those who are stuck in regions where they're being treated like crap because the population doesn't give a damn.

Whether it's economically or socially.
Shaneus
Member
(05-09-2016, 06:43 AM)
Shaneus's Avatar

Originally Posted by darkace

Statewide MW's actually work pretty well in the US. The differences between NY and rural Mississipi are comparable to rural Tassie and Sydney, and our minimum wage should take account of that. I'd like a MW tied to the median income of the electorate, or a sector-dependent one like they do in Scandinavia.

But yea, nationwide minimum wages are dumb.

The US also has state-specific taxes. Don't know whether the minimum wage in the US correlates with general cost of living or it's somehow intertwined with state taxes, but there'd be far more variance over there than here, I'd imagine.

Edit:

Originally Posted by JesseEwiak

...and some of us believe that part of the point of having a nation instead of a bunch of smaller states who have a common self defense pact is that the federal government can step in and protect those who are stuck in regions where they're being treated like crap because the population doesn't give a damn.

Whether it's economically or socially.

Pretty much this. The states in the US seem to be almost like separate countries, at least compared to here.
Last edited by Shaneus; 05-09-2016 at 06:45 AM.
darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 07:15 AM)

Originally Posted by JesseEwiak

...and some of us believe that part of the point of having a nation instead of a bunch of smaller states who have a common self defense pact is that the federal government can step in and protect those who are stuck in regions where they're being treated like crap because the population doesn't give a damn.

Whether it's economically or socially.

You can believe whatever you want. The MW, at heart, is a welfare tool. Poorly designed, badly targeted and with its burden falling outside where it should, but still a net positive. A federal MW is an incredibly blunt welfare tool that has the potential to do damage if set too far above the equilibrium wage of unskilled labour in rural and Low-COL areas. Like what would happen if Sanders implemented his ridiculously stupid 15 an hour MW.

Don't hurt those you're trying to help. The federal minimum wage has to be low enough to not cause any more than minor structural unemployment in areas with lower cost of living. This should be mixed with region specific minimum wages so that places like Sydney can pay higher wages.
Last edited by darkace; 05-09-2016 at 08:58 AM.
Elaugaufein
Member
(05-09-2016, 07:30 AM)
Elaugaufein's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mr. Pointy

I might just stick with Labor for House and Greens for the Senate. Unless the Sex Party gets resurrected.

Everything I've heard says they are running. They did well (for a micro) last time and the Senate Changes favor them as a result. They might sell get a Senate seat or 2.
Spinifex
Member
(05-09-2016, 08:03 AM)
Spinifex's Avatar

Originally Posted by Elaugaufein

Everything I've heard says they are running. They did well (for a micro) last time and the Senate Changes favor them as a result. They might sell get a Senate seat or 2.

They're bitching about senate voting reform, and therefore are directing preferences to Labor.

Fuck 'em. Literally.
shanshan310
Member
(05-09-2016, 08:10 AM)
shanshan310's Avatar
Need help on who to vote for? Don't worry, the Daily Tele has got you covered - no thinking required, just rage.


EDIT:

realised it was already posted and I somehow missed it ><

It scares me that people might read that and just go along with whatever is written.
Last edited by shanshan310; 05-09-2016 at 08:52 AM.
laoni
Member
(05-09-2016, 08:15 AM)
laoni's Avatar

Originally Posted by Fredescu

Thread title:

This shitlord's in charge of my electorate and uuuuuuggggghhh. Please no. Someone make him stop ;n;
yepyepyep
Member
(05-09-2016, 08:31 AM)
yepyepyep's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mr. Pointy

I might just stick with Labor for House and Greens for the Senate. Unless the Sex Party gets resurrected.

That's what I am thinking. I usually do Green's all the way but I have appreciated Labor's policy direction of late.
Last edited by yepyepyep; 05-09-2016 at 08:38 AM.
Elaugaufein
Member
(05-09-2016, 08:52 AM)
Elaugaufein's Avatar

Originally Posted by yepyepyep

That's what I am thinking. I usually do Green's all the way but I have appreciated Labor's policy direction of late.

Unless you're in a situation where Labor (your less preferred party) is likely to get knocked out before your more preferred party (Greens) this is not usually a good idea (since your Greens preference and this policy direction preference doesn't get expressed).

That of course assumes you like Labor's direction but the Greens position (which I'm guessing from your Senate vote) it obviously doesn't hold if you favor Labor's position.

Originally Posted by Spinifex

They're bitching about senate voting reform, and therefore are directing preferences to Labor.

Fuck 'em. Literally.

That's just weird , as one of the larger minor parties with decent natural preference flows from both sides and a distinctive and attention grabbing name they'll almost certainly do better under the new system (not counting bottom slot roulette wheel stuff).

Without GTV though it's unlikely to matter much, for the Greens and anyone smaller their voters are generally ideological rather than party loyal so they are far more likely to distribute preferences themselves. This is going to be Fuuuun seeing how things end up flowing.
Last edited by Elaugaufein; 05-09-2016 at 08:59 AM.
Bernbaum
Member
(05-09-2016, 09:23 AM)
Bernbaum's Avatar

Originally Posted by shanshan310

Need help on who to vote for? Don't worry, the Daily Tele has got you covered - no thinking required, just rage.


EDIT:

realised it was already posted and I somehow missed it ><

It scares me that people might read that and just go along with whatever is written.

The Tele's choir were going to vote that way anyway. People don't buy those papers seeking information, they do it for mental justification of preheld sentiments.
Elaugaufein
Member
(05-09-2016, 09:27 AM)
Elaugaufein's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bernbaum

The Tele's choir were going to vote that way anyway. People don't buy those papers seeking information, they do it for mental justification of preheld sentiments.

Concurred. There's a reason it's been called the Torygraph sometimes (though the Terrorgraph seems more appropriate and popular as of late).
Last edited by Elaugaufein; 05-09-2016 at 09:31 AM.
Arksy
Member
(05-09-2016, 09:32 AM)
Arksy's Avatar
The exact same thing could be said about The Guardian or basically any other newspaper. Which is good because it means their net influence is zero.
darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 09:36 AM)
I've been reading Crikey and the Australian for my news. They're both biased (seriously so if you go into opinion pieces), but they provide a pretty good neutral platform together.
jim-jam bongs
most certainly will not be getting forcibly fucked by a gigantic canoe
(05-09-2016, 09:37 AM)
jim-jam bongs's Avatar

Originally Posted by Elaugaufein

Concurred. There's a reason it's been called the Torygraph sometimes (though the Terrorgraph seems more appropriate and popular as of late).

It's been the Daily Terror for decades already, though more in reference to small T terror rather than big T.
Elaugaufein
Member
(05-09-2016, 09:57 AM)
Elaugaufein's Avatar

Originally Posted by darkace

I've been reading Crikey and the Australian for my news. They're both biased (seriously so if you go into opinion pieces), but they provide a pretty good neutral platform together.

Just as a quick FYI / self-plug AusPoliGAF has a group Crikey subscription going, and more members makes things cheaper, so if you want in when you're current subscription runs out just send me a PM about a month before that and we can get you pro-rataed in (or the group subscription will be up for renewal in February next year).

Same thing applies to any one else interested in a Crikey sub.
roosters93
Member
(05-09-2016, 12:25 PM)
I've realised all of darkace's arguments to date seem to have the same general problem of expecting x or y economic theory to work in the real world when the fallible or callous nature of politicians (well humans in genera)l would lead to it not working in practice.

Also it struck me as an interesting position for one to look at the inflated housing prices/ high cost of living/etc of Sydney and take from all that, that the problem is the minimum wage
legend166
Member
(05-09-2016, 12:36 PM)
legend166's Avatar

Originally Posted by roosters93

I've realised all of darkace's arguments to date seem to have the same general problem of expecting x or y economic theory to work in the real world when the fallible or callous nature of politicians (well humans in genera)l would lead to it not working in practice.

Basically the right wing version of a Marxist :)
darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 02:12 PM)

Originally Posted by roosters93

I've realised all of darkace's arguments to date seem to have the same general problem of expecting x or y economic theory to work in the real world when the fallible or callous nature of politicians (well humans in genera)l would lead to it not working in practice.

Thinking that x wouldn't work in practice because of reasons is enormously fallacious. It's barely even worth responding to.

Economic theory models the same world any other science does. It doesn't not work because it might come to conclusions you may be ideologically resistant to. The idea that the people being modelled aren't perfectly rational human beings is taken into account in these models. It's like thinking you've disproven climate change scientists because clearly they haven't factored in the sun.

And I mean, really, are we going to take the unsourced ideological assumptions of somebody over the work of people who have spent decades in the field? Why would we ever create policy like that, from any side?

Also it struck me as an interesting position for one to look at the inflated housing prices/ high cost of living/etc of Sydney and take from all that, that the problem is the minimum wage

Wut. When have I ever said that? I don't know how you could ever take away this from any of my posts. My MW posts were solely talking about people who would have no chance of buying a house in the first place. They have next to no ability to affect the housing market at all. My argument was that we shouldn't set a MW based around the cost of living in Sydney because it's much, much higher than other areas.

And I'm not right wing. And Marxists suck because their models have zero predictive or explanatory power.
Last edited by darkace; 05-09-2016 at 02:47 PM.
Elaugaufein
Member
(05-09-2016, 02:21 PM)
Elaugaufein's Avatar
In today's episode of Ad Watch From Regional Queensland / NT Sat TV:

Just saw a negative Labor ad , ominous music, dark colours, side by side comparison of tax cuts for top earner and not. So looks like both sides are 1 for 1 on positive and negative ads here.
Arksy
Member
(05-09-2016, 02:27 PM)
Arksy's Avatar
It's like no one has confidence in their own vision, only that their opponents have really terrible ideas.
bobnowhere
Member
(05-09-2016, 02:33 PM)
bobnowhere's Avatar

Originally Posted by Arksy

It's like no one has confidence in their own vision, only that their opponents have really terrible ideas.

I suppose as it's such a long campaign both sides are feeling each other out trying to goad the other side into a mistake while being very careful not to make one of their own. It's been thoroughly underwhelming so far.

Also Kelly O'Dwyer is a terrible performer and should be hidden from TV from now on.
Elaugaufein
Member
(05-09-2016, 02:50 PM)
Elaugaufein's Avatar
*Sob* People still don't understand preferential voting. Even people who follow politics.

People on Twitter complaining about the Greens splitting the Labor vote. Desire to throw myself off of a bridge rising.

Is the basic idea really that complicated a concept ? (I know the details of Senate Vote counting are the things of nightmares (due to some kludgy hacks when less computational power was available but that stuff matters in approximately 2 god damn seats in an entire election).
Last edited by Elaugaufein; 05-09-2016 at 02:52 PM.
Candescence
Banned
(05-09-2016, 03:41 PM)

Originally Posted by Elaugaufein

*Sob* People still don't understand preferential voting. Even people who follow politics.

People on Twitter complaining about the Greens splitting the Labor vote. Desire to throw myself off of a bridge rising.

Is the basic idea really that complicated a concept ? (I know the details of Senate Vote counting are the things of nightmares (due to some kludgy hacks when less computational power was available but that stuff matters in approximately 2 god damn seats in an entire election).

I've been recently reminded that this info comic exists. It needs to be spread around more.
Elaugaufein
Member
(05-09-2016, 03:46 PM)
Elaugaufein's Avatar

Originally Posted by Candescence

I've been recently reminded that this info comic exists. It needs to be spread around more.

Unfortunately it's wrong now since you no longer have to number all the boxes in the Upper House, but still do in the Lower House.
darkace
Banned
(05-09-2016, 04:05 PM)
How does our Senate voting work now. What do I have to number. Should I just number everything on both papers?

Disclaimer, this is my first election voting even though I've been eligible for years. I'm a bad poli-sci student.
Elaugaufein
Member
(05-09-2016, 04:14 PM)
Elaugaufein's Avatar

Originally Posted by darkace

How does our Senate voting work now. What do I have to number. Should I just number everything on both papers?

Disclaimer, this is my first election voting even though I've been eligible for years. I'm a bad poli-sci student.

You can either vote:

Above the line
In which case you MUST* number at least 6 parties in order of preference , starting at 1 for most preferred and ending at 6 for least preferred, you MAY continue numbering additional parties until your preferences are fully expressed.

Or

Below the line
In which case you MUST* number at least 12 candidates in order of preference starting at 1 for most preferred and ending at 12 for least preferred you MAY continue numbering additional candidates until your preferences are fully expressed.


*There are vote saving provisions in place which allow you to number less candidates (1 or more above the line and at least 6 below the line) but these are technically invalid votes saved by the special provision rather tha valid votes,
AFAIK the old vote saving provision where if you fill in both, it uses the Below the Line Vote by default but if it's invalid they'll count your Above the Line vote, is still in effect too but it should see a lot less use since valid Below the Line Votes are much
easier.

ETA - On a personal note I do recommend that you do keep numbering until you run out of preferences rather than just the minimum. I might not personally agree with the Liberals or the Nationals on a lot of policy decisions but I'd still rather them than something like Rise Up Australia.
Last edited by Elaugaufein; 05-09-2016 at 04:40 PM.

Thread Tools