Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[AndTheKungFoSing]

Anyway… I came here to check on updates to the footy... i am spent on this... its irrelevant.

I hate politics, the media.... and every freaking party in Australia

ARGGHHHHH *bashes head against wall!!!!*

TIME TO GET ANOTHER BEER

 

[hammertime]

Concerning Laptops…. you can still connect wirelessly to an access point which is connected to the NBN.... London are about to trial this and make the entire city wireless.... (however the internet will still be connected to an ULTRA fast FIBRE OPTIC connection....)

Wireless connections to routers is NOT the same as wireless connections to a Sat.... it uses COMPLETELY different technology.

You logic is flawed and selfish.

Because you don't want it... no one should gain advantage from it? I am not surprised of this train of thought though... given your political leanings.

Ohh and ADSL2+ can handle HD streaming, however because of population growth and limitations in the network... your speeds are slowed right down and unless you live a km from an exchange... unlucky.... The Liberal party solution is all crap! It's hardly even a band-aid solution.

One Country... One people.... think about everyone and not yourself. You selfish thinking is the exact reason why this great country has been held back for soooo long.

Kaiser - part of the Liberal party solution is to build a fibre 'backbone' around the country and have wireless transmitters from there. Some coverage will be based around utilizing existing technologies where possible. The main difference is that they aren't directly connecting homes.

You are right that you can then connect wireless towers to the NBN. But it's then a further additional cost.

When people use London, Japan, Korea etc as an example. They really need to look at the landscape and the population density. Australia is structured completely different to them. We need to understand our limitations and benefits of our landscape and demographics. There is a very good reason why no country like us have done this before.

You can't say that not wanting to pay for a white elephant is selfish, I think making the higher taxpayers of this country pay for others homes to be connected with little economic benefit or a business case is FAR more self-indulgent and selfish. Your connection cannot be used by them, it's not a public good. Unlike a road, port or bridge. These tax payers are at least owed a business case.

Australia has not been held back. Building ports, rail etc. to help with mining is what the Liberals did and it's the reason why Australia resisted the downturn. They also instituted the baby bonus to protect us with our aging population in the future (more taxpayers). Because they never structured a package in dumbed down terms like 'building for Australians future' doesn't mean nothing happened.

Building massive projects when unemployment is at historical lows is just absolutely idiotic. It drives up building costs and inflation. Save most away for when we do need jobs (they set up numerous funds!). The Liberals were smarter than the voters give them credit for.

 

[citizen_cub]

Do you know this is the largest infrastructure project the nation's ever had? 43 Billion big ones funded with our money and do you also know the whole project will take 8 years to complete? It could well be out of date technology by the time it's fully completed.

 

[hammertime]

Do we need broadband right now? If we are going to build it, which I don't think we should anyway, shouldn't we at least wait till we have a major jobs shortage!? The public need to think of the economics of this, because Wayne Swan won't.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/its-not-a-bubble-but-theres-other-trouble-brewing-20100926-15sff.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Citizen_Tiger]

Why would 'speaking to them about it' improve the credibility of the data? It's fact. What don't you understand about the numbers? Who suggested that these numbers 'played a part'? It's data that's telling, if that's not blindingly obvious to you, then perhaps it you that's cursed with a 'lack of understanding'

No it is NOT fact. It depends what Radio station or what channel news program you listen too… my bet is that you listen to 2GB and watch Nine News.... for the 'balanced' reporting...

Labor won in the 2 party preferred vote.. simple! Therefore the majority of the Australian electorates wanted a Labor based government...

I wonder how you felt when Howard won that election but lost in primary votes...

The quite incredible thing about this discussion is that some seem absolutely intent on proving that black is white. It's almost impossible to argue against that style of 'denial logic'.

However, It is indeed a fact that some 658.000 more people voted for the coalition. It is not arguable, it is not some fanciful number created by 2GB, nor has it been plucked from the ether by Laurie Oakes. The numbers are published on a variety of websites. You might try the comfort of the ABC Election site as a starting point. How can you apply 'balance' to data? It's not open to interpretation.

I never mention two party preferred, I never contested those numbers. As for your contention that a 'majority of Australian electorates wanted a Labor government', that's just incorrect. As at 16 September 73 seats held by the Coalition, 72 by Labor…..

 

[Citizen_Tiger]

A 'plurality' ? Indeed, as Sam Chisolm would say 'Thanks for that blinding insight into the obvious'….

A 'majority' in the context of a 'plurality' is 50% of the primary. The coalition polled 43.3%

To contend that a vote as impossibly weak as those polled in New England and Lyne by the respective Labor candidates, is 'meaningless' in the context of the Independent's roles in the formation of a government is fanciful. The tenor of those two seats is overwhelmingly conservative.

Mate you play the man constantly. If it's not some off handed comment about one's political understanding, or accusing posters of having thin arguments, it's proposing that one lacks common sense etc etc.In fact you applied the latter when discussing Albert Field and his appointment. I found that especially astonishing given you were not even born in 1975\. I mean what would I know?, I only experienced the disaster that was the Whitlam era first hand and like millions of other Australians couldn't wait to assist him in achieving the greatest defeat in the history of Australian politics. And you want to talk about the morality of a senate appointment. God help us, Nothing like a text book revisionist.

I was happy for you to write volumes when back pedalling on the Westminster issue, because frankly, it wasn't worth a response. I'm always happy to discuss stuff with you, but not when you remain dismissive and arrogant.

Yeah whatever. You clearly said a majority of the primary vote. They weren't even close to that. You don't seem to know the difference between attacking an argument and a person. Seriously what do you expect on a forum? You post a lot of stuff that I find factually incorrect and poorly constructed arguments so you have to expect to be called on it. And when that happens you sulk or claim I'm pointing out the obvious.

There are very few Labor leaning posters in this thread. I'm copping it from a stack of people but hey that's the way of forum posting isn't it? I'll leave it there and just stick to people like Stryker and Hammertime who can debate issues with passion and not get personally offended. If I talk waffle to them they're pretty quick to tell me too.

I've obviously upset you which was not my intention. Adios brother…

Dude, I am not offended at all, just frustrated by your style of argument, which relies on flimsy, unrelated data and off handed, dismissive comments.

I quote from the ANU Guide To Politics in Australia :- 'A primary vote is the "number one" vote cast by an elector in an Australian ballot. It is the best guide to the actual level of support for a political party or candidate, as distinct from the support measured by the two-party-preferred vote'

Go to the ABC Election website. There in black and white is the current state of the Primary Vote. The Coalition is 658,000 ahead of Labor. Not my numbers, not from the tea leaves, not from the Lotto results, just cold, hard, numbers, not arguable or open to interpretation. I challenge you to publish one set of 'incorrect figures' that I've quoted in this discussion. Further it is not arguable that Gillard has now been sworn in twice as PM, without having been elected by the people.

Sorry, I also forgot to mention in the context of Whitlam, Fraser, Joh et al, thank God we had a great Balmain boy to clear the decks in 1975 and rescue the nation.

 

[Yossarian]

Why would 'speaking to them about it' improve the credibility of the data? It's fact. What don't you understand about the numbers? Who suggested that these numbers 'played a part'? It's data that's telling, if that's not blindingly obvious to you, then perhaps it you that's cursed with a 'lack of understanding'

No it is NOT fact. It depends what Radio station or what channel news program you listen too… my bet is that you listen to 2GB and watch Nine News.... for the 'balanced' reporting...

Labor won in the 2 party preferred vote.. simple! Therefore the majority of the Australian electorates wanted a Labor based government...

I wonder how you felt when Howard won that election but lost in primary votes...

The quite incredible thing about this discussion is that some seem absolutely intent on proving that black is white. It's almost impossible to argue against that style of 'denial logic'.

However, It is indeed a fact that some 658.000 more people voted for the coalition. It is not arguable, it is not some fanciful number created by 2GB, nor has it been plucked from the ether by Laurie Oakes. The numbers are published on a variety of websites. You might try the comfort of the ABC Election site as a starting point. How can you apply 'balance' to data? It's not open to interpretation.

I never mention two party preferred, I never contested those numbers. As for your contention that a 'majority of Australian electorates wanted a Labor government', that's just incorrect. As at 16 September 73 seats held by the Coalition, 72 by Labor…..

The Coalition has 72 seats not 73\. Tony Crooke is not a member of the Coalition.

 

[Yossarian]

Dude, I am not offended at all, just frustrated by your style of argument, which relies on flimsy, unrelated data and off handed, dismissive comments.

I quote from the ANU Guide To Politics in Australia :- 'A primary vote is the "number one" vote cast by an elector in an Australian ballot. It is the best guide to the actual level of support for a political party or candidate, as distinct from the support measured by the two-party-preferred vote'

Go to the ABC Election website. There in black and white is the current state of the Primary Vote. The Coalition is 658,000 ahead of Labor. Not my numbers, not from the tea leaves, not from the Lotto results, just cold, hard, numbers, not arguable or open to interpretation. I challenge you to publish one set of 'incorrect figures' that I've quoted in this discussion. Further it is not arguable that Gillard has now been sworn in twice as PM, without having been elected by the people.

Sorry, I also forgot to mention in the context of Whitlam, Fraser, Joh et al, thank God we had a great Balmain boy to clear the decks in 1975 and rescue the nation.

So you calling my data flimsy isn't dismissive? I've never said your primary vote figures are wrong, just your reliance on them is misguided in the context you present it. As I've tried to point out, the Coalition had a plurality not a majority. The former is great if you've got a FPTP voting system but counts for squat when you have preferential voting. When you basically have a two-party system and one of them has a competitor for their primary votes you have to consider the 2PP especially when electorates are decided on that basis.

Balmain boy? Neville Wran? Oh you mean that alcoholic we had as G-G…

 

[hammertime]

Dude, I am not offended at all, just frustrated by your style of argument, which relies on flimsy, unrelated data and off handed, dismissive comments.

I quote from the ANU Guide To Politics in Australia :- 'A primary vote is the "number one" vote cast by an elector in an Australian ballot. It is the best guide to the actual level of support for a political party or candidate, as distinct from the support measured by the two-party-preferred vote'

Go to the ABC Election website. There in black and white is the current state of the Primary Vote. The Coalition is 658,000 ahead of Labor. Not my numbers, not from the tea leaves, not from the Lotto results, just cold, hard, numbers, not arguable or open to interpretation. I challenge you to publish one set of 'incorrect figures' that I've quoted in this discussion. Further it is not arguable that Gillard has now been sworn in twice as PM, without having been elected by the people.

Sorry, I also forgot to mention in the context of Whitlam, Fraser, Joh et al, thank God we had a great Balmain boy to clear the decks in 1975 and rescue the nation.

So you calling my data flimsy isn't dismissive? I've never said your primary vote figures are wrong, just your reliance on them is misguided in the context you present it. As I've tried to point out, the Coalition had a plurality not a majority. The former is great if you've got a FPTP voting system but counts for squat when you have preferential voting. When you basically have a two-party system and one of them has a competitor for their primary votes you have to consider the 2PP especially when electorates are decided on that basis.

Balmain boy? Neville Wran? Oh you mean that alcoholic we had as G-G…

I can understand both points here. The real point that I think is trying to be made is that given the hung parliament, where we didn't have any set rules and the 2PP vote didn't provide a result. The independents should have referred to the Primary Vote of the nation or the Primary Vote of their constituents to make a democratic decision for the people, not for their own agenda's.

Yoss is just arguing that they are independently elected and therefore can make up their own mind. That the Primary vote doesn't matter because it's not in the rule book.

But don't you think Yoss that basing a decision on the only voting statistic that can give us a clear guide on what the people want is more in sync with the principles of democracy? Rather than back room dealings of a few people with personal agendas.

There is no rule book to follow here. But either side using $10bn of **our** money to buy their power should never EVER be the result in a 1st world democracy.

 

[Yossarian]

Dude, I am not offended at all, just frustrated by your style of argument, which relies on flimsy, unrelated data and off handed, dismissive comments.

I quote from the ANU Guide To Politics in Australia :- 'A primary vote is the "number one" vote cast by an elector in an Australian ballot. It is the best guide to the actual level of support for a political party or candidate, as distinct from the support measured by the two-party-preferred vote'

Go to the ABC Election website. There in black and white is the current state of the Primary Vote. The Coalition is 658,000 ahead of Labor. Not my numbers, not from the tea leaves, not from the Lotto results, just cold, hard, numbers, not arguable or open to interpretation. I challenge you to publish one set of 'incorrect figures' that I've quoted in this discussion. Further it is not arguable that Gillard has now been sworn in twice as PM, without having been elected by the people.

Sorry, I also forgot to mention in the context of Whitlam, Fraser, Joh et al, thank God we had a great Balmain boy to clear the decks in 1975 and rescue the nation.

So you calling my data flimsy isn't dismissive? I've never said your primary vote figures are wrong, just your reliance on them is misguided in the context you present it. As I've tried to point out, the Coalition had a plurality not a majority. The former is great if you've got a FPTP voting system but counts for squat when you have preferential voting. When you basically have a two-party system and one of them has a competitor for their primary votes you have to consider the 2PP especially when electorates are decided on that basis.

Balmain boy? Neville Wran? Oh you mean that alcoholic we had as G-G…

I can understand both points here. The real point that I think is trying to be made is that given the hung parliament, where we didn't have any set rules and the 2PP vote didn't provide a result. The independents should have referred to the Primary Vote of the nation or the Primary Vote of their constituents to make a democratic decision for the people, not for their own agenda's.

Yoss is just arguing that they are independently elected and therefore can make up their own mind. That the Primary vote doesn't matter because it's not in the rule book.

But don't you think Yoss that basing a decision on the only voting statistic that can give us a clear guide on what the people want is more in sync with the principles of democracy? Rather than back room dealings of a few people with personal agendas.

There is no rule book to follow here. But either side using $10bn of **our** money to buy their power should never EVER be the result in a 1st world democracy.

Hammer my argument is more that the primary vote figures are going to skew towards the main centre-right party in Australia because they have no competition for votes whereas the main centre-left party does. Also 42% is a long way from 50%. I just think when you are so far short of a majority on primaries it starts to lose relevance in deciding who has a better mandate.

You'd have to look at what the $10b is being spent on. The Hobart hospital doesn't worry me, the rural things I'd have to take a closer look. But really its not a huge difference to having money thrown at marginal seats while people in safe seats get squat. It's just the nature of the beast in an electorate based system.

In any event I think we should strap ourselves in for some of the most outrageous political skulduggery, manipulation, and trickery over the next few months/years. I can see some very obscure parliamentary procedures getting a run over. We're already seeing it with the speaker/deputy speaker business and Abbott refusing to pair Gillard's vote.

 

[system]

On the ANU document please tell me it isn't written by Wayne Errington.

Never trust a guy who only got a Conditional Pass in first year Constitutional studies

 

[Yossarian]

On the ANU document please tell me it isn't written by Wayne Errington.

Never trust a guy who only got a Conditional Pass in first year Constitutional studies

ANU politics department has always been over-rated!

 

[hammertime]

If we want to prosper, these are the types of guys we should listen to…

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/industry-sectors/gillards-national-broadband-network-expensive-says-worlds-richest-man/story-e6frg9hx-1225931845443?area=technology" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Tiger_Watto]

Lets go back to the polls so we can see this country grow!!!

 

[hammertime]

Well said Tiger Watto.

Look at this idiotic pokie reform that we are spending billions on. It has more holes that a piece of Swiss cheese. Seriously, you wouldn't think we were just coming out of a massive economic downturn and teetering on the edge of another.

This has to be the most ridiculous singular bit of policy I have EVER seen. I hope to god Abbott stops this one.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/playing-pokies-is-getting-criminal/story-e6freuzi-1225931999719" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Citizen_Tiger]

Dude, I am not offended at all, just frustrated by your style of argument, which relies on flimsy, unrelated data and off handed, dismissive comments.

I quote from the ANU Guide To Politics in Australia :- 'A primary vote is the "number one" vote cast by an elector in an Australian ballot. It is the best guide to the actual level of support for a political party or candidate, as distinct from the support measured by the two-party-preferred vote'

Go to the ABC Election website. There in black and white is the current state of the Primary Vote. The Coalition is 658,000 ahead of Labor. Not my numbers, not from the tea leaves, not from the Lotto results, just cold, hard, numbers, not arguable or open to interpretation. I challenge you to publish one set of 'incorrect figures' that I've quoted in this discussion. Further it is not arguable that Gillard has now been sworn in twice as PM, without having been elected by the people.

Sorry, I also forgot to mention in the context of Whitlam, Fraser, Joh et al, thank God we had a great Balmain boy to clear the decks in 1975 and rescue the nation.

So you calling my data flimsy isn't dismissive? I've never said your primary vote figures are wrong, just your reliance on them is misguided in the context you present it. As I've tried to point out, the Coalition had a plurality not a majority. The former is great if you've got a FPTP voting system but counts for squat when you have preferential voting. When you basically have a two-party system and one of them has a competitor for their primary votes you have to consider the 2PP especially when electorates are decided on that basis.

Balmain boy? Neville Wran? Oh you mean that alcoholic we had as G-G…

Yoss, it's OK, I hear you, just think we may have ended up at cross purposes. Think my data is strong, but hey I'm invoking the 'Voltaire Rule'…....Cheers mate

 

[Yossarian]

Dude, I am not offended at all, just frustrated by your style of argument, which relies on flimsy, unrelated data and off handed, dismissive comments.

I quote from the ANU Guide To Politics in Australia :- 'A primary vote is the "number one" vote cast by an elector in an Australian ballot. It is the best guide to the actual level of support for a political party or candidate, as distinct from the support measured by the two-party-preferred vote'

Go to the ABC Election website. There in black and white is the current state of the Primary Vote. The Coalition is 658,000 ahead of Labor. Not my numbers, not from the tea leaves, not from the Lotto results, just cold, hard, numbers, not arguable or open to interpretation. I challenge you to publish one set of 'incorrect figures' that I've quoted in this discussion. Further it is not arguable that Gillard has now been sworn in twice as PM, without having been elected by the people.

Sorry, I also forgot to mention in the context of Whitlam, Fraser, Joh et al, thank God we had a great Balmain boy to clear the decks in 1975 and rescue the nation.

So you calling my data flimsy isn't dismissive? I've never said your primary vote figures are wrong, just your reliance on them is misguided in the context you present it. As I've tried to point out, the Coalition had a plurality not a majority. The former is great if you've got a FPTP voting system but counts for squat when you have preferential voting. When you basically have a two-party system and one of them has a competitor for their primary votes you have to consider the 2PP especially when electorates are decided on that basis.

Balmain boy? Neville Wran? Oh you mean that alcoholic we had as G-G…

Yoss, it's OK, I hear you, just think we may have ended up at cross purposes. Think my data is strong, but hey I'm invoking the 'Voltaire Rule'…....Cheers mate

Cross purposes? Well I think we can agree on that much at least!

 

[stryker]

Well said Tiger Watto.

Look at this idiotic pokie reform that we are spending billions on. It has more holes that a piece of Swiss cheese. Seriously, you wouldn't think we were just coming out of a massive economic downturn and teetering on the edge of another.

This has to be the most ridiculous singular bit of policy I have EVER seen. I hope to god Abbott stops this one.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/playing-pokies-is-getting-criminal/story-e6freuzi-1225931999719" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is a ridiculous idea….

I myself cant stand pokies but if people think they can win big on them, who has the right to tell them otherwise?

Most people play them for a bit of light entertainment with friends and are under no illusions of it being a long term profitable venture.

It's about time people start taking responsibility for their own actions. The government isnt there to wipe their backsides for them.

 

[Geo]

It's about time people start taking responsibility for their own actions. The government isnt there to wipe their backsides for them.

Ummm I think the 100's of 1000's of people on the dole or welfare might disagree with you there mate…

If the Government of the day don't..... who will.....

 

[stryker]

Well as a bloke who has worked very hard to get where I am today I'm not that opposed to eradicating the bloody dole, or at the very least making it extremely hard to qualify for it if your a legitamate bludger….