Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[stryker]

Kaiser and Yossarian, you two are hillarious.

Yoss do you seriously believe that Jenkins gave up that job of his own volition? Sure it's an annoying job but he has taken a pay cut of 75K a year. Think about how much that will affect his super let alone paypacket. His 'resigning' will cost him 100's of thousands of dollars…and for what? so he can sit on his arse and get fatter on the backbenches? Give me a break.

Whilst i give Gillard props for the move, once again her party has proven that they will do anything and will walk over anyone to stay in power.

Kaiser if you think she's trustworthy then you need help. She is the epitome of a backstabbing and treacherous bureaucrat.

 

[hammertime]

It's a great move by Gillard to be honest and I think it's going to be so much better for our budget.

Now we won't have our tax dollars being used to bribe some crackpot independents each time Labor need their vote. Hopefully its the start of axing Wilkie's pokies 'reform'.

I don't like the current Labor party, nor do I like Abbott, but at least now we might have a functioning government…

..... well except for the collusion with the Tree huggers.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

It's a great move by Gillard to be honest and I think it's going to be so much better for our budget.

**Now we won't have our tax dollars being used to bribe some crackpot independents each time Labor need their vote. Hopefully its the start of axing Wilkie's pokies 'reform'.**

I don't like the current Labor party, nor do I like Abbott, but at least now we might have a functioning government…

..... well except for the collusion with the Tree huggers.

I'm hoping this was the catalyst.

 

[stryker]

It was a great move Hammer and it totally blindsided Abbott. Well played Julia.

The fact that Wilkie has lost power is of great encouragement to me. If she manages to screw Brown over as well somehow I'll be even happier.

Like i said, shrewd move. In the game of politics she is a master. Now use it to do something worthwhile for the country please….

 

[Yossarian]

Kaiser and Yossarian, you two are hillarious.

Yoss do you seriously believe that Jenkins gave up that job of his own volition? Sure it's an annoying job but he has taken a pay cut of 75K a year. Think about how much that will affect his super let alone paypacket. His 'resigning' will cost him 100's of thousands of dollars…and for what? so he can sit on his arse and get fatter on the backbenches? Give me a break.

Whilst i give Gillard props for the move, once again her party has proven that they will do anything and will walk over anyone to stay in power.

Kaiser if you think she's trustworthy then you need help. She is the epitome of a backstabbing and treacherous bureaucrat.

That's not exactly what I said. I said there's no evidence to suggest it was anything other than that. But I guess the party who supported Mal Colston for Deputy President of the Senate and ignored convention in appointing Senators in 1975 can hardly complain too much.

And what of reports that Abbott offered Rob Oakeshott the kitchen sink so he could take the job? If you don't think Phony Abbott would do the same if not more to get into power you're kidding yourself.

If Gillard did orchestrate this it is a fantasic manoeuver on her part. Spare me this cost mumbo jumbo - would have cost the same if they elected another ALP MP as speaker but you wouldn't be in here bellyaching about it.

 

[Yossarian]

It's a great move by Gillard to be honest and I think it's going to be so much better for our budget.

**Now we won't have our tax dollars being used to bribe some crackpot independents each time Labor need their vote. Hopefully its the start of axing Wilkie's pokies 'reform'.**

I don't like the current Labor party, nor do I like Abbott, but at least now we might have a functioning government…

..... well except for the collusion with the Tree huggers.

I'm hoping this was the catalyst.

Hope so. Having said that, I do support some change to pokie laws and the way the Clubs industry has carried on has been absolutely disgraceful. Mandatory pre-committment was always a stretch but changing the betting limits and slowing machines were reasonable ideas and cheap to implement. I'd also like to see an ICAC-style body that focused solely on the club industry. Club Marconi is the surely the tip of the iceberg in terms of dubious behaviour. Clubs have been basically unregulated (or at best grossly under-regulated) for too long. The actual amounts they pay out to sporting/charity/cultural groups is an extremely small percentage of their pokie take. They are, on average, poorly run monuments to the egos of the small cabal who run them (how's that for a spray!).

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

It's a great move by Gillard to be honest and I think it's going to be so much better for our budget.

**Now we won't have our tax dollars being used to bribe some crackpot independents each time Labor need their vote. Hopefully its the start of axing Wilkie's pokies 'reform'.**

I don't like the current Labor party, nor do I like Abbott, but at least now we might have a functioning government…

..... well except for the collusion with the Tree huggers.

I'm hoping this was the catalyst.

Hope so. Having said that, I do support some change to pokie laws and the way the Clubs industry has carried on has been absolutely disgraceful. Mandatory pre-committment was always a stretch but changing the betting limits and slowing machines were reasonable ideas and cheap to implement. I'd also like to see an ICAC-style body that focused solely on the club industry. Club Marconi is the surely the tip of the iceberg in terms of dubious behaviour. Clubs have been basically unregulated (or at best grossly under-regulated) for too long. The actual amounts they pay out to sporting/charity/cultural groups is an extremely small percentage of their pokie take. They are, on average, poorly run monuments to the egos of the small cabal who run them (how's that for a spray!).

I see your point, but all it does is push problem gamblers onto other modes of gambling (casino tables, online betting, TAB, etc.) Pokies seem to be copping the brunt simply because they are accessible and easy to understand/play. Gambling is a contentious issue because it's a delicate balancing act of not restricting people's right to spend their money as they see fit against fighting an addiction that affects more than just the addict themselves.

Lowering maximum bets and slowing the speed of the machines is a good start. Pre-commitment betting is not sustainable IMO and will turn away the casual gamblers like myself who enjoy catching up with mates or the old man and running a lazy tenner through a machine over a schooner or two.

I wonder watch percentage of total pokie revenue is made up of people who put say $20 or less a week through a machine? I don't think it would be a miniscule percentage…

 

[Yossarian]

It's a great move by Gillard to be honest and I think it's going to be so much better for our budget.

**Now we won't have our tax dollars being used to bribe some crackpot independents each time Labor need their vote. Hopefully its the start of axing Wilkie's pokies 'reform'.**

I don't like the current Labor party, nor do I like Abbott, but at least now we might have a functioning government…

..... well except for the collusion with the Tree huggers.

I'm hoping this was the catalyst.

Hope so. Having said that, I do support some change to pokie laws and the way the Clubs industry has carried on has been absolutely disgraceful. Mandatory pre-committment was always a stretch but changing the betting limits and slowing machines were reasonable ideas and cheap to implement. I'd also like to see an ICAC-style body that focused solely on the club industry. Club Marconi is the surely the tip of the iceberg in terms of dubious behaviour. Clubs have been basically unregulated (or at best grossly under-regulated) for too long. The actual amounts they pay out to sporting/charity/cultural groups is an extremely small percentage of their pokie take. They are, on average, poorly run monuments to the egos of the small cabal who run them (how's that for a spray!).

I see your point, but **all it does is push problem gamblers onto other modes of gambling (casino tables, online betting, TAB, etc.)** Pokies seem to be copping the brunt simply because they are accessible and easy to understand/play. Gambling is a contentious issue because it's a delicate balancing act of not restricting people's right to spend their money as they see fit against fighting an addiction that affects more than just the addict themselves.

Lowering maximum bets and slowing the speed of the machines is a good start. Pre-commitment betting is not sustainable IMO and will turn away the casual gamblers like myself who enjoy catching up with mates or the old man and running a lazy tenner through a machine over a schooner or two.

I wonder watch percentage of total pokie revenue is made up of people who put say $20 or less a week through a machine? I don't think it would be a miniscule percentage…

Sorry CB, I don't buy that line at all. Pokies are a lot more accessible than the alternatives and you have the combination of drinking as well. You may see some problem gamblers change over to other forms but so what? Your older pokie players clearly won't do that - a 64 year old woman on the Central Coast is not going to go to the casino, won't gamble online, and wouldn't know how to put a bet on. And even if 25% of problem gamblers did keep gambling at other venues, that still means 75% aren't. Clubs present gambling in a much more comfortable setting where you can relax, have a drink, and maybe win some promotion.

I agree with what you say at the end though. I don't mind putting a lazy 5 or 10 in with Mrs Yoss when we're down at our local. In that context pre-committment would be annoying and I think it's a sledgehammer solution to the problem.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Sorry CB, I don't buy that line at all. Pokies are a lot more accessible than the alternatives and you have the combination of drinking as well. You may see some problem gamblers change over to other forms but so what? Your older pokie players clearly won't do that - a 64 year old woman on the Central Coast is not going to go to the casino, won't gamble online, and wouldn't know how to put a bet on. And even if 25% of problem gamblers did keep gambling at other venues, that still means 75% aren't. Clubs present gambling in a much more comfortable setting where you can relax, have a drink, and maybe win some promotion.

I agree with what you say at the end though. I don't mind putting a lazy 5 or 10 in with Mrs Yoss when we're down at our local. In that context pre-committment would be annoying and I think it's a sledgehammer solution to the problem.

You make a good point about pensioners, and you're obviously right that they won't move on to the TAB or travel all the way to Star City to piss their pension away, but I don't believe for one second that a problem gamblers (particularly younger ones, who are technologically savvy,) won't look to other alternatives to gamble if they find the changes to be a major inconvenience.

My point is that you put restrictions on these machines, it doesn't prevent problem gambling, it merely limits the damage, and could only push them elsewhere where it cannot be regulated as easily. It doesn't fix the problem, it shifts it.

I despise the fact that "professional" Rugby League clubs run off grants sourced through poker machine revenue, and I cannot wait for the day that Wests Tigers becomes fully self sufficient and not receiving Leagues club grants.

 

[hammertime]

You make a good point about pensioners, and you're obviously right that they won't move on to the TAB or travel all the way to Star City to piss their pension away, but I don't believe for one second that a problem gamblers (particularly younger ones, who are technologically savvy,) won't look to other alternatives to gamble if they find the changes to be a major inconvenience.

My point is that you put restrictions on these machines, it doesn't prevent problem gambling, it merely limits the damage, and could only push them elsewhere where it cannot be regulated as easily. It doesn't fix the problem, it shifts it.

I despise the fact that "professional" Rugby League clubs run off grants sourced through poker machine revenue, and I cannot wait for the day that Wests Tigers becomes fully self sufficient and not receiving Leagues club grants.

I agree 100% CB and well said.

If people truly have an addiction, than they aren't going to stop gambling if it's one outlet becomes harder. They will move to other methods, ones that send the profits overseas rather than back into the community. e.g. Pensioners may just bet more on the races.

I only care about these people when it effects others around them. Like kids going hungry. If we really want to ensure families are protected. Monitor machines, find problem gamblers, give them counseling and have a automatic wage deduction setup to a Coles/Woolies card. It's really the only effective way to attack the problem.

 

[Yossarian]

Hopefully things are heading that way CB. As it is, League's club grants are becoming less and less important to NRL teams. A large proportion of the NRL teams operate with no league's club or have clubs that contribute little to nothing to the football clubs. The days of big league's clubs using pokie money to buy a comp are over. The new TV agreement should be another nail in that coffin.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Hopefully things are heading that way CB. As it is, League's club grants are becoming less and less important to NRL teams. A large proportion of the NRL teams operate with no league's club or have clubs that contribute little to nothing to the football clubs. The days of big league's clubs using pokie money to buy a comp are over. The new TV agreement should be another nail in that coffin.

Professional sporting in general has to end it's affiliation with gambling organisations such as the TAB, Betfair et al. The game is a good enough product to not require gambling money. The Ryan Tandy drama has damaged the reputation of the game thanks to the betting agencies offering odds on ridiculous exotic bets.

It's a disgrace that Glenn Munsie is able to get his melon television and hock on-the-run odds at half time and commentators such as Rabs Warren (who himself is a self confessed problem gambler,) is sprouting odds during the call!

 

[Yossarian]

You make a good point about pensioners, and you're obviously right that they won't move on to the TAB or travel all the way to Star City to piss their pension away, but I don't believe for one second that a problem gamblers (particularly younger ones, who are technologically savvy,) won't look to other alternatives to gamble if they find the changes to be a major inconvenience.

My point is that you put restrictions on these machines, it doesn't prevent problem gambling, it merely limits the damage, and could only push them elsewhere where it cannot be regulated as easily. It doesn't fix the problem, it shifts it.

I despise the fact that "professional" Rugby League clubs run off grants sourced through poker machine revenue, and I cannot wait for the day that Wests Tigers becomes fully self sufficient and not receiving Leagues club grants.

I agree 100% CB and well said.

If people truly have an addiction, than they aren't going to stop gambling if it's one outlet becomes harder. They will move to other methods, ones that send the profits overseas rather than back into the community. e.g. Pensioners may just bet more on the races.

I only care about these people when it effects others around them. Like kids going hungry. If we really want to ensure families are protected. Monitor machines, find problem gamblers, give them counseling and have a automatic wage deduction setup to a Coles/Woolies card. It's really the only effective way to attack the problem.

Poker machines are a world apart from betting on the horses. You may get some problem gamblers who move over to other forms of gambling but a lot won't. At a club an OAP can have a meal and sit any play the pokies while having a drink. All in air-conditioned/heated comfort on a nice chair and left alone to throw their money away. The average TAB doesn't provide that inviting environment and certainly doesn't provide that social element (a female OAP is hardly going to meet her friends down at the TAB).

It seems pretty clear that the club and pub poker machine industry is a good start in tackling problem gambling. As for their contributions to the community, as a percentage of the money received from gaming machines, the amount going out is woeful.

At the end of the day, most clubs don't give a stuff about problem gamblers and the impact they have on others. They have shown zero inclination to discuss the issue and work out an alternative and if they put as much effort into alerting punters of help services as they do attacking the government, we might not have the problems we have. Most clubs I walk into have massive posters personally attacking my local member but you need a magnifying glass to find the Gambler's Anonymous number.

 

[hammertime]

Poker machines are a world apart from betting on the horses. You may get some problem gamblers who move over to other forms of gambling but a lot won't. At a club an OAP can have a meal and sit any play the pokies while having a drink. All in air-conditioned/heated comfort on a nice chair and left alone to throw their money away. The average TAB doesn't provide that inviting environment and certainly doesn't provide that social element (a female OAP is hardly going to meet her friends down at the TAB).

It seems pretty clear that the club and pub poker machine industry is a good start in tackling problem gambling. As for their contributions to the community, as a percentage of the money received from gaming machines, the amount going out is woeful.

At the end of the day, most clubs don't give a stuff about problem gamblers and the impact they have on others. They have shown zero inclination to discuss the issue and work out an alternative and if they put as much effort into alerting punters of help services as they do attacking the government, we might not have the problems we have. Most clubs I walk into have massive posters personally attacking my local member but you need a magnifying glass to find the Gambler's Anonymous number.

Clubs are good mate. Sometimes the money may go to subsidizing food, or revamping the club. I think it's silly to have our non-profit community hubs demonized like they are. We have all seen the rise of the centerbets, online poker etc. and at the end of the day, this legislation will favour them and hurt clubs.

Clubs are places that communities can be built around and is one of the things left that bonds neighborhoods together. These are places where our pensioners like to spend their time (since they cant do much else), and places that families can go for a cheap feed and some fun. With fear in the media and the centralization of commercial activity, we are slowly creating a colder landscape in our suburbs. I don't want to see clubs to also start to withdraw and close down. Leaving us with just the starcity's and crown casino's and no place for people to go.

If people want to put money into the pokies, let them take responsibility for their actions. The money will be used to create employment or provide cheap services. It's not like it's going into private hands.

But if we do control it, lets only focus on problem gamblers only and not detract others, such as people who may have a high amount of disposable income. These people won't want to do 20c hits or sign up to a restrictive card before they chuck a cheeky $50 in. Making it also harder for those people is why it is bad policy.

 

[Yossarian]

Don't get me wrong Hammer, I do actually like clubs but they are also magnets for waste and greed. To say money doesn't go into private hands is just not true. Plenty of the money you and I give the club ends up in the pockets of non-community people through waste, mismanagement, or outright corruption.

I also don't want to eliminate pokies but there needs to be some acknowledgement of the harm they cause. You don't allow the sale of cigarettes or liquor without restrictions. The problems faced by problem gamblers are real and the club industry pays, at best, lip service to it.

I am, for the record, a member of 3 clubs in my area and I agree the community would be poorer without them. I am also involved with the Umina Beach RLFC who have no club but operate junior and senior teams in the CCJRL. I like going to the clubs for a meal and I do play the machines. If people want to drop some money I don't want to stop them. But for clubs to sit there while someone puts a grand through in 30 minutes and then pretends its a public service is an insult. They need to be pro-active.

As I said above, I don't support the pre-commitment cards but I do think they can reduce the upper betting limits. $1 a push should be more than enough for anyone. Letting people bet $5 or $10 a spin is reprehensible.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Don't get me wrong Hammer, I do actually like clubs but they are also magnets for waste and greed. **To say money doesn't go into private hands is just not true**. Plenty of the money you and I give the club ends up in the pockets of non-community people through waste, mismanagement, or outright corruption.

I also don't want to eliminate pokies but there needs to be some acknowledgement of the harm they cause. You don't allow the sale of cigarettes or liquor without restrictions. The problems faced by problem gamblers are real and the club industry pays, at best, lip service to it.

I am, for the record, a member of 3 clubs in my area and I agree the community would be poorer without them. I am also involved with the Umina Beach RLFC who have no club but operate junior and senior teams in the CCJRL. I like going to the clubs for a meal and I do play the machines. If people want to drop some money I don't want to stop them. But for clubs to sit there while someone puts a grand through in 30 minutes and then pretends its a public service is an insult. They need to be pro-active.

As I said above, I don't support the pre-commitment cards but I do think they can reduce the upper betting limits. $1 a push should be more than enough for anyone. Letting people bet $5 or $10 a spin is reprehensible.

Bang on. Woolworths & Coles got into the pub industry for two reasons: poker machines and liquor licensing. It's a license for them to print money and further monopolise Australia.

 

[stryker]

**That's not exactly what I said**. I said there's no evidence to suggest it was anything other than that. But I guess the party who supported Mal Colston for Deputy President of the Senate and ignored convention in appointing Senators in 1975 can hardly complain too much.

And what of reports that Abbott offered Rob Oakeshott the kitchen sink so he could take the job? If you don't think Phony Abbott would do the same if not more to get into power you're kidding yourself.

If Gillard did orchestrate this it is a fantasic manoeuver on her part. Spare me this cost mumbo jumbo - would have cost the same if they elected another ALP MP as speaker but you wouldn't be in here bellyaching about it.

Yes you did you said 'A bloke resigns his job and its a conspiracy… :laughing:' you then changed your tune.

I brought up the money as an obvious pointer that he didnt just 'quit' his job. You seem to agree with this now so I'll move on. I am not slamming Gillard for this move at all...merely saying stop lying about it and take credit for it. But she cant stop lying can she?

As for the pokie reforms..sure the clubs are preying on the stupid, the greedy and the addicted. So what? Why should the rest of us have our rights encroached upon because a small percentage of the population is to weak to be trusted? Why do we need the government to step in and protect us from ourselves?

I want the government to manage the economy and make my life a little easier by not taxing the bejeesus out of me. I dont want them to baby sit every aspect of my life. Why? ...because I dont live in China.

 

[matty_tiepie]

Anyone who supports the current labour govt is kidding themsleves. juliar is more concerned about keeping the top job than looking after the australiab people. I am so over these fools its beyond a joke. the tree hugging bloody greenies run this once great country and until this pathetic and loony government is kicked to the kurb we wil contimue to be a laugihing stock. end of rant

 

[hammertime]

Don't get me wrong Hammer, I do actually like clubs but they are also magnets for waste and greed. To say money doesn't go into private hands is just not true. Plenty of the money you and I give the club ends up in the pockets of non-community people through waste, mismanagement, or outright corruption.

Sure, maybe some mate. But really, you are talking small percentages and implying boards in clubs are easily corrupted, more so than private enterprise. That's just not true.

God knows how many junkets and free dinners I've been to in banking - now that is waste.

Sure, some may not be as efficient as business. But they have the right focus and the money comes back to us. Anything else is semantics.

As I said above, I don't support the pre-commitment cards but I do think they can reduce the upper betting limits. $1 a push should be more than enough for anyone. Letting people bet $5 or $10 a spin is reprehensible.

I agree with that, but the people we are probably talking about are on the lower end of income earners. Even a $1 a push might be trouble. In my mind, you would have to reduce it below that to have any impact and that would really stifle revenue.

 

[Yossarian]

**That's not exactly what I said**. I said there's no evidence to suggest it was anything other than that. But I guess the party who supported Mal Colston for Deputy President of the Senate and ignored convention in appointing Senators in 1975 can hardly complain too much.

And what of reports that Abbott offered Rob Oakeshott the kitchen sink so he could take the job? If you don't think Phony Abbott would do the same if not more to get into power you're kidding yourself.

If Gillard did orchestrate this it is a fantasic manoeuver on her part. Spare me this cost mumbo jumbo - would have cost the same if they elected another ALP MP as speaker but you wouldn't be in here bellyaching about it.

Yes you did you said 'A bloke resigns his job and its a conspiracy… :laughing:' you then changed your tune.

I brought up the money as an obvious pointer that he didnt just 'quit' his job. You seem to agree with this now so I'll move on. I am not slamming Gillard for this move at all...merely saying stop lying about it and take credit for it. But she cant stop lying can she?

As for the pokie reforms..sure the clubs are preying on the stupid, the greedy and the addicted. So what? Why should the rest of us have our rights encroached upon because a small percentage of the population is to weak to be trusted? Why do we need the government to step in and protect us from ourselves?

I want the government to manage the economy and make my life a little easier by not taxing the bejeesus out of me. I dont want them to baby sit every aspect of my life. Why? ...because I dont live in China.

Nobody's changing anything. All I've said is that at this stage there's no evidence that it is anything other than him quitting. You know full well the quoted part was a oneliner responding to something Kaiser said.
I honestly don't know what happened. Plenty of people have said he was ready to quit ages ago but there's no doubt the whole thing was beneficial to the government. Personally I think the truth is somewhere between the two - he wanted to resign, the government organised for Slipper to take his place.