The Politics/Religion/Conspiracies Deathmatch Thread

as things stand in the legislative council (with just over half of the ballot papers counted, and prior to preferences):

Greens - 2
Labor - 6
Liberal - 8
-------------
Total 16

The other 5 seats will go down to preferences, which I think we will end up with the following:

Greens - 3
Labor - 7
Liberal - 10
Shooters and Fishers - 1

Fred Nile seems likely to lose his seat on the legislative Council. He is currently running behind the shooters and fishers by about 30,000 votes and still has less than half of the required number for a seat. No more right wing religious nutjobs which is good.

just right wing nutjobs with guns (and fishing rods)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Retro Jet

So what you're saying is that unless you're a Liberal/Nat seat, yer gonna get sweeet FA?

---

Pretty much! Labor has done nothing for this city in 30 years. The labor party have just taken it as given that the sheep will be sheep, and Crackenthorps re election is testament to that. He has been re elected despite having no vision, no leadership qualities and no idea.

This city had the chance to move forward, and blew it. Labor didn't spend any $$$ in liberal areas when they were in power either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackmac79

A private hospital in maitland, At least with labor here, and in the senate we may get a state owned hospital at maitland.

---

Can't see it happening. The Libs won't be spending a dime to make a labor MP look good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackmac79

Fred Nile seems likely to lose his seat on the legislative Council. He is currently running behind the shooters and fishers by about 30,000 votes and still has less than half of the required number for a seat. No more right wing religious nutjobs which is good.

---

Thank god for that. See, even God doesn't like Fred Nile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by northern_swan

Pretty much! Labor has done nothing for this city in 30 years. The labor party have just taken it as given that the sheep will be sheep, and Crackenthorps re election is testament to that. He has been re elected despite having no vision, no leadership qualities and no idea.

This city had the chance to move forward, and blew it. Labor didn't spend any $$$ in liberal areas when they were in power either.



Can't see it happening. The Libs won't be spending a dime to make a labor MP look good.

---

You almost sound surprised that blue ribbons seats get **** all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GazFish35

You almost sound surprised that blue ribbons seats get **** all.

---

Not at all. I'm just surprised that the people of the region can't see that.

Maybe the people of this region voted on the issues that matter to them the most, but I bet THEIR/OUR mandate won't be heeded by State Lib/Nat"s.
Mandate - that hook nosed thing couldn't spit the word out enough last night on ABC.

Oh man, I woke up this morning, looked outside and there was some Chinese guy taking all my poles and wires.
Just walked off with them.
Now I have no more poles and wires.
Is it too late to change my vote?

We should sell off the whole coal system then switch over to solar. Bad luck china, one investment too many. (apu voice) come again

Are the brown paper bags the developers use to hand the money over to the politicians tax deductible ?

I'm a swinging voter (voted Lib in Federal but ALP in this one) so no favouritism here....but geez the hardcore Libs are the biggest whingers on this earth when they get beaten. There is always a reason - independants took votes, scare campaign worked, the turnout was low, it wasn't about policies etc etc etc.

FFS - democratic vote says the majority of Hunter people find the Libs and their policies on the nose, and alot of that has to do with the ICAC fallout, hence the main issue is they feel duped with the lies of the future development of Newcastle.

Simples !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetmaster

I'm a swinging voter (voted Lib in Federal but ALP in this one) so no favouritism here....but geez the hardcore Libs are the biggest whingers on this earth when they get beaten. There is always a reason - independants took votes, scare campaign worked, the turnout was low, it wasn't about policies etc etc etc.

FFS - democratic vote says the majority of Hunter people find the Libs and their policies on the nose, and alot of that has to do with the ICAC fallout, hence the main issue is they feel duped with the lies of the future development of Newcastle.

Simples !

---

Partly true but does negate to the big fact and acknowledge that people in Newy are set in their ways and continue to vote labor regardless of whom is running

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MFKS

Partly true but does negate to the big fact and acknowledge that people in Newy are set in their ways and continue to vote labor regardless of whom is running

---

The same can be said for those that vote conservative as well. What has the liberal party ever done for small business to help them ? Sweet FA

Oligarchy trumping democracy is the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetmaster

I'm a swinging voter (voted Lib in Federal but ALP in this one) so no favouritism here....but geez the hardcore Libs are the biggest whingers on this earth when they get beaten. There is always a reason - independants took votes, scare campaign worked, the turnout was low, it wasn't about policies etc etc etc.

FFS - democratic vote says the majority of Hunter people find the Libs and their policies on the nose, and alot of that has to do with the ICAC fallout, hence the main issue is they feel duped with the lies of the future development of Newcastle.

Simples !

---

Geez Louise you have a short memory.
Jodi McKay went on an all time rant for years about why she got turfed out of here last time around and according to her it was nowt to do with Team McKay.

All pollies are shitheads in their own special way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

The same can be said for those that vote conservative as well. What has the liberal party ever done for small business to help them ? Sweet FA

Oligarchy trumping democracy is the problem.

---

Libs promised to "cut red tape"
(They haven't really cut much red tape for my business).

Labor promised to do nothing.
(Delivered on that promise).

Make your own mind up as to what is worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

Geez Louise you have a short memory.
Jodi McKay went on an all time rant for years about why she got turfed out of here last time around and according to her it was nowt to do with Team McKay.

All pollies are shitheads in their own special way.

---

My memory goes all the way back to It's Time campaign of 1972.....Libs get far more cut than ALP, cos the ALP usually has to admit it did **** up to lose votes!

So yesterday's election can be looked at as "LABOR WINS BACK PUBLIC SUPPORT"


or


"LABOR SUFFERS 2ND WORST ELECTION DEFEAT IN HISTORY"

guess it depends on which side of the fence you're on huh.

Da Greenz gunning down Nationals seats :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

Libs promised to "cut red tape"
(They haven't really cut much red tape for my business).

Labor promised to do nothing.
(Delivered on that promise).

Make your own mind up as to what is worse.

---

As I established in an earlier post here [with references] the so called red tape you speak of on business is a self inflicted compliance regime by big business.
Therefore it is wrong to blame either of the major parties for what is effectively the choices of private firms. The reason Oligarchs make these choices is to kill of challenges from smaller more efficient operators. Governments for their part simply legislate however the oligarchs advise them to as little more than a survival technique.

Going even deeper much of the so-called red tape with respect to things like unfair dismissal or wages is ideological rather than evidence based.

With respect to unfair dismissal laws the OECD (2006 jobs study) found that they do not impact on the level of unemployment but merely redistribute it towards the most disadvantaged persons of society being either youth, those over 55, and those on low wages. [ Note THE OECD are not the best reference given their history]

The case for removing minimum wages is easily made by falsely claiming the demand elasticity [sensitivity to changes in price] for labour to be greater than one and the income elasticity [demand with respect to changes in income] to be infinitely small. Making studies arguing to remove minimum wages completely wrong given that empirical work shows the complete opposite.

In fact it's more often the case that an increase in the minimum wage will create more jobs not less because the propensity to consume is greater for those on low to middle incomes than it is for those who derive income from profits.

Obviously other forms of red tape also exist but I would expect they are still fallacies of composition rather than problems that effect the economy as a whole

Nah, Not entirely correct. I refer to red tape as a colloquial term used to describe some of the sillier things it takes to run your business.

For instance the $300 odd form I have to complete for ASIC each year advising them whether my small business intends to make any significant changes in the coming year.

You don't have to list the changes, or provide any detail whatsoever, it's just to 'prepare' ASIC for any changes (which would have exactly zero impact on how they operate).

This to me is a pointless exercise and a waste of admin time and money that could be spent elsewhere. As I said this is an ASIC regulation that Govt could directly affect if it so desired.

As for workers rights etc, let me put it to you this way.

If you spot on your cctv an employee break into your house and steal your $1000 tv you call the cops and they are charged.

If the same person is spotted on a cctv set up at your workplace stealing $1000 cash different rules apply.

I don't think that's fair, and Govts make workplace laws.

Refer to all the studies you want but until you have dealt with this situation in real life (as I have) I'm sorry but you can't speak with any authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hawk

We should sell off the whole coal system then switch over to solar. Bad luck china, one investment too many. (apu voice) come again

---

Yes!

unfortunately, the sale will have conditions regarding the amount of renewables allowed on the grid, similar to the provisions of now renewables on kooragang with the port sale. after all, they have to protect those vulnerable investors and guarantee their profit.

even now, many of the suppliers reject pv installation applications in high penetration areas as the oversupply of power during peak solar hours destabilises the grid voltage. of course, this also protecting their fossil fuel interests.

storage is the big key here. it's too expensive now, but prices are coming down. i think it will take technological developments, not just bringing down costs through *mass* production, as per Musks model.

of course, with more people going off grid (intionional or not), watch the regulators allow for increased charges to recoup falling profit. unfortunately, it will be the renters and less well off who'll be slugged here, as they will be the last ones on the grid

if these power companies are going to be so nasty and evil and profitable why don't y'all buy shares in them?

the same reason i wouldn't have bought into telstra or cba if i was old enough at the time - because they're ****s making a profit leaching off everyday people

i'd rather continue playing my part in the solution, than to become part of the problem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snake

the same reason i wouldn't have bought into telstra or cba if i was old enough at the time - because they're ****s making a profit leaching off everyday people

i'd rather continue playing my part in the solution, than to become part of the problem

---

I wouldn't buy shares in them either, but I wouldn't begrudge people trying to make a dollar by doing it.

We all go to work to make a dollar don't we?
I'm not trying to save the world (but kudos to people who are).

Most people's jobs involve taking money from someone else whichever way you look at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

Nah, Not entirely correct. I refer to red tape as a colloquial term used to describe some of the sillier things it takes to run your business.

For instance the $300 odd form I have to complete for ASIC each year advising them whether my small business intends to make any significant changes in the coming year.

You don't have to list the changes, or provide any detail whatsoever, it's just to 'prepare' ASIC for any changes (which would have exactly zero impact on how they operate).

This to me is a pointless exercise and a waste of admin time and money that could be spent elsewhere. As I said this is an ASIC regulation that Govt could directly affect if it so desired.

As for workers rights etc, let me put it to you this way.

If you spot on your cctv an employee break into your house and steal your $1000 tv you call the cops and they are charged.

If the same person is spotted on a cctv set up at your workplace stealing $1000 cash different rules apply.

I don't think that's fair, and Govts make workplace laws.

Refer to all the studies you want but until you have dealt with this situation in real life (as I have) I'm sorry but you can't speak with any authority.

---

Given that I regularly deal with ASIC on behalf of our businesses your assumptions about me are simply not correct.

Our clients are some of the largest multi-nationals on the planet and I can tell you now that the level of useless efficiency killing conditions they place on our contracts makes anything governments enforce seem like child's play.

However, Government are absolutely powerless to legislate on anything without getting the nod first from the Oligarchs that own them. It's what is called capturing the regulator and it is a common practice in all modern economies.

Moreover, to reject empirical evidence or studies based on the experience of an individual [ yourself] is what is called a fallacy of composition.

What is true for the individual is not true for society as a whole. Convincing any business owner of this fact has never been easy though given the majority of them have absolutely no social goals on their to do lists.

The funny thing though is that most of what business types regurgitate as truths are more often than not 18th and 19th century truisms that have never been able to survive empirical testing.

If only I had a dollar for every time a business person unknowingly quoted me something from a first year economic text - thinking it was some original thought they conjured up.

I hate government regulation as much as you do but I'm more fearful of the oligarchs.

Telstra shares went for around $2.60 but individuals were limited in how many they could buy. However, all people needed to do was purchase them for a relative or friend and then have them transfer the shares to you as a gift.

Long story short. Pay $2.60 and sell at $9. Shit loads of people did it.

Regulation of these activities is generally confined to ASIC and they would need a seeing eye dog to find their own arseholes.

HIH insurance being the best example. NAB stopped dealing with them years before Joe Hockey and ASIC worked out they were on the brink of collapse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

Regulation of these activities is generally confined to ASIC and they would need a seeing eye dog to find their own arseholes.

---

That's cause they are too busy charging me $300 odd to fill in a form to tell them what's up!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

We all go to work to make a dollar don't we?
Most people's jobs involve taking money from someone else whichever way you look at it.

---

there's ethically a big difference between applying a huge markup on a cup of coffee, and privatising what are effectively essential services in flull knowledge that their goal thereafter is only to satisfy shareholders profits by extracting every dollar they can from their customers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snake

there's ethically a big difference between applying a huge markup on a cup of coffee, and privatising what are effectively essential services in flull knowledge that their goal thereafter is only to satisfy shareholders profits by extracting every dollar they can from their customers.

---

I totally agree with this but people just aren't going to be able to come in and jack up prices for the hell of it.

There's enough info out there to suggest that neither system of ownership is perfect.

If the govt is responsible and smart (stop giggling!!) controls will be put in place to make sure it doesn't happen.

There is more than one way to make a business more efficient and profitable.

If the asset is so desirable then govt will have all the leverage to make sure these controls are put in place before any lease is signed (espn if they don't have balance of power in state senate).

I guess we'll soon find out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

I totally agree with this but people just aren't going to be able to come in and jack up prices for the hell of it.

There's enough info out there to suggest that neither system of ownership is perfect.

If the govt is responsible and smart (stop giggling!!) controls will be put in place to make sure it doesn't happen.

There is more than one way to make a business more efficient and profitable.

If the asset is so desirable then govt will have all the leverage to make sure these controls are put in place before any lease is signed (espn if they don't have balance of power in state senate).

I guess we'll soon find out.

---

The Baird governments only desire is to move goods and services from the public to the private sphere. Questions of equity or indeed efficiency for that matter will never be asked and as such never be answered.

The problem is that this sale will effectively lock in old technology and block / stifle innovation into better technologies for the future.
Last I checked this was the case against communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

The Baird governments only desire is to move goods and services from the public to the private sphere. Questions of equity or indeed efficiency for that matter will never be asked and as such never be answered.

---

I said if they were smart (meaning 'politically' smart) they will cover their asses.
There is every chance they won't, I don't know, but I feel they would be silly if they don't.

So how much should I expect my electricity bills to go up by from now on, are people able to predict?

Went to my local school to vote Sat and there were people handing out pamphlets for Independent, Labour, CDP and Greens. A guy asked "is there anyone handing out Liberal sheets" and they all laughed and said no, libs didn't bother with this place, and the old guy handing out the Greens forms said "Liberal are only a small party anyway" and it got a bit of a laugh. But moral of the story is Independent seemed to have Lake Mac wrapped up so much that Liberals didn't even bother taking it seriously, as did few of the other parties. Even if I had enough interest to take proper consideration into voting, my choices were limited enough.

In the end I decided to informal vote. I will happily admit I didn't have the interest enough to delve deep enough to find out which issues each of my local members did or didn't stand for. I find a big problem with the voting public is a heap of people seem to vote for a party solely because their grandparents did their whole lives, or some ingrained notion that certain parties are for certain things without even checking if their local member does or doesn't stand for that.

For instance, one would casually assume Greens stand for everything environment. But I listened to an interview with the Greens guy running for my local and when asked his 3 big issues, his first and most important was how he was pro-voluntary-euthanasia. I'd bet there were a heap of people who didn't delve deep enough to find out what each person stood for that still wouldn't have a clue that he stood for that issue.

I see uneducated voters as a huge issue. I know a tonne of people who voted against Liberal in the last election solely because they saw the picture comparing Tony Abbott to Gollum, and thought he looked creepy. So my solution that I offer to everyone is: only vote if you've done the research to know what you're voting for. And if you don't know, don't vote (ie informal). That way, a true indication of what my local, informed community want, will be voted in.

When I decide to take enough interest to feel educated enough on issues and my local members and exactly what they stand for, I'll happily vote formally. Until then, I choose to leave it to the mature members of my community who are educated enough to make informed decisions. Or until all the "my family has always voted labour... my dad told me to vote liberal.. I like god so will vote the christian party" people subscribe to my informal-until-educated view, I'll leave it to them too.

Good post WLG

Your right about the Greens

You would think they were all for the environment. The problem is they are just a front for allowing any leftist nutter to pursue some half baked agendas and crackpot ideas that the rest of society may not agree with.

PS Where about on the Gypo Coast are they serving Guinea Pigs these days???

pv4 - your network charges - which you have zero control over unless you disconnect - will rise faster at a rate much faster than cpi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pv4

So how much should I expect my electricity bills to go up by from now on, are people able to predict?

Went to my local school to vote Sat and there were people handing out pamphlets for Independent, Labour, CDP and Greens. A guy asked "is there anyone handing out Liberal sheets" and they all laughed and said no, libs didn't bother with this place, and the old guy handing out the Greens forms said "Liberal are only a small party anyway" and it got a bit of a laugh. But moral of the story is Independent seemed to have Lake Mac wrapped up so much that Liberals didn't even bother taking it seriously, as did few of the other parties. Even if I had enough interest to take proper consideration into voting, my choices were limited enough.

In the end I decided to informal vote. I will happily admit I didn't have the interest enough to delve deep enough to find out which issues each of my local members did or didn't stand for. I find a big problem with the voting public is a heap of people seem to vote for a party solely because their grandparents did their whole lives, or some ingrained notion that certain parties are for certain things without even checking if their local member does or doesn't stand for that.

For instance, one would casually assume Greens stand for everything environment. But I listened to an interview with the Greens guy running for my local and when asked his 3 big issues, his first and most important was how he was pro-voluntary-euthanasia. I'd bet there were a heap of people who didn't delve deep enough to find out what each person stood for that still wouldn't have a clue that he stood for that issue.

I see uneducated voters as a huge issue. I know a tonne of people who voted against Liberal in the last election solely because they saw the picture comparing Tony Abbott to Gollum, and thought he looked creepy. So my solution that I offer to everyone is: only vote if you've done the research to know what you're voting for. And if you don't know, don't vote (ie informal). That way, a true indication of what my local, informed community want, will be voted in.

When I decide to take enough interest to feel educated enough on issues and my local members and exactly what they stand for, I'll happily vote formally. Until then, I choose to leave it to the mature members of my community who are educated enough to make informed decisions. Or until all the "my family has always voted labour... my dad told me to vote liberal.. I like god so will vote the christian party" people subscribe to my informal-until-educated view, I'll leave it to them too.

---

What happened to liking what Greg Piper was saying? Curious.

Some points I would make:

1. A couple of people have mentioned that voting for your local member should be about your local member and not about the party. tbh, I think it means shit all what your local member believes, or how good they are.
At the end of the day, they are almost certainly going to vote along party lines (as decided by cabinet/shadow cabinet) on every issue. How good they are at actually getting the little that is done for their electorate is almost entirely a mystery imo. You never know how good they are at lobbying behind closed doors for certain things, but definitely at a state or federal level what your member does for your electorate is really sfa.

So I would argue the opposite, that people should vote for their local member based on which party they are running for. Only exception to this are if you feel strongly about an issue that is likely to go to a conscience vote (e.g gay marriage, abortion), in which case it might be worth voting for someone who supports your view.

2. Fair enough to think that about uneducated voters, we all have at some point, but I reckon it's just the nature of the beast, this whole democracy thing.

There are probably a lot of people who do feel like they are 'educated' voters, but might be equally misinformed as someone who doesn't claim to be so. I wouldn't want some dunce who reads the Daily Telegraph politics section every day or some dude from the Socialist Alliance voting for me because they think they're more educated.

Alternative is to live in a technocracy.

Basically what I seemed to like about Piper was he seemed down to earth. He didn't seem to grovel for votes like I expected him to, and the interview I heard from him he didn't offer preferences as he said people were smart enough to work it out for themselves. So i guess from the brief insight I had, he seemed to be keeping it real. But i didn't delve enough into what issues he did or didn't stand for. The big ticket item in this election seemed to be the poles/wires thing which I feel like everyone in Lake Mac was against anyway.

Both of your points highlight to me how flawed the system is. I haven't been presented with many great ways to be part of the solution to these problems that are any better than my informal decision is tbh.

Strayan democracy is broken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pv4

So how much should I expect my electricity bills to go up by from now on, are people able to predict?

---

I'd say they will most def go up.
So will rents.
So will house prices.
So will insurance costs.
So will water rates.
So will cars.
So will drugs.
So will Jets season tickets.

And hopefully if you're lucky your wages will go up to cover it all.


ps FWIW I think you should have voted. Your reasoning was as legit/if not more than anyone out there.
No candidate is perfect.

Quick question:
Does anyone on here run solar in their house?

Dispensing with the whole govt subsidy bullshit did you think it was a cost effective option?