Auspol September: radicalisation station

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol September: radicalisation station

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Rarely has there been a clearer example of cultural cringe than Australia's recent wankfest over John Oliver criticising our government

# ¿ Sep 1, 2015 16:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:52

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Over the past week I've been linked to about half a dozen articles about John Oliver's hilaaaaaaaarious takes on Australian politics, usually in Buzzfeed or Junkee or whatever, and the tone of every single one of them has been irritatingly sycophantic. HOW GREAT IS IT THAT THE FAMOUS COMEDIAN FINDS THE SAME THINGS WE DO FUNNY YOU GUYSSSSS! It's embarrassing. Nothing against you, you just broke the camel's back.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2015 17:30

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/09/02/quelle-surprise-government-hands-big-banks-a-tax-win/

quote:

Nine months on from the delivery of the Murray Financial System Inquiry report, the report recommendations that lie within the government�s bailiwick have sat idle. While the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority has smartly got on with its task of �setting capital standards such that Australian authorised deposit-taking institution capital ratios are unquestionably strong�, the government has been �consulting� on a report that contains a lot of recommendations the big banks don�t like � especially around superannuation and financial advice.

Strangely enough, however, one of the few recommendations the banking cartel likes has been inexplicably expedited by the government. Seemingly desperate to restore a sense that the government might actually be governing, rather than fending off a media �jihad� and planning to dump Treasurer Joe Hockey, Prime Minister Tony Abbott appeared with Hockey to announce that the Financial Claims Scheme, which protects authorised deposit-taking institutions� deposits up to $250,000, would not be funded by a deposit tax as Labor had proposed in 2013; instead, in line with the Murray inquiry recommendation, it would be funded �ex post�. That is, in the event a financial catastrophe struck and the government had to protect consumers� bank deposits, it would collect the money to cover the cost afterwards � not fund it from an ongoing, fractional tax on deposits.

You don�t need us to explain how Abbott spun this � Labor the party of higher taxes, Coalition removes taxes, etc, etc.

The political fly in the ointment is that Hockey had already put the tax into the budget � where it will garner around $500 million a year to start off � and had actually defended doing so, just a few months ago. In fact, his own department had, along with APRA, ASIC and the Reserve Bank, actually proposed the idea in the first place. Talking to The Australian Financial Review�s Phillip Coorey in April, Hockey ridiculed the ex-post funding model. �There�s very few countries that impose a levy after failure � if there is a financial failure, god forbid, of any scale, it would have systemic ramifications. So you�re not going to impose a tax on, you know � on whoever�s left.�

Yesterday, Hockey�s and Abbott�s rationale (Abbott was visibly uncomfortable talking about the subject once a journalist pushed him off his talking points, and Hockey had to intervene) was that APRA�s increased capital requirements made the tax redundant. And there�s something to that argument: with stronger institutions, the risk that the Financial Claims Scheme will ever be needed is naturally reduced, so why impose a tax � except, of course, as a way of helping the budget, which was another reason Hockey was originally keen on it.

Except, let�s consider Hockey�s comments in April. �You�re not going to impose a tax on whoever�s left.� Hockey�s absolutely right. Imagine a treasurer � especially a Liberal treasurer � standing up after a major financial crisis, which has likely sent the Australian economy into recession anyway, and declaring that what was left of the financial sector would be slugged with a levy to recover the cost of implementing the FSC. That cost � even assuming it was limited to covering ordinary deposits, whereas in reality the government would probably be pumping vast sums of money into banks just to keep them afloat � would run into the tens of billions. The largest deposit holder, the Commonwealth Bank, currently holds over $450 billion in deposits; Ireland�s bank bailout in the wake of the financial crisis cost 40 billion euros.

The idea of slugging the smoking ruins of the Australian financial sector with a levy to repay tens of billions is, politically, bizarre. And that would means � just like Ireland � Australian taxpayers would be on the hook for the cost, and spend years, perhaps a decade or more, enduring austerity budgets as governments tried to curtail spending to fund the cost. But dumping the tax is good for two key stakeholders of the government � the big banks, who are one of the government�s most favoured sectors on its list of crony capitalist favourites, and the Coalition backbench, which has never understood the tax or liked it, even after Hockey crafted a compromise in which only the largest institutions would pay it, in effect handing a (tiny) competitive edge to smaller banks.

The hypocrisy extends beyond Hockey�s backflip. In late 2008, to make sure our banks maintained access to wholesale funding markets, the Rudd government introduced a wholesale funding guarantee, funded by a very small fee on the banks. That (along with the government�s deposit guarantee) helped the same banks that oppose the deposit tax scheme stay alive and in business, as did the Reserve Bank pumping over $60 billion into the entire financial system. It was so successful, the guarantee was only needed for six months before it was withdrawn.

But the fee turned out to be a great earner for government: the scheme finishes at the end of October this year, when the last of the guaranteed debt expires, and has generated $5.5 billion in revenue since late 2008. That�s close to $800 million a year for the budget bottom line � and the banks have willingly gone on paying the fee (they have actually been repaying it faster than they had to because the cost of borrowings fell more quickly than expected).

Apart from helping both Wayne Swan and Joe Hockey�s budget bottom line, the income from the guarantee fee ensured that Australia was one of the few countries in the world where the government was a net recipient of funds from the banking system as a result of the financial crisis (the RBA also received fees and interest income from its loans in late 2008 and early 2009 as well). The banks were willing to pay those fees and charges because the alternative was so frightening. Now that conditions have eased, interest rates are low and earnings are strong, the banks don�t want to know about risk management against a future financial crisis. And why would they when they know taxpayers will step up?

This feels like a crystallisation of everything wrong with both the Abbott government and modern politics. They've repealed a key defence against recession purely because they were desperate for something, anything, to call a press conference about, to try to seize the day's narrative. It's the very definition of not looking any further ahead than the end of the daily media cycle.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2015 07:33

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Meteorological seasons begin on the 1st of December/March/June/September in all countries. Astronomical seasons begin on the 20th of December/March/June/September in all countries.

So in one sense we're all correct, but in another (better) sense Australia is correct, because any child can tell you what the most obvious difference between summer and winter is and it's not the time the loving sun goes down.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2015 15:13

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

For all the arguments you can make about the temperature barely changing, you can say the same for the fact that the difference between winter and summer sunsets barely changes.

When I was living in London and putting up with a constant smarmy barrage of "hehe COLD ENOUGH FOR YA" from friends and family back home, it was difficult to explain to them that it wasn't so much the cold sapping my will to live - it was the dark. The horrible dark. The torpid days where the sun skulks along the horizon for a few hours and then goes back down.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2015 15:58

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

ewe2 posted:

Nauru basically has had guano and zip else to keep going and the guano's running out, that's why they were a perfect target for corruption: no economic improvement combined with no idea of what to do about it (how quickly we forgot their money laundering schemes). We risk becoming a larger Nauru with a lack of economic diversity: we have the capacity to avoid it but consistently refuse to broaden our base. We've got primary industries at the mercy of commodities markets, and service industries that literally feed off the population. We've killed off investment in major areas of technology and manufacturing in the belief that government involvement is socialism. It's particularly bad now under Abbott but its been a problem with ALP and LNP governments for decades. We could be so productive and innovative but we have a business community half of which are dumb as rocks and follows the latest trend, and the other half are utter shites who get regulations passed in their favour (that's why their cries of red tape are so ironic, its only red when tape isn't reading free money for them).

In hindsight its easy to see what Nauru should have done: become a phosphate manufacturer to value-add their assets and keep control of them, parlay that into investments to keep the population going when the assets ran out and to generate new revenues. But it didn't: the assets ran out, they spent the money, they tried casinos and tax havens and now they're an autocratic banana republic living off whatever Australia and private companies pay them for concentration camps. We're a long way from that but we're nothing unique either and we don't do enough to value-add our economic product. When that product becomes superfluous (like commodities) or uneconomic to produce, what then?

Fun fact: one of Melbourne's most prominent skyscrapers was built by the Government of Nauru back when they were rolling in cash - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru_House

# ¿ Sep 3, 2015 17:55

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Cleretic posted:

I always wondered why exactly Auspol's so bloodthirsty like this. It's pretty unlike every other thread on SA I follow, even the political ones.

Maybe it's just the fact Auspol evolved from a LF thread. Or possibly because Australian politics feels pretty glib and harsh anyway, so we gravitate pretty readily to 'kill yourself' territory.

This place is certainly far more of an echo chamber than, say, the UKPOL thread.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2015 12:32

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Unimpressed posted:

Maybe that's because Tony Abott is way more tea party evil piece of poo poo than David Cameron (and that's saying a lot). I mean, between the treatment of refugees, same sex marriage inequality, war mongering, police stating, political witch hunting and reaganesque economics, ours has to be one of the most reactionary hard right governments in the western world (let alone the "anglosphere", a vomit inducing definition all on its own).

Actually from what I can tell it's because British politics is far more regionalised, fractured and fragmented, so you actually have lively debate on things like Scottish independence and whether or not Corbyn is a good idea as leader.

Also I was going to say at least Abbott hasn't managed to dismantle workers' rights the way the Tories have, but on the other hand, he'd like to. So never mind that.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2015 13:44

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Speaking of the UK, you know that recent NY Times piece that mentioned some European politicians coming on fact-finding missions to Australia's refugee detention centres? Do we have any idea which European countries they came from? Because I wasn't aware any other nations apart from Britain were flipping out to that degree, not even Greece or Italy, who are the ones actually getting flooded.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2015 13:46

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Can someone explain to me what an EBA is and why it would be legal for people to work without penalty rates? I'm hazy on IR law but I thought that kind of thing was the Workchoices bullshit that Howard tried to push through, which either failed or was repealed by Rudd?

# ¿ Sep 6, 2015 06:56

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Negligent posted:

ALP: 10,000

Greens: 20,000

NGOs: 30,000

who will be the first to call for 40,000

20,000 refugees for 22 million Australians is 1 for every 1,100 Australians

Can you honestly say you would even notice?

# ¿ Sep 7, 2015 17:17

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

I have to say I think there's more to it than race - I think there's an element of wealth in there as well. People seem to fear hordes of poor people storming the barricades and looting the mansion while we cower under the sideboard.

We would absolutely not be detaining American refugees in camps if the country descended into civil war. But if North Korea suddenly went apeshit, I can't imagine we would be less than welcoming to Japanese or South Korean refugees either. And then I can very easily imagine us being squeamish about Chinese refugees. There is definitely an element of wealth to it.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2015 06:30

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

On the one hand, like Labor, I want tone to stay in power because it will make the next election much easier for the libs to lose.

On the other hand I've come to hate tone so much that the personal satisfaction of watching all his self-entitled hopes and dreams crumble in his hands will maybe outweigh the potential of another coalition term.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2015 11:24

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Not gonna quote the whole article because it's enormous, but -

http://www.theage.com.au/business/workplace-relations/sunday-penalty-rates-are-hot-reform-topic-20150910-gjjq75.html

quote:

Retailers made submissions echoing a recommendation from the Australian Productivity Commission, that Sunday penalty rates should be cut to the same level as Saturday rates.

It would mean staff would be typically paid 1� times the standard hourly rate compared with the existing double-time rate for Sundays.

So when the business lobby was arguing (correctly) that in a secular society Sunday should be no more important than Saturday, they weren't talking about raising Saturday penalty rates to 100%, or even adjusting both days to 75%, they were talking about slashing Sunday rates down to 50%. What a loving surprise.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2015 09:47

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Anidav posted:

About 20 Minutes until UK Labour flips to the left?

Live feed if anyone's looking for one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfZLrYSinXo

# ¿ Sep 12, 2015 11:31

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

I'm not a conspiracy theorist as a rule, but Trump is one of those people so loopy that I feel if he had any chance of a genuine popular victory the Powers That Be (electoral college? idk)would shut it down.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2015 12:39

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Solemn Sloth posted:

Chris Uhlmann was seriously going on before about the Barassi line as a line of demarcation in the parliamentary liberal party fmd

He also hosed it up and thought WA was on the rugby side of the line

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 10:07

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Spill soundtrack:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgYnKu8RYAU

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 10:10

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

"Do we want somebody who gives us the best chance of winning the next election, or do we want somebody who seems focused on promoting himself and undermining the government?"

which is which kevin?

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 10:23

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Coucho Marx posted:

This is the good poo poo right here

I already made this joke the other day for Corbyn but gently caress it, it's worth it

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 10:24

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Can you imagine the sheer cockiness from Abbott if he wins

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 10:26

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

I mean he's a black and white man. There's no sense of tempering your views, no warnings inherent in the situation. You either win or you lose.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 10:26

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

I'm on my fourth beer

I have dinner with my conservative stepfather tonight

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 10:39

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

You Am I posted:

His great uncle is this nasty piece of work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Abetz

"Eric Abetz has publicly distanced himself from his Nazi relative.[19]"

Yes I imagine

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 10:47

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Welp I'm drunk

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 14:01

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Hahahaha who gave me a turnbull av? I had no idea I had anything remotely approaching a profile in this thread

edit - seriously cheers mate

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 14:01

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Lid posted:

MALCOLM Turnbull has replaced Tony Abbott as Prime Minister because the Liberals let his bull weaken their nerve and bury their judgment.

Here�s Turnbull�s challenge in a nutshell: he stole the prime ministership he could not have won in an election.

He stole it by boasting of superior communication skills he does not have.

He will now campaign on successes by Abbott he could not have achieved himself.

And he will now be the leader of a party he cannot unite.

What have the Liberals done? Many of their members will be distraught and disgusted.

Whether Turnbull wins the next election or loses, conservative Liberals will feel they have lost already, now that a man of such �progressive� views has snatched the leadership of their party.

They may as well vote Labor next time, because only if Labor wins could they again have a party for conservatives.

Sure, Turnbull has one big advantage over Abbott.

The media and the Twittersphere have been absolutely feral in savaging Abbott, a man awkward in his own defence, but have been kind to Turnbull.

But the media always favours Labor in any contest, and what the media gives Turnbull today it could withdraw tomorrow.

True, Turnbull also has a gravitas that Abbott does not, and is undeniably clever.

Yet everything about his challenge rang false, including the timing � just four days before a by-election in the Perth seat of Canning.

And that timing says it all about Turnbull. He put his own interests above his party�s, sabotaging not just the Government with his leaks and digs, but now also sabotaging a by-election campaign by a great Liberal candidate, former SAS captain Andrew Hastie.

The latest two polls show Canning would have been won comfortably by the Liberals, despite weeks of destabilising leaks by supporters of Turnbull and his partner in assassination, Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop.

I suspect that is why Turnbull called the challenge, in case the Canning result was good and his case for immediate change wrecked.

So let�s analyse Turnbull�s laughable claims on Monday to be the man to take over the Government.

At his press conference, he claimed Abbott had �not been successful in providing the economic leadership our nation needs�.

Really? Under Abbott there was no mad Labor-style Budget blowout or pink batts disaster. His failings have not been in administering but in selling; not in doing, but in seeming.

True, the Senate, thanks to Labor and the Greens, has blocked the deeper Budget cuts we need, but would Turnbull have any more success in cutting handouts?

No, Abbott�s economic record is as good as could be hoped, given the Senate and a media determined to see every cut as cruel.

The truth is that Turnbull singled out only one Abbott economic measure: Abbott�s free trade deal with China � but not to condemn it.

It was the opposite: Turnbull signalled it would be his main weapon against Labor, just as Abbott himself had intended.

Turnbull claimed that if Abbott had stayed, Bill Shorten would have won the next election, and he was �utterly unfit to be prime minister� because of his �catastrophically reckless� opposition to Abbott�s China deal.

Pardon? That was Abbott�s deal and Abbott�s plan of attack, yet Turnbull now announces it�s his big weapon for showing the economic leadership Abbott never did?

Give me a break.

No, Turnbull�s pitch lay in one thing only � his claim to be a better communicator than Abbott.

Turnbull repeated all the Labor lines against Abbott.

�We need a different style of leadership,� he said, one which �explains those (economic) changes ... and the course of action we should take� and �respects the people�s intelligence�.

In short, �we need advocacy, not slogans�.

And Turnbull, we�re invited to believe, is just the man to give us an impressive lecture about the economy, not a slogan.

But wait. Wasn�t this exactly what crippled Turnbull when he was Opposition Leader? Remember him then, wanting to explain in 15 minutes what the TV news needed condensed into 15 seconds?

So where is the evidence that Turnbull really is a better communicator? That wasn�t his record as Opposition Leader and it hasn�t been his record as Communications Minister.

What has he said that makes you understand what he�s doing with the National Broadband Network? What glove has he landed on anyone, other than Abbott?

But if Turnbull is no great communicator, is he a cannier political strategist? The answer again is no.

Check his record. Turnbull as Opposition Leader backed Labor�s emissions trading scheme, the issue that split his party and cost him his job.

Abbott took over and turned Labor�s carbon tax into a deadly political weapon, first against Kevin Rudd and then Julia Gillard..

Labor is still promising a form of carbon tax � the one Turnbull once supported in principle and has never disavowed.

For Abbott this would have been a great weapon again in the next election. Under Turnbull it will become an embarrassment at best and potentially another party-splitter.

Abbott had also neatly defused the same-sex marriage debate that could also have split his party, letting the people decide the issue in a vote after the election � a compromise backed by the public but which Turnbull, a gay marriage crusader, again opposed.

And would Turnbull, a darling of the Left, ever have the uncompromising determination that saw Abbott deliver on his �stop the boats� slogan � another election winner? Would he have given lectures instead?

So count them. Turnbull called it wrong on global warming. He called it wrong on a public vote on same-sex marriage. He lacks the clarity of Abbott�s �stop the boats� message.

So what else has he got? Oh, yes, he promised he would be more consultative than Abbott, but that, too, was not his record as leader, and it is still curiously difficult to tell him a fact that does not fit his theories.

That leaves Turnbull boasting of just one thing: his smooth tongue, and (unsaid) a friendlier media.

He�d better start talking fast.

Sheridan right?

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 14:21

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Is Abbott seriously cowardicing out? Seriously? I'm not surprised but surely he knows he'll have to speak publicly eventually and chickening out tonight will make it worse, tear the loving bandaid off

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 14:24

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

IS TONY SERIOUSLY NOT loving FRONTING THE MEDIA? HE'S NOT GOING TO CRY IN FRONT OF US? YOU loving COWARD TONY I NEEDED THIS, I WANTED THIS

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 14:36

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

THEY TAKE MY BLOOD, THEY TAKE MY CAR, HOW MUCH MORE CAN THEY TAKE FROM ME

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 14:37

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

I assure you, we're waiting for the hat trick of Corbyn/Abbott/Harper

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 14:47

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Wait what did they actually run qanda tonight? This is a repeat?

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 14:53

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

OK so it's midnight, is Tony seriously not doing a presser?

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 15:00

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

dr_rat posted:

Nah, it's possible... he just won't.

I mean legally he doesn't have to soo... maybe just a quick word to the press on the way to parliament tomorrow.

Unless he pulls a sickee of course

What a loving coward

100% classic him

But still, what a loving coward

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 15:11

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Somebody please make a Memoriesssss montage of Tony like the first 00:30 of this rick and morty clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYa0Xy67x9A

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 15:14

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Even though I actually predicted it I earlier today, I still can't believe Tony didn't do a presser

Do you think he'll do one tomorrow? Or will he just silently melt into retirement?

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 15:52

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

PaletteSwappedNinja posted:

He could barely front the press (or string a sentence together) when he was secure in his position as leader, there was absolutely no way he was ever going to be in any state to give a concession speech.

Yeah before he did his pre-spill speech I was absolutely stumped as to how he'd react and he came out with pure denial and "I will win," and I thought - yeah, that's pretty much the only way it would go, isn't it?

And I can't actually imagine how he will react - publicly, I mean - to losing. I just can't. Maybe because I wasn't in Australia for the 2010 election. How did that go? And even then, that's different.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2015 16:10

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Maybe he killed himself. Imagine if he did, just to get one back on Turnbull, whose term would then be sullied by his death.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2015 03:15

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Orkin Mang posted:

he might pull a budd dwyer

Acually I think I'd prefer him to go Otoya Yamaguchi on Turnbull

# ¿ Sep 15, 2015 03:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:52

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

What do you think tony's doing now

# ¿ Sep 15, 2015 08:52

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol September: radicalisation station

«‹›2 »