|
The only people that are really going to suffer when climate change kicks are poor people anyway.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
*ocean comes crashing into Canberra* *Parliament House lifts off with secret rockets attached* Scott Morrison: Budget Emergency fffffffuckers!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/katinacurtis/status/848679974378758145
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:I don't think she knows what 'punk' means, but has decided that she is one. starkebn posted:first punk single was Australian The Saints - I'm Stranded https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkKiZ9VSD6U The Stooges would also like a word however (1969) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJIqnXTqg8I RBA governor's comments tomorrow will be worth reading.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
First Dog:
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
open24hours posted:The Greens seem kind of maxed out, they've been treading water for the past few federal elections and their polling is pretty stable. I don't know what they can do if they want to become a mainstream party, but they'd better get on it. My admittedly-hopeful estimation there is that progress made by the Greens on the ground in some areas leads to some lower house federal seats flipping, probably in the Melbourne area. Suddenly with two or three members in the HoR instead of one, swinging voters that might lean Green policy-wise but don't think of them as an actual choice start being more willing to support them because they seem more legitimate. So it's not necessarily about getting that 10% support to grow at first, but more about getting that 10% to translate into results. Cleretic fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Didn't the Greens only come into their own in the mid 2000s as the Democrats disappeared? A decent chunk of the senate and merely getting a foot in the HoR is a pretty decent effort for a decade of work. I'm a bit clueless about the Green's efforts outside of inner Melbourne, my electorate has had shuffled through candidates for the last few elections and it doesn't help when its one of the few likeliest to flip Green in the nation but hey things could change when a tide gets started.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
We just doubled our count in the WA Upper House at the recent election, and gains seem to be rising consistently across the board so I'm a bit more positive about our progress to be honest... Also as many of you have been asking about UWADeanGate, I've been harassing the ex-business school employee who informed me to find the actual clip online, as he saw it on live TV and then reported it back to me. Turns out it was the outgoing business school dean, who's technically still employed, but on leave until his contract finishes next month - so not really a Lomborg 2.0 situation - but the ABC should probably be dragged over the coals for it. If we can find the vid online I'll provide linkage. Sorry for the slight anti-climax, I was under the impression he meant the new dean, which would have been slightly more scandalous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Ora Tzo posted:Didn't the Greens only come into their own in the mid 2000s as the Democrats disappeared? The 3rd party vote hasn't changed that dramatically since the dems went down. Through the 80s and 90s they were maintaining a senate presence roughly equal to the current state of play with minor parties in there. Minor parties at the time (greens included) commanded about the same level of support as minor parties now and it was only really the dems massive GST fuckup that saw the greens absorb a lot of political migrants from the sinking dems ship. A lot of those probably cracked the shits at the third way socialist democrat message and either retreated to Labor or went wit the Greens who took a more stern left wing approach. Pound for pound right now the Greens I think have one more senators than the dems at the peak of their power and obviously they have the single reps seat. I don't really see that as being an indication of greenmentum and more like the status quo has continued to prevail and inner Melbourne has become more wealthy. E: talking federally obviously, state wise the dems never really played at state politics. In Vic the Greens got their two seats but they didn't experience anything like a noticeable swing on general numbers. They didn't limp over the line or anything, but it was the ALP swing combined with people in the inner city having a taste for the Greens that did it. I think the Greens experienced contraction in the suburbs, but boosts in Melbourne and basically came out with the same level of support as the previous election. Posting on phone is hard... JBP fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/848691474208247808 https://twitter.com/1petermartin/status/848690136300666880
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
prices keep going up, Up, UP suckas http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-03/housing-boom-continues-in-south-east-australia/8409840
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Brisbane stays winning and affordable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/848691474208247808 If you aren't in the property market now, you should definitely borrow as much as you can and get in before it's too late (don't be dumb and buy a new unit).
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
I like it that property is now Russian roulette and every year new buyers have one extra bullet in the gun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Perth's bubble is already deflating... which is nice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
hooman posted:Perth's bubble is already deflating... which is nice. That's because the state is in the toilet and the Greens are hell bent on ruining their stock in trade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
JBP posted:That's because the state is in the toilet and the Greens are hell bent on ruining their stock in trade. How so?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
What industry do Greens dislike more than anything else?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-03/one-nation-accused-of-brutal-dictatorship/8408978?pfmredir=sm Its a rerun of the nineties?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
JBP posted:What industry do Greens dislike more than anything else? Rentseeking?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Don Dongington posted:Also as many of you have been asking about UWADeanGate, I've been harassing the ex-business school employee who informed me to find the actual clip online, as he saw it on live TV and then reported it back to me. Turns out it was the outgoing business school dean, who's technically still employed, but on leave until his contract finishes next month - so not really a Lomborg 2.0 situation - but the ABC should probably be dragged over the coals for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
You might want to catch 4 corners, it's going to be a conveyor belt of disgruntled One Nation people airing their grievances with the party 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
JBP posted:What industry do Greens dislike more than anything else? Yeah this is kinda stupid, seeing as WA mining is mostly iron ore, bit of gold, some nickel - but not really all that much coal. Yes we mine other things, including some coal - but the big differentiator that makes WA "the mining state" is the iron ore mining. I don't think the Greens would be very smart to oppose iron ore mining on principle, as contemporary society is somewhat dependent on steel and probably always will be. Taking a gander, while obviously the Greens policies state that we should be holding mining companies to account for environmental damage, ending pointless subsidies for an already insanely profitable industry that's no longer driving employment and spending locally, fighting tax avoidance and generally support higher government regulation (which I can see mining companies themselves being opposed to), it doesn't mean in a Greens ideal world we stop digging metal out of the ground. I'm positive that it'd still be profitable, even if it was done responsibly and sustainably. http://greens.org.au/policies/wa/ecological-sustainability-core-policy
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Government-contracted debt collectors allegedly threatened to garnish a student’s wages unless she immediately paid $500 for a Centrelink debt that was in dispute, a Senate inquiry has heard. The inquiry into Centrelink’s automated debt recovery system has received numerous submissions from individuals alleging they were wrongly targeted for welfare debts. The vast majority have told their stories anonymously, and some expressed fears the government would release their personal information if they put their name to criticism of Centrelink. One woman, a postgraduate student, said she was contacted by one of the three government-contracted debt collectors last year. The government is using the debt collection agencies in cases where former welfare recipients fail to respond to Centrelink’s correspondence about a debt. She alleged that the debt collector contacted her two weeks after Centrelink’s initial correspondence. At that stage, the government was supposed to give welfare recipients at least 21 days to respond. She said the agency demanded she pay the debt in full immediately. “My response to this was that I believed I didn’t owe the debt and that I was submitting for a review with Centrelink before I was happy to commence any repayments,” she said. “They then further threatened to garnish my wages in full if I did not make a significant payment (minimum of $500 on the spot), to which, as any normal person would, I panicked and paid $500 using my credit card.” The student said she continued to fight off debt collectors’ calls and requests for unaffordable repayments, while attempting to find old payslips from seven past employers to prove she did not owe Centrelink a debt. She estimated she had spent more than 100 hours tracking down old employers, requesting previous payslips, going to Centrelink, dealing with debt collectors, contacting politicians and working with lawyers. She said she was still fighting an $8,000 debt and planned to take it to the administrative appeals tribunal. In the inquiry’s hearing last month, the Department of Human Services said it was confident that its debt collectors – the Probe Group, Australian Receivables and Dun and Bradstreet – were behaving appropriately. The deputy secretary for integrity and information, Malisa Golightly, said the department employed a range of measures to hold the debt collection agencies accountable. That included regularly monitoring their contracts, listening in to their phone calls with double headsets, helping to develop their telephone scripts and imposing guidelines on the volume and hours of contact. “The external debt collectors are required to meet all of the guidelines, policies and requirements that are set out by the ACCC. That is part of their contract,” Golightly said. The ACCC’s guidelines warn that debt collectors who try to collect a debt that is under dispute are at “considerable risk of breaching the law”. In another submission to the inquiry, an individual said a $2,000 debt was passed on to the Probe Group, despite having lodged a dispute. “My details were passed on to Probe Group before I was notified of the outcome of my first review,” the submission read. “Worse, as I discovered today, the debt collectors have access to the same bank account information that Centrelink has on file.” “I was advised by a Centrelink officer that Probe could see my bank account information, and could see that I have [amount redacted] in said account (this was information from 2012) and would be in a position to repay the debt.” “I am thoroughly alarmed that this information has been passed on to a third party and consider this a tremendous breach of privacy.” The privacy commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, also made a submission to the inquiry. Pilgrim said he was waiting for the conclusion of the commonwealth ombudsman’s investigation before deciding what further action he would take. But his submission noted the Australian privacy principles required the department to ensure it held up-to-date, accurate, complete and relevant information on customers. The principles also require the department to be transparent about the way it uses data-matching. “Regardless of whether these processes have been utilised previously, DHS has a continuing obligation to ensure that its data-matching program complies with the requirements of [Australian privacy principle] 10, to take reasonable steps to ensure the information it uses is accurate, up-to-date, complete and relevant,” Pilgrim said. The Department of Human Services has been contacted for comment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
The greens should agitate for full nationalisation of the extractive resources industry, anything less is just further proof that they're a bunch of Chardonnay sipping inner city wanker nerds
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Have the WA Greens got a position on incentivising on-shore iron-ore refinement and steelmaking?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Anidav posted:Malisa Golightly I hate when satire uses on-the-nose names. Yeah we get it, we're not idiots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Mr Chips posted:Have the WA Greens got a position on incentivising on-shore iron-ore refinement and steelmaking? I seem to recall NSW and SA Greens having positions. Sensible, especially since domestic steelmaking would be considerably less polluting (although likely very expensive). I'm v keen for Greens to advocate for full nationalisation (or at least public competition) of essential and priority industry sectors. It's time, comrades.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
JBP posted:I like it that property is now Russian roulette and every year new buyers have one extra bullet in the gun. Russian roulette only the gun is replaced by a lit bundle of dynamite being passed around the table like a hot potato.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
Don Dongington posted:it doesn't mean in a Greens ideal world we stop digging metal out of the ground. I'm positive that it'd still be profitable, even if it was done responsibly and sustainably. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
Yeah. Mineral resource exploitation is inherently not sustainable. But it can be done responsibly and in an ecologically-sound manner. We're still eventually gonna run out of minerals to cheaply exploit (which is why we should get about an Australian Space Agency that prioritises SPAAAAACE INDUSSSTRRRYYYYY)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
How many people do you propose you are going to kill in the pursuit of a nationalised mining resources scheme?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
I'd wager there's enough iron ore buried under the pilbara to get us through until climate change turns the region into highly desirable beachfront property.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
JBP posted:How many people do you propose you are going to kill in the pursuit of a nationalised mining resources scheme? All of them
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
I'm serious. If you nationalise something like mining with billions if not trillions of dollars in vested interests, how many people will have to die?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Robotz
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Don Dongington posted:I'd wager there's enough iron ore buried under the pilbara to get us through until climate change turns the region into highly desirable beachfront property. Being from that area, it'll more likely turn into the Great Nickol-Maitland Lake. Flat as and not much above sea level already On the bright side, it'd mean you could set up ship loading infrastructure a lot closer to the mines in that near future
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
JBP posted:I'm serious. If you nationalise something like mining with billions if not trillions of dollars in vested interests, how many people will have to die? Do you think the mining companies would hire mercenaries or what? The government would buy out the companies, something they should be spending the royalty money on now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
JBP posted:I'm serious. If you nationalise something like mining with billions if not trillions of dollars in vested interests, how many people will have to die? It's only the rich that need to die. Once it becomes sovereign wealth then Australia will be rich and we can just kill the whole continent and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
open24hours posted:Do you think the mining companies would hire mercenaries or what? The government would buy out the companies, something they should be spending the royalty money on now. How will the government provide services for anyone if it spends an entire year of GDP buying out private companies? How will it run all of those new concerns that have fallen under it's umbrella? What if they don't want to comply with compulsory acquisition and their host countries engage in diplomacy and trade restrictions on their behalf?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 05:01
|
|