Comment on France to sue Australian platform Kick for 'negligence' after livestream death
shirro@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
Meanwhile the “think of the children” Australian government is hands off on any enterprise run by the gambling industry. So much for the wishes of the Labor rank and file to kick gambling influence out of the party. The parliamentary parties allegiances are clear. Do whatever US intelligence and the tech companies say about age verification. Do whatever the mining industry says. Do whatever the surveillance industry says. Do whatever the gambling industry says. Piss weak for a government with a huge majority.
The reason why Labor ended up with such a huge majority was that the Liberal (and National) Party’s platform was all about Green-bashing and Orange Man Idolatry, while the Greens were all about hippy-dippy bullshit.
Greens voters went with Labor because their own parties policies weren’t perceived as realistic enough and LNP voters went with Labor to protest the Trumpian behaviour of the LNP.
The greens got more votes in the last election than the one prior, and their overall percentage remained unchanged. The greens lost out because the liberals preferenced Labor over them, and so a large amount of the swing away from the liberals ended up in Labor’s lap both directly and through preferences
The greens got more votes in the last election than the one prior, and their overall percentage remained unchanged.
Isn’t that a contradiction? Was it increased or was it unchanged?
Just loose wording from me. What I was trying to say is that their vote count was actually higher this time around, not lower, but the increase was so small it was a rounding error on their overall percentage. The point being, their voterbase didn’t go anywhere, but nor did they attract new folk.
Yup exactly. The Greens’ loss was mostly because the earlier Greens wins came on the back of Labor finishing 3rd and preferences going to the Greens. If the LNP finishes 3rd, preferences go to Labor and Labor wins. There was also a redistribution in Melbourne that favoured Labor pretty strongly. It’s one of the weird quirks of IRV and exposes a reason proportional systems like MMP (used in Germany and NZ) are better.
I voted against the Greens because their behavior voting against the HAAF was straight-up psychotic. They were throwing the homeless under the bus for headlines and renters.
The Greens’ behaviour on the HAFF was pretty objectively good policy. HAFF is a long-term project, not a quick win for homeless. The Greens stalled something that won’t pay off for years by a couple of months in order to make it better. And make it better they did. Including in the shorter term, by requiring it pay out a minimum amount.
By stalling it a couple of months, the HAFF was made better in both the short and long terms.
Many NGO’s were prepared to hit the ground running with the HAFF funding, by blocking the HAFF the Greens screwed up the prepared contracts. They delayed much needed housing for people genuinely in need by years just so they could get brownie points with renters.
On the minimum payout, Labor conceded on that point immediately. The Greens were not voting against it on those grounds.
And before you say Labor should’ve made concessions, the Greens unlike Labor don’t actually face any electoral pressures since they have less than zero chance of forming government and basically zero chance of losing senate seats. The Greens, for good reason, have become politically toxic to deal with because they think acting like whiny children makes them charismatic. If Labor met the Greens $10 billion spending demands, it would’ve been used as a campaign point in this year’s election and Labor would’ve lost to the LNP who would’ve then cut the HAFF.
Tenderizer@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
A government can only go against lobbyist interests (and especially American interests) if they have the opposition on-side. Labor, to this day, has a long history of being couped and they’ve learned cowardice as a result.
Whitlam, Rudd, Fyles, Palaszczuk.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
Rudd did it to himself by being pigheaded and refusing to go far enough.
Palaszczuk never really did anything stand-out brave. Her government lost because of the natural churn that comes with having been in power for 8 years, and because of global trends favouring oppositions.
Whitlam is definitely a good example. So would be Shorten, even though it was a bold platform from opposition that lost him a seemingly-unlosable election, rather than losing Government for bold actually-enacted policy.
I won’t comment on Fyles. I’m not nearly familiar enough with NT politics to say anything intelligent.
Tenderizer@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
Palaszczuk taxed the coal mining companies and balanced the state budget. And keep in mind this was in Queensland, the most conservative state in the country.
Rudd … there is so much I could say. One of Gillard’s first acts after replacing Rudd was to drop the taxes on mining, she then put in a carbon tax that even an idiot could come up with a scare campaign against, said carbon tax only lasted a few years and permanently poisoned the idea of a price on carbon. This is not even mentioning the CIA cables discussing whether they should replace Rudd with Gillard.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
Sure, but it wasn’t an especially bold proposal. And it wasn’t particularly central to either party’s election campaign, compared to things like cost of living, the Olympics, and “youth crime”.
Not a carbon tax. A fixed-price period leading into a cap and trade scheme.
Still not a carbon tax. It lasted only a few years because the Government lost at the next election. Something that was greatly aided by the constant white-anting by Rudd after he lost the leadership.
Gillard’s scheme was actually working. It was world-leading legislation that actually reduced emissions while it was in effect. If Rudd had just been willing to compromise and had delivered that exact policy in 2009 instead of trying to act the Big Tough Guy and insisting it was His Way or the Highway (despite the fact that “his way” would not have reduced emissions for another decade from today), turning it into the political football that brought down both his and Gillard’s Governments.