Australian Politics (3 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

Surely they wouldn't use alcopos as a trigger? That is the kind of thing the public will great with great cynicism. The budget or stimulus possibly but alcopops?

I think Turnbull should stand up to Labor on alcopops. They won't win a DD election, they might even go backwards, but if you combine alcopops with internet censorship they'll make those aged 15-30 a fuckload less likely to be rusted on ALP syncophants for the rest of their lives.

EDIT: Throw advocacy for a carbon tax as the solution to both climate change AND falling revenues into the mix and you've got a fucking visionary campaign.

 

[Lentern]

I think Turnbull should stand up to Labor on alcopops. They won't win a DD election, they might even go backwards, but if you combine alcopops with internet censorship they'll make those aged 15-30 a fuckload less likely to be rusted on ALP syncophants for the rest of their lives.

EDIT: Throw advocacy for a carbon tax as the solution to both climate change AND falling revenues into the mix and you've got a fucking visionary campaign.

Visionary? Sounds like the kind of rhetoric adivsors of Latham and Hewson would have used. I agree with most of what you said I just am reluctant to go down the path of the political narrative. I think the last time such an approach worked in Australia was 1972 and a part of me says the victory was in spite of the narrative tone of the campaign.

Malcolm should get Andrew Peacock on the phone, if someone had said that Hawke was going to lose that many seats 8 months out from the 84 election people would have laughed at him. Peacock is a bloke who ran strong campaigns in the worst of circumstances which is exactly what Malcolm is doing.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Wow. The Greens just won a seat in the Western Australian government (Fremantle).

WA Legislative Assembly is now: Labor 27, Liberal 24, Nationals 4, Independent 3, Greens 1.

Labour never had a chance. The 2PP is currently 54.2% for Greens, 45.8% for Labour. No Liberal candidate ran, and only one independent got above 5% (specifically 5.3%)

 

[Graney]

Hey waf, how do you justify the hypocrisy of opposing the alcopop tax, but supporting further taxes on ciggarettes?

I understand your justification for taxation on ciggarettes, as long as we continue to exist within the current paradigm where public health care is a reality, but how then can you oppose any taxation increase which helps raise funds for treating problems caused by alcohol in the public health system?

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Hey waf, how do you justify the hypocrisy of opposing the alcopop tax, but supporting further taxes on ciggarettes?

I understand your justification for taxation on ciggarettes, as long as we continue to exist within the current paradigm where public health care is a reality, but how then can you oppose any taxation increase which helps raise funds for treating problems caused by alcohol in the public health system?

A valid question.

Personally, I don't profess to be a Libertarian, so I don't need to reconcile that little oddity. But I'll state my stance anyway: legalising and heavily taxing a drug is far and away the most optimal outcome. Especially dangerous ones like smoking (yes, specifically smoking rather than nicotine/crack/marijuana itself), heroine, and alcohol. This way you are promoting civil rights to the pedestal it should have always been on (specifically not criminalising citizens), removing the taboo surrounding the drug (it's accessible), prompting some to avoid it/quit (which helps lower the public healthcare burden your income tax funds, if you have no sense of altruism), and funneling the drug tax back into the healthcare system.

I'm not a fan of the alcopops tax because it seems piecemeal. But the benefits to health are clear. Binge drinking is as bad as bingeing on any other drug; it's stupid, dangerous, and gives the drug a bad name.

Still, you have to admit, smoking kills far and away more people each year than alcohol ever will, which gives Waf some wiggle room.

 

[Lentern]

Hey waf, how do you justify the hypocrisy of opposing the alcopop tax, but supporting further taxes on ciggarettes?

I understand your justification for taxation on ciggarettes, as long as we continue to exist within the current paradigm where public health care is a reality, but how then can you oppose any taxation increase which helps raise funds for treating problems caused by alcohol in the public health system?

Yeah but a teen can drink safely. It's abuse that does the damage they aren't gonna kill themselves getting a little tipsy from time to time. Ciggarettes on the other hand are a genuine assault on peoples health everytime they are inhaled.

 

[Graney]

The safe drinking guidelines, currently 2 drinks per day, and no more ever iirc, are based on a fatality rate = to the lifetime rate of dying in a car accident, again if my understanding is right.

That is, if you drink 2 drinks or less per day, with the alcohol free days and stuff, your lifetime chances of dying from alcohol related causes are equal or less than your lifetime chances of dying in a car accident. But you still might die of alcohol related causes. The safe drinking guidelines give no guarantee you won't, and some drinking below 2 drinks per day will develop fatal cancers and other illnesses they wouldn't have otherwise.

They may kill themselves from getting "a little tipsy from time to time", that's why binge drinking is considered such a serious issue, and the previous guideline was to NEVER ever have more than 4 drinks per day, I believe the recommended level has now been reduced even further.

There would be a level of smoking, grams tobacco/time, where your lifetime chances of dying from smoking related causes would be reduced to less than your lifetime chances of dying in a car accident.

Tobacco can be used safely in the same way that alcohol could be. Reality is, neither substance ever will be used widely with this regard.

There's zero justification for significant policy difference between the two substances, it's just a matter of pricing them both appropriately for their cost to the health care system and community, which in both cases is high.

 

[blue_chameleon]

There would be a level of smoking, grams tobacco/time, where your lifetime chances of dying from smoking related causes would be reduced to less than your lifetime chances of dying in a car accident.

That's certainly a bold statement.

 

[Graney]

1 ciggarette in 80 years won't give you cancer. Not at a noticeably increased rate. That is a safe level of smoking. It is certainly safe to have one ciggarette once. Where the exact rate is that would be equivalent to the health risk of 2 drinks/day lies, who knows.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

More on the Fremantle by-election:

Successful Greens candidate Adele Carles, a lawyer, won 44 per cent of the primary vote at the Fremantle by-election, breaking Labor's 85-year hold on the electorate.

Labor's vanquished candidate Fremantle mayor Peter Tagliaferri won less than 39 per cent of the vote.

It'll be interesting to see if this seat is sustainable.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Hmm. The Greens have lowered their carbon cut aim to 25% (from 40%) and notified Rudd about that. Good. 40% was not really politically possible.

Meanwhile, Rudd looks like he's going to delay the scheme till 2011, but raise the cut to 25%.

It's not ideal, but it's a darn sight better than the piddly 5% he previously proposed. Of course, he could backtack in 2011. In 2010/early 2011 election he can say to the Greens voters "look, I'm going to cut 25%! Vote for me." and then stab them in the back once his seats are secure after the election. It wouldn't surprise me.

Then again, that could be quite risky considering the seats the Greens look to gain (enough to hold the balance of power all by themselves without that Family First dickhead).

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Also, Rudd is building the largest solar project in the world (3 times bigger than the current largest in California). It'll be composed of about 4 solar power stations, each producing as much electricity as a coal-fired power station.

Rudd plans 'world's largest' solar project - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Also, did anybody else pick up on this?

Australia's government introduced its carbon trade laws into parliament on Thursday with no sign they will pass and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd warning he may need an early election if his reforms are blocked.

[...]

A Senate deadlock over carbon trading could give Rudd the legal and political trigger for an early double dissolution by September or October, giving him the option of an election by November.

It's from Reuters India, so a more reliable source wouldn't go astray.

http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINSYD38089520090514

Imagine that - a double dissolution. The last one was because of Gough Whitlam, right? Bob Brown is against it, but that's probably just to cast it as a bad idea so Labour voters punish him and vote Greens and Liberals. Because given the lag in half of the Senate and House seats each election, and the Greens's strongest standing in polls yet, I can't see how it'd be a bad thing for them.

 

[Crestwood's_G]

Hmm. The Greens have lowered their carbon cut aim to 25% (from 40%) and notified Rudd about that. Good. 40% was not really politically possible.

Meanwhile, Rudd looks like he's going to delay the scheme till 2011, but raise the cut to 25%.

It's not ideal, but it's a darn sight better than the piddly 5% he previously proposed. Of course, he could backtack in 2011. In 2010/early 2011 election he can say to the Greens voters "look, I'm going to cut 25%! Vote for me." and then stab them in the back once his seats are secure after the election. It wouldn't surprise me.

Then again, that could be quite risky considering the seats the Greens look to gain (enough to hold the balance of power all by themselves without that Family First dickhead).

the greens smoke too much green

 

[spiny norman]

Imagine that - a double dissolution. The last one was because of Gough Whitlam, right?

There've been six in Australia's history:

1914 - Joseph Cook/Andrew Fisher
1951 - Robert Menzies/Ben Chifley
1974 - Gough Whitlam/Billy Snedden
1975 - Malcolm Fraser/Gough Whitlam
1983 - Malcolm Fraser/Bob Hawke
1987 - Bob Hawke/John Howard

So no, there's been a couple since that had nothing to do with Gough.

 

[Rafy]

Opposition has caved and will support the alcopops tax increase. ( Opposition will support alcopop tax increase )

Also, massive post budget bounce towards the coalition in today's ACNielsen (53-47 2PP). Only a 1 point primary separation and Rudd's approval has fallen 10 points.
Will need tomorrow's Newspoll to confirm the movements.

Poll shows Coalition increases popularity against Labor

Full figures here: http://www.theage.com.au/ed_docs/poll-table-may-2009.pdf

 

[CountVonChocula]

account balance = $13.73CR

cant even withdraw from atms

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Opposition has caved and will support the alcopops tax increase. ( Opposition will support alcopop tax increase )

Also, massive post budget bounce towards the coalition in today's ACNielsen (53-47 2PP). Only a 1 point primary separation and Rudd's approval has fallen 10 points.
Will need tomorrow's Newspoll to confirm the movements.

Poll shows Coalition increases popularity against Labor

Full figures here: http://www.theage.com.au/ed_docs/poll-table-may-2009.pdf

Rudd's approval fell 10 points to 64%. Turnbull's is about 45% I believe?

Newspoll's already out at 55-45 (for the 4th May). I doubt you'll see it drop further since the other polls have started bouncing back from their lows of 54 or so.

 

[Lentern]

Rudd's approval fell 10 points to 64%. Turnbull's is about 45% I believe?

Newspoll's already out at 55-45 (for the 4th May). I doubt you'll see it drop further since the other polls have started bouncing back from their lows of 54 or so.

Don't quite know whether this is a good or bad thing thing for Malcolm. Short term its obviously fantastic but I expect he will fall away slightly in the months folowing the budget. That would be pretty devestating, if he starts losing ground he'll be a dead man walking. Ideally he would have not gained ground at the last poll but stayed level, make a significant but not to this extent gain after the budget and get small increases in subsequent months arriving where he is now around August.

By August it will be clear that the stimulus packages failed to stop Australia being sucked up into the world economic whirpool(even if in reality they significantly curtailed the damage) and Turnbull's opposition to them will look quite a sound decisions.

Also Greens primary was down if I recall correctly, wonder what the go is with that, Surely Greens voters aren't turning liberal so where did the votes go?

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Also Greens primary was down if I recall correctly, wonder what the go is with that, Surely Greens voters aren't turning liberal so where did the votes go?

I'll check ACNielsen, but I don't think so. Greens primary vote has been steady between 8% and 12% for a while now (fluctuates with the each month with seemingly no rhyme or reason beyond statistical variation)... Seems ordinary? Check the margin of error. I believe it's +/- 2.5%.

Oh, and Essential Research just came out. They actually give Rudd one percent more this week to 62-38 (up from 61-39). Even so, Turnbull is slightly less disliked in this latest Essential Research poll, and Rudd is slightly less liked.

The primary numbers are not good for the Coalition, though. Essential Research gives 2% Nationals, 30% Liberal, 52% Labour, 8% Greens. Ouch! Somehow I doubt it's quite that bad for Liberals. Those Nationals numbers seem correct though. I see 2% support levels for them a lot. A dying party?

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

For those interested, here's a goodly piece of data.

Newspoll Federal primary vote shares for the past 15+ years: http://newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/poll...continue_results&question_id=2472&url_caller=

I like Newspoll because they seem the most reliable and consistent.