-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@NTA That doesn't answer the fundamental question of why should you be remunerated more for doing the same job? Sunday trading is a social norm now. The idea you should be paid a loading for it is ridiculous.
Yeah nah. Saturdays and Sundays are still the weekend when social events happen.
Have no issue with bring paid more to miss out on a normal life.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Aussie Politics:
Climate hysteria cost Labor this election.
Amongst other hysteria. Don't think it was just climate.
-
@booboo said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@NTA That doesn't answer the fundamental question of why should you be remunerated more for doing the same job? Sunday trading is a social norm now. The idea you should be paid a loading for it is ridiculous.
Yeah nah. Saturdays and Sundays are still the weekend when social events happen.
Have no issue with bring paid more to miss out on a normal life.
You need to keep in mind the working hours and who is employed in the hospitality, fast food and retail industries on weekends. Also that the penalty rates as @NTA pointed out earlier, weren't removed completely, merely slightly reduced.
-
@booboo said in Aussie Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Aussie Politics:
Climate hysteria cost Labor this election.
Amongst other hysteria. Don't think it was just climate.
I disagree, it was an issue that sucked a lot of resources and oxygen from both major parties, UAP and Get Up and that is hard to account for but electorally it ended in a stalemate.
The clearest path for victory for Labor was in the outer suburban and smaller city seats: Bass, Macquarie, Chisolm etc needed to go the way of Dunkley and Braddon. Their inability to move them was purely economic policy and Shorten IMO.
If Labor's policy was to open five new coal plants by Christmas they may have picked up two seats in Queensland and lost five senate seats to the Greens across the country.
-
@booboo said in Aussie Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Aussie Politics:
Climate hysteria cost Labor this election.
Amongst other hysteria. Don't think it was just climate.
Depends on the extent to which you ascribe "climate" argument. In the end it was simple economics - the largely middle class and aspirational workers who were rightfully concerned about their opportunities to improve their lot and develop self sufficiency in retirement. Labor shat on this and in doing so alienated them.
Whoever ran their campaign needs to understand that bleeding an inner-city seat or two to the Greens is fine when you chase the middle and earn another 10-20 seats everywhere else. Pandering to upper middle class in the inner-city is attempting to secure an additional percentage of people who are ultimately going to direct their preferences your way anyway. It's pointless and self defeating.
The worst aspect is the aspirational blue collar workers is a demographic the Australian Labor party should own thanks to Hawke and Keating.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
Whoever ran their campaign needs to understand that bleeding an inner-city seat or two to the Greens is fine when you chase the middle and earn another 10-20 seats everywhere else.
Two things:
They can't bleed their senate vote to the Greens, particularly under the new system.
Unfortunately those 1 or 2 inner city seats often must be saved as traditionally high ranking members come from those types of seats. Defending Kooyong was a non-negotiable for the Coalition as losing the sitting treasurer was unacceptable.
-
@rotated said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
Whoever ran their campaign needs to understand that bleeding an inner-city seat or two to the Greens is fine when you chase the middle and earn another 10-20 seats everywhere else.
Two things:
They can't bleed their senate vote to the Greens, particularly under the new system.
They won't bleed enough and even if they did that would in the long run be a good thing because the rest of Australia would then see what obstructionist fluffy bunnies the Greens are, They aren't mature enough to be a political party. Hansard shows they voted against SSM and climate change. The blowtorch needs to applied to them by Labor to wrest those votes back.
Unfortunately those 1 or 2 inner city seats often must be saved as traditionally high ranking members come from those types of seats. Defending Kooyong was a non-negotiable for the Coalition as losing the sitting treasurer was unacceptable.
I was talking about Labor. Pandering to the Greens didn't pick up Kooyong for Labor.
-
@dogmeat said in Aussie Politics:
@booboo so I assume that you are happy to pay more for items you buy at the weekend?
Hmm .. I see your point. And I can already see how you might disagree with the following "logic", but I think that's a different argument.
I'm of the opinion that these are costs that should be factored into normal business overheads.
Business has to make a decision whether it's worth opening on Sundays for the extra revenue at a slightly elevated cost or not.
Charge me 10c more for my coffee so you don't charge the 17% premium on public holidays (they do that here - does it happen in NZ ?).
Also, I get the point above (by @antipodean ?) about how climate influenced all policies so yeah @Baron-Silas-Greenback was ri... rig... righ... less wrong
-
@booboo It's OK - I was 90% being a smartarse but there is a point as well.
Retailers isn't just about big box and chain stores. There's a helluva lot of small hospo and high street retailers who have to stay open long hours just to be competitive. A lot of these are owner operators but there are also a sizeable number with one or two staff. Paying penal rates just kills these poor buggers.
I am philosophically opposed to the concept of penal rates anyway. I've always got rid of them at the earliest opportunity. Just pay your worker a decent wage and fix your labour cost/hour and then provide a good widget/service and let the market decide. Weekend work is slightly different but my particular hate is overtime after x number of hours. Just encourages poor productivity and in my experience people are more productive when they're fresh rather than tired. Sit people down tell them overtime has to go but I'm giving you a pay raise for every hour you work not just the ones at the end of the day.
-
@rotated said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
Whoever ran their campaign needs to understand that bleeding an inner-city seat or two to the Greens is fine when you chase the middle and earn another 10-20 seats everywhere else.
Two things:
They can't bleed their senate vote to the Greens, particularly under the new system.
Unfortunately those 1 or 2 inner city seats often must be saved as traditionally high ranking members come from those types of seats. Defending Kooyong was a non-negotiable for the Coalition as losing the sitting treasurer was unacceptable.
This could be an issue if Albanesi becomes leader. His seat is very close to going Green and he's in danger of losing it if he doesn't pander to those voters. What can he actually do with the party as a whole then when he's toast if they shift right?
Another example is Malcolm Turnbull. With a "purple" electorate, his policies were at odds with both the party and voters outside of Wentworth who weren't driving Porshe Cayans.
In other words it's a major risk having a leader in a marginal electorate, particularly if the population of said electorate is very different to the nation as a whole.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Politics:
Waleed Aly had a decent piece in NYT about the election, basically along the lines of: Morrison & Co were right; people don't feel threatened enough for an actual change.
Why do you read anything that wånk stain writes? Bet he managed to insert a reference to Christchurch as well. The guy is scum.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
This could be an issue if Albanesi becomes leader. His seat is very close to going Green and he's in danger of losing it if he doesn't pander to those voters. What can he actually do with the party as a whole then when he's toast if they shift right?
You must be thinking of another Albanese - he wins his seat on first preferences. Grayndler is as safe as it gets.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
Why do you read anything that wånk stain writes? Bet he managed to insert a reference to Christchurch as well. The guy is scum.
Well I kind of expected that response as you're clearly not a fan of his. And yes, there was a reference to Christchurch which I'm sure you'll find distasteful, but makes sense when you consider he's arguing this election wasn't like Trump, Brexit, or other "right-wing" campaigns in recent times. It is a useful quote in that context:
MELBOURNE, Australia — Ahead of Australia’s general election on Saturday, one party had campaigned on the idea that politics and the economy were rigged in favor of the elites. It attacked its opponent relentlessly for siding with the “top end of town.” It insisted that things needed to be shaken up to stop serving multinational corporations and vested interests. That party lost.
The results were surprising. The center-right coalition, led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, remained in power against the opposition Labor party, which had led in every poll for years. But aside from being an upset, the election here shared little in common with Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, the Brexit referendum or other populist insurgencies around the world.
This was a campaign in which the politics of race, xenophobia and immigration played almost no part. (That’s probably because of the atmosphere after terrorist attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand, in March.) There was nothing in Mr. Morrison’s election pitch, perhaps other than continued support for coal mining, that seemed particularly aimed at rousing right-wing voters. Even on climate change, a major election issue on which there was some distance between the parties, Mr. Morrison argued his party was acting sufficiently — not dismissing it as some elite conspiracy. No, the lesson from Australia’s election isn’t that this country is right-wing but that it’s conservative — as in cautious.
There is a quote widely attributed to Bruce Lee that states “Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.”
Therefore, I find it useful to read multiple sources in forming my own opinion. On social media I follow a fairly broad section of the middle, excluding the militant end of the Greens and the Nazis. Sometimes it results in a circular argument, sometimes it results in a useful point being made. Minds may not necessariy be changed, but consideration is useful.
If you're going to simply reject something because of the messenger, then you're going to miss bits that might be useful.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
Why do you read anything that wånk stain writes? Bet he managed to insert a reference to Christchurch as well. The guy is scum.
Well I kind of expected that response as you're clearly not a fan of his. And yes, there was a reference to Christchurch which I'm sure you'll find distasteful, but makes sense when you consider he's arguing this election wasn't like Trump, Brexit, or other "right-wing" campaigns in recent times. It is a useful quote in that context:
MELBOURNE, Australia — Ahead of Australia’s general election on Saturday, one party had campaigned on the idea that politics and the economy were rigged in favor of the elites. It attacked its opponent relentlessly for siding with the “top end of town.” It insisted that things needed to be shaken up to stop serving multinational corporations and vested interests. That party lost.
The results were surprising. The center-right coalition, led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, remained in power against the opposition Labor party, which had led in every poll for years. But aside from being an upset, the election here shared little in common with Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, the Brexit referendum or other populist insurgencies around the world.
This was a campaign in which the politics of race, xenophobia and immigration played almost no part. (That’s probably because of the atmosphere after terrorist attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand, in March.) There was nothing in Mr. Morrison’s election pitch, perhaps other than continued support for coal mining, that seemed particularly aimed at rousing right-wing voters. Even on climate change, a major election issue on which there was some distance between the parties, Mr. Morrison argued his party was acting sufficiently — not dismissing it as some elite conspiracy. No, the lesson from Australia’s election isn’t that this country is right-wing but that it’s conservative — as in cautious.
There is a quote widely attributed to Bruce Lee that states “Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.”
Therefore, I find it useful to read multiple sources in forming my own opinion. On social media I follow a fairly broad section of the middle, excluding the militant end of the Greens and the Nazis. Sometimes it results in a circular argument, sometimes it results in a useful point being made. Minds may not necessariy be changed, but consideration is useful.
If you're going to simply reject something because of the messenger, then you're going to miss bits that might be useful.
Interesting take . He’s still human garbage though
-
@jegga said in Aussie Politics:
Interesting take . He’s still human garbage though
Off Topic: Have you seen him on Offsiders? I didn't realise he was such a passionate footy fan. Also brings a legal angle to it. You can not like someone but still respect what they say.
He's a Melbourne Storm fan though, so defo human garbage.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
Why do you read anything that wånk stain writes? Bet he managed to insert a reference to Christchurch as well. The guy is scum.
Well I kind of expected that response as you're clearly not a fan of his. And yes, there was a reference to Christchurch which I'm sure you'll find distasteful, but makes sense when you consider he's arguing this election wasn't like Trump, Brexit, or other "right-wing" campaigns in recent times. It is a useful quote in that context:
MELBOURNE, Australia — Ahead of Australia’s general election on Saturday, one party had campaigned on the idea that politics and the economy were rigged in favor of the elites. It attacked its opponent relentlessly for siding with the “top end of town.” It insisted that things needed to be shaken up to stop serving multinational corporations and vested interests. That party lost.
The results were surprising. The center-right coalition, led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, remained in power against the opposition Labor party, which had led in every poll for years. But aside from being an upset, the election here shared little in common with Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, the Brexit referendum or other populist insurgencies around the world.
This was a campaign in which the politics of race, xenophobia and immigration played almost no part. (That’s probably because of the atmosphere after terrorist attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand, in March.) There was nothing in Mr. Morrison’s election pitch, perhaps other than continued support for coal mining, that seemed particularly aimed at rousing right-wing voters. Even on climate change, a major election issue on which there was some distance between the parties, Mr. Morrison argued his party was acting sufficiently — not dismissing it as some elite conspiracy. No, the lesson from Australia’s election isn’t that this country is right-wing but that it’s conservative — as in cautious.
There is a quote widely attributed to Bruce Lee that states “Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.”
Therefore, I find it useful to read multiple sources in forming my own opinion. On social media I follow a fairly broad section of the middle, excluding the militant end of the Greens and the Nazis. Sometimes it results in a circular argument, sometimes it results in a useful point being made. Minds may not necessariy be changed, but consideration is useful.
If you're going to simply reject something because of the messenger, then you're going to miss bits that might be useful.
I read plenty of different sources. For instance, I read online Norwegian content each day and that would be left of the ABC on many occasions. But I don't see any value in reading anything written by Squalid, in the same way as I wouldn't read anything by Pauline Hanson or Fraser Anning.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
This could be an issue if Albanesi becomes leader. His seat is very close to going Green and he's in danger of losing it if he doesn't pander to those voters. What can he actually do with the party as a whole then when he's toast if they shift right?
You must be thinking of another Albanese - he wins his seat on first preferences. Grayndler is as safe as it gets.
Hmmm, fair enough. I recall there being a scare in 2013 that he might be in trouble but he seems safe enough. But it is a Greenish seat and what Labor don't need right now is a move to the left.
Aussie Politics