Climate change, economics, politics

[DezinerAU]

Originally Posted by wolty

We are on it DZ.

Cheers. I don't mean to be controlling, but sometimes I can't help myself, especially with an issue close to my heart

[wolty]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

EDIT: Yours, Wolt! Sorry.

Done.

[wolty]

Originally Posted by DezinerAU

Cheers. I don't mean to be controlling, but sometimes I can't help myself, especially with an issue close to my heart

It's an important topic.

[owheelj]

Originally Posted by bundybear

Is that the primary vote, or two party preferred? I suspect the actual difference between the preferred vote count and the number of seats is much less than you present. Linky for data?

Not sure what you are suggesting regarding the outcome. If you are quoting a primary vote figure of 49.65 and comparing that to an actual seat count, which is based on a preferential outcome, that would be an erroneous analysis. Comparing primary votes to a preferential outcome fails to consider preferences from all other parties that would flow to the leading party.

The system works the same for both sides of politics. In fact, there is a demographic gerrymander in Brisbane that favours Labour (or any incumbent government that supports a large public service), so Labour has had a favourable run by favouring Brisbane for its public service spending.

It all works out in the end...we just have to abide by the Democratic system...and keep trying to make it as fair as possible.

You're right - the figures being quoted were indeed primary vote. However it's worth noting that the 2 party preferred vote is LNP 62.8%, ALP 37.2%, but the seats are LNP 89.7%, ALP 8.0%, Katter's Party 2.2%.

While this kind of vote to seat disparity is normal for 1 winner electoral systems, it's also the reason why I'm a strong supporter of proportional representation.

[bundybear]

Originally Posted by Aldaron

I have to giggle when I see the typical conservative howling about Labor (that's "Labor", not "Labour", by the way Bundybear... ) supposedly being wasteful. And the usual thing is to point at how the economy tanked in 2008, blaming the Rudd government.

Giggle away and ignore the facts. Not howling nor a "typical" conservative. Typo's happen. Nobody blames Rudd for the GFC.

Apparently, Fox News and The Australian didn't report a little hiccup now known as the "Global Fincancial Crisis". So naturally, the conservatives aren't aware of it.

Really? The Australian didn't report on the GFC?...wtf?

Likewise, they seem to be under the impression that having national debt means we're all fucked. I guess I'm fucked, since I have debt. So does Rupert Murdoch, their hero.

Having a national debt is fine, if it is sustainable and if the borrowings are for usefel things such as productive infrastructure (schools, roads, hospitals, universities.

Debt isn't bad when it's used to build a nation. When a nation's equity is leveraged to fund education, health care and various environmental initiatives, it has another definition: "Investment".

I agree with nost of that...but wasteful debt is bad for the country, bad for everybody.

But the conservative press doesn't mention things like that: they're usually too busy laughing at Julia Gillard's hairstyle or making shit up about climate change like Alan Jones. Y'know...serious news stuff we all need to know...

Yes they do. In fact, they mention it a lot.

And Labor doesn't laugh at Mr Rabbit, his speedos and his ears? And left commentators don't villify and label anybody who doesn't agree with them. Come on. One would think you are simply Trolling, Alderon. There is bullshit on all sides of media and politics. It doesn't make it right whoever does it. To claim that it is only the conservative media who does it is misleading and clearly done to discredit them.

Meanwhile, the Queensland conservative government has begun its pro-religion, bigoted, hate-mongering campaign which we all knew was inevitable.

Meanwhile, the NSW conservative government has begun dismantling the public service and selling it off, which we all knew was inevitable.

Meanwhile, the Victorian conservative government has begun gutting the TAFE system, which we didn't expect, but now see as somehow inevitable and has even has the rightards scratching their heads...

No evidence of your claims in Qld.

Hurray for NSW...

Education is vitally important. I don't know what Vic is doing to TAFE. If they are reducing student places, bad. If they are reducing bureacratic bloat, good.

[bundybear]

Originally Posted by Sieveboy

Oakshott is conservative and supports the government (arguably Slipper is as well, but as speaker we can ignore him for now). If they vote with the opposition then the bill is blocked.

That the independents haven't blocked the budget is telling. What is more, the opposition cannot show the conservative independents that the expenditure is wrong and wasteful in such terms as to persuade them to block anything expenditure related. So either the opposition is not competent (likely given since so much of the shit they spout is grossly ignorant and contradictory or just lame brain snap sound bites) or the conservative independents see the benefit in the spending, like the NBN roll out or finishing off one of Howards greatest fuck ups (leaving Telstra with the copper network) or providing a fiscal stimulus in the form of building schemes and cash hand outs, that prevented a recession.

Sorry I don't buy Tony Abbotts spin and his finance men in Robb and Hockey really do make Wayne Swan look good.

Oakeshot and Windsor were conservatives, but broke ranks on environmental issues (Oakeshot) and I believe Windsor had an axe to grind with the Nationals. Slipper is a clown of immense proportions and is taking revenge on his party for failing to pre-select him for the next election.

My point is that there are other reasons at play, not just your assertion that independent support of the government is solely based on the competence of current economic policy.

Here two more, equally valid reasons for why the coalition haven't convinced the indys to break rank:

1) The indys might not be that indy,
2) The indys might be as incompetent as the government which seems likely.

[bundybear]

Originally Posted by owheelj

You're right - the figures being quoted were indeed primary vote. However it's worth noting that the 2 party preferred vote is LNP 62.8%, ALP 37.2%, but the seats are LNP 89.7%, ALP 8.0%, Katter's Party 2.2%.

While this kind of vote to seat disparity is normal for 1 winner electoral systems, it's also the reason why I'm a strong supporter of proportional representation.

I wonder what level of disparity or "error" is considered acceptable. 5% ? I thought our preferential state system was a proportional representation system, using partial single transferable votes.

Perhaps there is more to the dynamics of losing....once a seat is lost at 50% all the other votes are discarded. Where should they go...to a runner up? How would that mechanicm work...or is the Senate (which was disdanded in Qld by Labor in 1922) the right mechanism for this?

[bundybear]

Originally Posted by owheelj

You're right - the figures being quoted were indeed primary vote. However it's worth noting that the 2 party preferred vote is LNP 62.8%, ALP 37.2%, but the seats are LNP 89.7%, ALP 8.0%, Katter's Party 2.2%.

While this kind of vote to seat disparity is normal for 1 winner electoral systems, it's also the reason why I'm a strong supporter of proportional representation.

Apparently the Gallagher index is a good measure of disproportionality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallagher_Index

The second link is an interesting look at the 2007 Aussie Fed election.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...7Gallagher.PNG

[riddlemethis]

Originally Posted by bundybear

Thank you so much. An interesting article that presents nothing to support your discussion. In fact, it is BECAUSE we have low levels of government debt, that we are considered "safe". Low levels of debt dont stay low if they increase...fairly obvious I would have thought.

.

I'd have thought it was pretty obvious too. Read that back and see how it stacks up against your claim that our debt levels are out of control.

[loubert]

Mmm no evidence to back up your claims BB?