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.
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.
Rudd
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.
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 because Rudd didn’t want to automatically join America in a war for Taiwan.
Palaszczuk taxed the coal mining companies
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”.
she then put in a carbon tax
Not a carbon tax. A fixed-price period leading into a cap and trade scheme.
said carbon tax only lasted a few years
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.
Sure, but it wasn’t an especially bold proposal.
Was enough to get her couped with a fake corruption scandal plastered all over the press. What are you expecting exactly, Whitlam levels of boldness?
Not a carbon tax.
Doesn’t matter. You can say all you want that it’s a lie to call it a “carbon tax” but does anyone in Australia know it by a different name?
It lasted only a few years because the Government lost at the next election. If Rudd had … instead of … that brought down both his and Gillard’s Governments.
Gillard was polling abysmally before Rudd took over. She was a terrible prime minster who nobody liked.
Gillard was polling abysmally before Rudd took over
Yes. Because of relentless attack ads from the Murdoch media, and because Australians hate internal party division, and Rudd stoked that up every chance he got.
So Gillard got couped too. Let’s just leave it at that because I can’t really be bothered.
Not a carbon tax. A fixed-price period leading into a cap and trade scheme.
What do you mean “leading into”?
Cap and trade? Isn’t that an emissions trading scheme? She certainly didn’t install ETS, she installed a carbon tax (and I don’t consider tax a dirty word) aka carbon pricing.
She certainly didn’t install ETS
OK so that’s what you meant by “leading into”. TIL. Thanks.
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? I think you might be talking about first preferences vs 2PP.
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.
Gerrymandering in Melbourne also worked against Greens.
Are you meaning this in a negative way? The seat was reapportioned and as is the Electoral Commission’s guidance on the matter, it was pushed towards as even of a split as possible.
Maybe it is unfair to call it Gerrymandering but my understand is that it worked against Greens (eg boundary extended across the Yarra into Kew - that is conservative territory).
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 HAFF 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.
Labor conceded on that point immediately
They said they did. Then they presented the original version to Parliament again.
Source? Not that I really care. It barely matters.
I found it out when I was talking to a Greens member and I shared exactly the same viewpoint you expressed in your earlier comment. You can verify it by looking at the timeframe of the bill’s passage through Parliament.
Obviously I’m really old and way out of touch on this, but I find this abhorrent.
Why is this a thing? Watching someone be abused hasn’t been socially acceptable entertainment for a long time. Suddenly it is again?
“This three-year-old platform is clearly very disconnected with what is really going on,” she said, adding that if inquiries showed Kick fell short of online content standards, there would be “sanctions”, which she did not specify.
That seems like quite an understatement to me. I’d say they’re actively avoiding acknowledging this content.
As far as I know (might be wrong) Kick was made for streamers who have been kicked off other platforms. It’s another one of these sites with “relaxed moderation” which cater specifically to assholes who aren’t welcome elsewhere.
never knew kick was australian
Of course Kick is Australian. It is arguably INXS’ best album.
Wait… what are we talking about??? (Hopefully, it’s not a snuff film.)
Yeah same. I find it a little weird that none of the talk about it has ever mentioned it’s Australian until this incident.
ABN lookup indicates it’s registered in Melbourne CBD.
It seems they are at 287 Collins St. I walked past that building today. It’s an ANZ bank and I’m not sure how that building can be much else.
Huh, I thought kick was a us company, I hope they’re gonna go after the cunts that did this to him as well, they’re more to blame than kick, even tho kick should have ended the stream, those adults knew what they were doing
That’s actually what I’m wondering about, every article seems to be about the platform it happened on rather than the people involved (apart from the victim of course)
Surely the fellow streamers are mostly responsible
If platforms are providing affordances for abuse and profiting off it, then they are too.
Everyone seems to be missing the important part which was buried deep in the article.
An autopsy showed Mr Graven did not die from impact trauma and that the probable causes of death appeared to be medical or toxicological in origin.
There was already a criminal investigation ongoing and his tragic death happened in the meantime, amplifying the media coverage of this case that was only reported by independent media until now.
