Senator Assange?

[Dee Dee Ramone]

Enlighten me please.

Aha. Now I saw your edit.

Well, prostitution is legal here in The Netherlands. The problem is that still around 50% of the prostitutes are forced to work in that sector. That means rape day in day out....

So Sweden decided years ago, hey fuck those folks that visit prostitutes, who willfully ignore to sort out who is doing that profession on a voluntary base...and let's do something to protect those raped women. Now, if it was a smart thing to do I don't know...but your view on Sweden is too simple.

Aha another edit, I am just catching up now....

[Aractus]

Nick Xenophon was elected to the Senate for South Australia in 2007 and is facing re-election this year. Although in 2007 he won 14.8% of the popular vote in South Australia, as far as I know nobody is doubting he will be re-elected in September.

Nick Xenophon has the safest independent Senate seat in the country. What I was pointing out to you is that Assange putting his ticket into some random senate seat would not be enough to win him his seat - most Australians vote for the Major Parties, and you'd have to mount a massive AND successful campaign to win one of the Major Party seats. Winning one of the seats already held by an independent or minor party is much much easier and more realistic.

Bob Katter's Australia Party I reckon have a reasonable chance of winning a Senate seat in Queensland. Those chances would be boosted if they can get favorable preference flows from other parties.

Yes they do, but they're a far-right party. If Assange runs candidates in QLD they have little to no chance of winning a Senate Seat for his leftwing party.

Also while the Greens vote in the opinion polls is down compared to the last election, however it is not down by much. The Newspolls over the last several months had the Greens federally at between 8% and 11%, compared to 12% at the last election. Greens support is more stable than declining.

The Greens have four major demographics that vote for them, I identified most of them in the previous post, they are: 1. first time voters, 2. environmentalists with little idea about politics, 3. politically-left aligned people and 4. ALP voters. They have consistently shown their inability to be the responsible party who can hold the balance of power and bring negotiation and compromise to the table which is what people want from minor parties and from independent candidates.

Actually I believe Assange would be fighting a Senate election campaign on issues such as censorship, freedom of speech and copyright laws. These are not inconsiderable issues to a sizable slice of the electorate.

We don't have a huge problem in Australia with censorship (we're now getting the long-overdue R18+ rating for games) or freedom of speech. Copyright laws are a moot point because we're under international treaties which determine the laws we must pass. The last change to Australian copyright was the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 which enacted the changes required under the 1996 WIPO treaty. Until the next treaty is signed and ratified by enough countries, there is absolutely no reason to touch copyright law, and given how long it takes to legislate changes following treaties (Canada only legislated their changes for the same treaty last year), it isn't a prospective point of interest for the next term.

Also in ordinary half-senate elections a candidate or party needs around 14% of the vote to be guaranteed a senate seat. Although you can still get elected with a lot less of the vote, if you can get a favorable preference flow from the other parties. There have been occasions where Senators have been elected with as little as 2% of the vote. However got really good preference flows.

That's right. Assange can expect Green preferences to flow his way, for instance.

So if Assange were to run for the Senate, he would easily get much more than 2% of the vote. More near the 14% of the vote needed to be guaranteed a Senate spot. He would get some of that support from those who currently support the Greens, who aren't radical environmentalists (which is a sizable slice of their current supporters and even membership).

I think you overestimate his popularity, and the fact that even if people like you, if they have no idea about your policies they'll probably vote for someone that makes them feel more comfortable.

I have to disagree about your assessment that Australians are a 'center-right' nation, certainly not by American standards.

You're free to disagree, but I assure you we Australians are typically centre-right.

To many Americans if they were familiar enough with Australian politics, they would consider us a nation of pinko liberals, if not socialists. In America for example our industrial relations laws would be condemned as anti-competitive, because they put severe restrictions on employers firing their employees.

Yes but America is a different country, and we look at their fiscal irresponsibility and do not see conservative politics even though it supposedly comes from extreme conservative policies!

Finally personally I believe Assange wants to become a Senator in order to make it extremely difficult for him to be extradited to Sweden. Because imagine the Scandal if an Australian Senator were to be extradited.

Agreed, he believes he will be allowed to freely leave England if he gets elected. But let's not forget that I for one think it's a scandal to try and extradite a refugee who is currently taking asylum in an embassy! England doesn't have to agree with Ecuador's decision to grant him the status of "refugee", but should recognize people that have been assessed and recognized as refugees by foreign nations and cooperate by extending asylum while a person leaves their country.

[Something completely different]

Of course not, however I was pointing out that Sweden is a nation where it is illegal to pay a sex worker, but it is not illegal to be a sex worker. That fact alone gives you an idea what sort of country Sweden is, also I was humoring as well.

So what sort of a country is sweden?


Why are you being suggestive towards one direction only to then deny being suggestive towards that direction only to then be suggestive again.


"oh no no no sweden is not a non democracy, I am only heavily implying it to then deny that I just did that."

Eighter you say that the legal system of that country is corrupt, in which case you should bring forth evidence, or you dont and there is nothing arround which one could make fuss.

[Justtristo]

Yes but America is a different country, and we look at their fiscal irresponsibility and do not see conservative politics even though it supposedly comes from extreme conservative policies!

There is gross financial irresponsibility federally and in some states. However many US states have been quite financially responsible and managed to balance their budgets without raising taxes (Wisconsin comes to mind, where the Governor overcome public sector union opposition to push through severe budget cuts). I don't think Tony Abbott or most of the Liberal and National parties have the desire to push through severe budget cuts (including cuts to social security benefits) to get the budget balanced.

[Aractus]

There is gross financial irresponsibility federally and in some states. However many US states have been quite financially responsible and managed to balance their budgets without raising taxes (Wisconsin comes to mind, where the Governor overcome public sector union opposition to push through severe budget cuts). I don't think Tony Abbott or most of the Liberal and National parties have the desire to push through severe budget cuts (including cuts to social security benefits) to get the budget balanced.

And when was the last time Labor delivered a balanced budget? The ALP gets into power after the Coalition has cleaned up and repaid their debt, and then goes on a spending spree, happens every time they get into power.

[Justtristo]

There is gross financial irresponsibility federally and in some states. However many US states have been quite financially responsible and managed to balance their budgets without raising taxes (Wisconsin comes to mind, where the Governor overcome public sector union opposition to push through severe budget cuts). I don't think Tony Abbott or most of the Liberal and National parties have the desire to push through severe budget cuts (including cuts to social security benefits) to get the budget balanced.

And when was the last time Labor delivered a balanced budget? The ALP gets into power after the Coalition has cleaned up and repaid their debt, and then goes on a spending spree, happens every time they get into power.

I get the impression that an Abbott government is going to be a different beast than the Howard government was. So far what the Coalition has promised is not going to cut the budget deficit significantly. Especially given that corporate tax receipts have declined significantly since the onset of the global financial crisis. If the Howard government had been re-elected in 2007, the federal budget would have still gone into deficit.

Also I cannot imagine an Abbott government declaring a lot the promises they have made as non-core promises and embarking on a path of serious austerity. A serious austerity programs would involve cuts (around 20 billion dollars to the annual federal budget) to various government programs and payments (including centrelink payments), as well as the elimination of tens of thousands of public service jobs. Unless such a government were to adopt a long-term strategy of losing a few battles, however winning the war so to speak.

In my view while the Rudd-Gillard government has been an pretty incompetent government, (although the Gillard part has done some worthwhile achievements, like the NDIS for example). However I don't believe an Abbott government is going to be much better.

[Darth]

I thought the NDIS was a trial, a 1 billion dollar trial (that has bipartisan support at the federal level, but not all states on board).
For some perspective: The pink batts debacle cost nearly 3 billion (how can they sleep?)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/...5939909818

[Aractus]

I get the impression that an Abbott government is going to be a different beast than the Howard government was.

And so it should be. This is the 2010's not the 1990's...

So far what the Coalition has promised is not going to cut the budget deficit significantly. Especially given that corporate tax receipts have declined significantly since the onset of the global financial crisis. If the Howard government had been re-elected in 2007, the federal budget would have still gone into deficit.

Obviously the budget would have gone into deficit. Australia is not isolated nor insulated from the effects of global economics. In fact we are dependant on a strong world economy. What we had in 2007 was an economy that was very strong from the decade-long Howard government, and we had no federal debt. Thus we were in a strong position to handle a sudden global economic catastrophe.

Also I cannot imagine an Abbott government declaring a lot the promises they have made as non-core promises and embarking on a path of serious austerity. A serious austerity programs would involve cuts (around 20 billion dollars to the annual federal budget) to various government programs and payments (including centrelink payments), as well as the elimination of tens of thousands of public service jobs. Unless such a government were to adopt a long-term strategy of losing a few battles, however winning the war so to speak.

What Labor is doing is spending future money. In a time when the economy is strong (not as strong as it was in 2007, but strong nonetheless), and when productivity is high, they still can't balance the budget. You need to make a choice about having services today, or services in the future - you're spending future money to pay for present services - in the future we'll be spending our present money to pay for past services. Get how it works?

In my view while the Rudd-Gillard government has been an pretty incompetent government, (although the Gillard part has done some worthwhile achievements, like the NDIS for example). However I don't believe an Abbott government is going to be much better.

Gillard introduced a mining resource tax AND a carbon tax. Both are bad for Australia. WA in all honesty should have declared independence and told the federal government to fuck themselves. But then, hey, why let WA profit from their own productivity when the Federal government can come along and take what they want? That's not a strong plan for the future. We have high wages, we have a high Australian dollar, and we're increasing taxes? That's not a good export plan, it may sound great to have high taxes on paper, but you pick your battles - would you rather high taxes and low wages? high taxes and a low dollar? Well we can't control the dollar, no one wants low wages, so to stay competitive for resource exports we need to keep low resource mining taxes.

[Justtristo]

Obviously the budget would have gone into deficit. Australia is not isolated nor insulated from the effects of global economics. In fact we are dependant on a strong world economy. What we had in 2007 was an economy that was very strong from the decade-long Howard government, and we had no federal debt. Thus we were in a strong position to handle a sudden global economic catastrophe.

Australia did not go into a recession during the global financial crisis. Because of the great mineral resources (in particular iron ore and coal) which the country has and the demand which China has for them. New Zealand which lacks those went into recession during the global financial crisis.

Because of the fact we did not go into a recession, Australian interest rates have remained significantly higher than other western nations which are nearly at 0% now. Our relatively high interest rates is a significant reason why our dollar is quite overvalued currently. Relatively high interest rates means a strong demand for Australian dollars from overseas buyers.

Our reserve bank could devalue the dollar easily by printing more money. However they fear that would lead high inflation (anything above 3%), which the reserve bank has stated it wants to avoid as much as possible.

What Labor is doing is spending future money. In a time when the economy is strong (not as strong as it was in 2007, but strong nonetheless), and when productivity is high, they still can't balance the budget. You need to make a choice about having services today, or services in the future - you're spending future money to pay for present services - in the future we'll be spending our present money to pay for past services. Get how it works?

Businesses and households take out loans which they pay with future money. Governments likewise take out loans which payback with future revenue. The only thing I would criticize about the Rudd-Gillard government fiscal policies in the area of government, is that the money should have been used for more useful purposes, like upgrading the national highway and railways systems, which would have produced great benefits to the economy in the long term.

[Aractus]

Australia did not go into a recession during the global financial crisis.

Actually it did. Three consecutive quarters of negative growth, job losses to higher unemployment, low consumer confidence, retail sector hit. The Government stimulus spending is the only thing that tells you we didn't have a recession, everything else tells you we certainly did have one.

Our reserve bank could devalue the dollar easily by printing more money. However they fear that would lead high inflation (anything above 3%), which the reserve bank has stated it wants to avoid as much as possible.

Incorrect. The RBA is not allowed to make decisions based on political policy. They make economic decisions only. They would print money to prevent deflation, for instance, they shouldn't and wouldn't do it to raise or lower the AUD. Also, if the RBA did print money, it would result in higher interest rates, so that may not automatically devalue the dollar as much as you would have hoped.

Businesses and households take out loans which they pay with future money. Governments likewise take out loans which payback with future revenue.

Actually you're wrong about both of those points. That's the simplistic way of looking at it. I'm a fiscal conservative, I don't like the idea of the future generation being made to pay for the squander of the previous.

A more accurate way to look at it is that somebody is willing to pay for what you want today, and that in doing so you are put into their debt. 2/3rds of our public debt is foreign owned, thus it profits foreign nations and not Australia.

The only thing I would criticize about the Rudd-Gillard government fiscal policies in the area of government, is that the money should have been used for more useful purposes, like upgrading the national highway and railways systems, which would have produced great benefits to the economy in the long term.

A minute ago you called them "incompetent", now you have only a minor criticism??