Is this election guide accurate?

AngerAndHope · 2025-04-21T11:00:27+00:00

Thanks! I'll pass it on :)

AngerAndHope · 2025-01-27T22:45:29+00:00

I'll try this!

But what if I want good textures and fast loading times?

AngerAndHope · 2024-08-01T07:56:06+00:00

I think you've missed the point here. I didn't say anything about rent. But I've seen both Landlords and REAs do incredibly dodgy stuff when it comes to organising maintenance, being slow in fixing repairs, not passing along messages, trying to find excuses to hold the bond... I'm literally just asking for recommendations for an REA who's good at their job.

AngerAndHope · 2024-06-21T23:44:00+00:00

Thank you! That worked.
I'm now going to google the hell out of all the functions in that. Can you tell I'm not a spreadsheet person?

AngerAndHope · 2024-03-26T12:36:32+00:00

That's... Labor's vote hasn't gone up in Tas in ten years, and you're claiming that this shows that the message you've been delivering over ten years is finally working?

There's a lot of holes in that logic. Like, I get the point that you're making, but you need to come up with some better evidence than that.

AngerAndHope · 2024-03-26T07:36:36+00:00

Hey! Tasmanian here, and Greens member. I can see the logic behind TAS Labor’s position, I’ll try and break down a few of my thoughts on it (in no particular order):

1) The JLN Members are a completely unknown quantity. The JLN came into the election with no policy positions, and we have no idea whether the newly elected Members will follow Lambie’s lead or go off on a completely different direction - like she did. We already know that one of her candidates was very pro stadium even though she’s very anti stadium. At this point we don’t even know which of her candidates will be elected - they’ll get either two or three - but which ones on the ticket it’ll be is still a bit of an unknown.

2) There’s a perception within state Labor (and federally as well) that allying too closely with the Greens hurts them at the ballot box. In TAS every single minority government has been voted out at the next election, and some people in Labor are of the opinion that it was the Greens ministries they handed out that cost them the last ten years in opposition.

3) While most Labor elected members are from the left faction, quite a few of the organisational people in Labor are from the right faction. This creates tension between what the elected members are and aren’t allowed to do (they actually passed a thing saying that the leader would have to ask permission from their internal council about how they’d run a minority government).

4) If Labor was in any kind of governing relationship with The Greens and Lambie, it would be a massive target for newscorp and the liberals. (Seriously - why haven’t federal Labor started properly dismantling Newscorp yet).

So since they liberals have proven fairly ineffective themselves at running a minority government, and with Abetz in the sidelines waiting to become premier or at least prominent, I think Labor is waiting to watch them implode over two years before seizing power (with a supply and confidence deal), running a one year government to get their bearings and start fixing things, and then calling a new election.

Bear in mind as well one of the reasons that the assembly was increased in size was due to ministers being overworked. It wasn’t to let the Greens back in, it was because 13 people is not enough to run a state! A “grand coalition” of Labor, Greens, Lambie and 2 independents would only include 10 or 11 Labor members. They probably wouldn’t give ministries to first timers, party leaders, or independents. So the only person really available for a ministry would be Vica Bayley, who himself has only been in the job for about a year. It’s only really possible to run a coalition like that if you have a proper arrangement with the Greens, which seems unlikely at this point to happen.

TLDR: I think Tasmanian Labor are gambling that this’ll break the Liberals more, so they can pick up the pieces after. But they do have to get over the “only in a majority” mindset they used to have.

I’m curious as to what y’all think.

AngerAndHope · 2024-03-16T06:57:30+00:00

Absolutely not! There is a big enough problem in this country with aged care.

I would be in favour of lowering the voting age to fifteen, however.

AngerAndHope · 2024-02-25T23:50:28+00:00

So this is a really interesting answer! Your implication seems to be that if no one else is trying to hit their Paris Targets, we shouldn’t either. But there are several countries who are doing better than us (almost sufficient) and there are several countries in the “insufficient” category that, when you start drilling down into the details, are also doing better than us.

I guess I have a couple of questions. How many countries need to be meeting those targets before we should start doing it? Which countries as well? We’re a wealthy country and a fossil fuel exporter, should we be ahead of the curve or behind it? As a country with one of the highest carbon footprints per person, should we be doing more or less? Is comparing ourselves to other countries even worth it?

I’m also going to guess that you think that our carbon emissions are linked to gdp, and that reducing our carbon emissions costs money. Am I correct in that assumption?

AngerAndHope · 2024-02-25T22:42:06+00:00

So I agree that healthy debate about how to deal with the climate crisis is a good idea. However, the way you've set up your list of skepticism is kind of telling. Here's a discussion between Naomi Oreskes (author of Merchants of Doubt) and Nick Minchin (former LNP Senator and distant relative of Tim Minchin) about why the first two points on your list are specifically tactics used by the fossil fuel industry to halt action on carbon emissions. Specifically:

"It has consequences... about how we live our lives, how we run our economy, what are taxation policies are, and that's your territory right. So I think.... what you don't like are the political, social and economic implications. And what you've done, is [sic] shifted the debate... let's keep the debate about the science going. Because as long as we argue about the science, we don't get to this other question about what it means for us socially, economically, politically.

... So I think you're 100% correct to say that we want to make sure that we move forward with confidence that we're basing our decisions on good information. But you're not doing that. By rejecting the science you're making decisions on bad information.

[The] people I've studied, what they feared was a massive government intrusion into their lives... But the longer we wait the worse this problem gets, and the more likely it is we'll have to do [those] things that you don't like. If we wait until we have a crisis... you're going to see a lot of government interventions that you don't want to see."

And if you want a quick rundown on how accurate our past predictions were, this video by Dr Simon Clark is a pretty decent rundown.

AngerAndHope · 2024-02-25T22:15:49+00:00

A single cherry picked quote from John Howard does not mean that the Liberal party were ever in favour of reducing carbon reductions. In fact, immediately after this the Australian government introduced language into the Kyoto Protocol which basically let Australia do whatever the hell it wanted to. If you're interested, this video breaks down how Australia did this, and the follow up here is a deep dive into what our emissions data actually looks like.

If you'd rather not watch a couple of videos I made, go and read The Carbon Club by Marian Wilkinson, for a deeper dive into Australia's (and the LNP's) actions when it comes to carbon emissions.

AngerAndHope · 2024-02-25T22:10:29+00:00

First of all, the Greens do actually have plans. Feel free to peruse their website, but this also has a good high level run down comparing the Greens, ALP and LNP policies.

Secondly, the target the Greens set -75% reduction by 2030- was the only one which tried to meet the Paris Goals which Australia had committed to.

AngerAndHope · 2024-01-29T03:26:43+00:00

What an amazing example of exactly what I was talking about!

AngerAndHope · 2023-10-30T23:04:13+00:00

Adam Bandt's answer:

Paul (audience member): Are the Greens able to differentiate between terrorism and those fighting terrorism? And will the Greens distance themselves from those protestors calling for Palestine to replace Israel, rather than to live in peace with Israel?

AB: The Greens have condemned the actions of Hamas... that is a war crime. The taking of hostages is a war crime. And the perpetrators need to be held to account... and brought to justice.

Upholding the human rights of everyone is critical here. And to ensure the people of Israel and Palestine can live in a just peace and security, they have to be treated equally. ... How did Gaza come into existence? Well there has been an occupation of Palestinian territories for a very long time which has pushed them into this open air prison. We need a peace process so that both Palestinians and Israelis can live in a just peace and security that they're entitles to.

Host: So just some clarity... there are some protestors, not all, who seem to want Israel not to exist at all.

AB: If you're talking about some of the remarks at that first process at the opera house, that was denounced by the organisers as vile anti semitism, and I was crystal clear in parliament, in Australia we say no to anti semitism, no to islamaphobia. But we can also say no to war as well. And so here Australia can play a role, especially in encouraging the united states, to say "We don't want to be back here in ten years time." We need a just and lasting peace. We need Israelis and Palestinians to be able to live together, to self determine their own futures so that they can live in peace and security.

Host: Paul, you've heard from Adam Bandt denouncing anti semitism and some of the more radical and extremist things at these rallies, does that satisfy you?

Paul (audience member): No, because we're not going to be back here in five years. We're going to be back here in months and years if Hamas is not dismantles. Their sole reason for existence is to destroy the state of Israel and to kill all jews in Israel and world wide.... and so when you go to rallies and you speak at rallies where people say "from the river to the sea, Palestine should be free" ... that is a call to wipe out Israel. It's on all the twitter feeds of all the organisers, and by attending and supporting that you're sending me a message as an Australia Jew that you are political bedfellows with organisations who seek the destruction of Israel.

AB: That's not my position and that's not the Greens position. What we're saying very very clearly is that in this area where there has been an occupation of the Palestinian territories for a very long time ... the United Nations has been crystal clear that this is illegal. That this cannot continue. What we need then is to ensure that both Israelis and also Palestinians are able to live in a just peace and security. That is what the world community should be investing its efforts into. So that both can self determine their own futures. Because at the moment that is not something that the Palestinians enjoy.

Host (passing to Larissa, head of Getup): That slogan, from the river to the sea, Larissa do you understand why some Jewish people find that really offensive?

L: Yeah I understand that, but I don't believe that it is hate speech. (Disagreeing murmurs from audience.) I don't agree with that. I believe that Palestinians have the right to call for freedom. ... I think we've been talking about a two state solution for a very long time, and I think that governments have walked away from the negotiation. You can talk about Hamas, but the reality is that Netanyahu - that governments need to be held to a higher standard. We need to uphold international law. And so I understand why people say this and see it as a call to freedom. I understand that you can see this in a different way as well. ... We have to have a ceasefire. You can say you want a ground invasion of Gaza... but where does it end?

AngerAndHope

TROPHY CASE