megpie71
megpie71
.:.:.:. .:..:. ::: ..:..
  Viewing 20 - 28 Forward
Some Thoughts from a Non-Economist regarding the Global Financial Crisis (Ongoing).

I'm starting to suspect what's needed is a global "Jubilee Year" - in the Old Testament sense. A single date, where everyone's debts are zeroed out, where all transgressions are forgiven, and where everyone starts again with a clean slate.

The banks will, of course, scream blue bloody murder at the slightest hint of this notion being taken seriously.

I also think that the way debt is thought of has to be restructured as well. A loan has to stop being a business asset for the banks, something they can trade from one person to another. Instead, it has to be an arrangement between two parties, to be maintained between those two parties until the loan has been paid back. So instead of trading loans as assets, businesses will be required to retain them as a mutual loss on both sides until the debt is paid back in full. No matter how long that takes.

The banks will, of course, scream blue bloody murder at the slightest hint of this notion being taken seriously.

There also needs to be a recognition that high interest rates and freely offered credit are inherently inflationary. They effectively increase the money supply, but devalue the money which is circulating, making the money earned by working people effectively worth less. So credit and high interest have to be heavily regulated, rather than offered on an "open slather" policy.

The banks will, of course, scream blue bloody murder at the slightest hint of this notion being taken seriously.

I'm also thinking the old Hebrew and Muslim thinkers who put up the religious prohibitions on lending at interest were actually onto something. Possibly they'd seen what happened in other societies when such things are permitted to flourish without restriction - the way it acted as a temptation toward bullying and thuggery. "The love of money is the root of all evil" as the wise man said.

Further on the whole "love of money" thing, I also feel there should be an absolute ceiling on profits - particularly the sorts of multi-billion dollar profits which aren't re-invested in the company or the community. I mean really - what are these companies doing with that money? They're not spending it. They're not turning it into bullion and stacking it under the back patio. They're not filling a swimming pool with banknotes so their executives can play Scrooge McDuck (or maybe they are and we're not hearing about it?). No, it's just being accumulated for the sake of accumulation. So maybe there needs to be a ceiling on profits, too - a 10% profit is fair and equitable (that being 10% gross return on investment), but after that, it needs to be either re-invested in the company, or taxed heavily (with the taxes being paid each financial year or face punitive fines).

And if that one ever gets taken seriously, not only the banks, but the entire business community will go up in flames.

This entry was originally posted at http://megpie71.dreamwidth.org/21808.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

Current Mood: thoughtful thoughtful
An Open Letter to WA Senator Michaelia Cash, regarding the Carbon Tax

Dear Senator Cash,

My partner recently received your lovely little screed in the mail - the one about the carbon tax and how this is going to cost local employers and local industries vast amounts of money, and leave them vulnerable to excessive competition from overseas interest. You cited a total of ten companies which employed people in the electorate of Brand (or, more specifically, on the Kwinana industrial strip) by name. Curious, I decided to do a little bit of research on the internet.

Of the ten firms your leaflet mentioned by name, precisely two are actually based and headquartered here in Western Australia (Wesfarmers and Coogee Chemicals - both of which are fairly large companies). Of the rest, six are owned pretty much entirely by multi-national corporations. The other two are Australian-based, but one is based in Queensland, and the other is based in Melbourne.

To give you a quick run-down of the rest:

* BHP-Billiton is a joint Australian-Dutch company (so no, it's no longer the Big Australian, and you'll notice BHP-Billiton doesn't use that slogan any more);
* Alcoa is an alumininum mining and refining multinational firm, with the overall headquarters for the company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA;
* Tiwest is a joint-venture between two Australian subsiduary companies of two different multinational firms - Tronox Incorporated (USA) and Exxaro Resources Limited (South Africa);
* BOC is part of the Linde Group, a large German-based multinational corporation;
* Air Liquide is part of the Air Liquide group, a multinational corporation first incorporated in France, and headquartered in Paris;
* Bradken (while having a wholly Australian company name) is actually owned by a combination of Castle-Harlan Australian Mezzanine Partners (a subsiduary of Castle Harlan, a US-based private equity firm); ESCO Corporation (US owned and based multinational) and Bradken Management (as minority shareholders);

Forgive me for seeming sceptical, but aren't these multi-national corporations exactly the sorts of international competition that your leaflet is implying our local industries and employers will be attempting to match? Given this information, I doubt they'll be having huge amounts of trouble.

(Incidentally, finding all this information took me approximately thirty minutes all up. It's amazing what you can find out from the internet. The information was on the websites of the companies concerned - all it took was a few seconds on google to find each one).

I took a look down the rest of the list of "facts" you provided, and noticed you failed to mention the various tax offsets which were planned (an important part of the carbon tax package) in order to compensate average Australian householders for the increased expense. Since these offsets and compensation are being introduced at the same time as the carbon tax, not mentioning them seems a little disingenuous, to say the least. Particularly since energy bills (both domestic and industrial) in WA have already risen by at least 10% thanks to the actions of the (Liberal) state government.

You failed to mention whether carbon emissions will continue to be rising by the same amount under a carbon tax package as is currently forecast. You failed to mention whether overall carbon emissions per capita will be rising, falling, or remaining steady (and whether there are any changes expected in the size of the Australian population between now and 2020 as well). You fail to mention whether the rise in carbon emissions overall between now and 2020 (from 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes) will be a greater or lesser rise than the equivalent period between 2002 and now.

Your leaflet also fails to mention anywhere (a grievous omission, given your final "fact") that you, in fact, represent the political party which gave the Australian political environment the terms "Core" and "Non-Core" promises. It was the Liberal Party of Australia, under John Howard as Prime Minister, which made it excessively plain to the Australian people that the majority of political promises made by them during an election campaign were in fact "Non-Core" promises - or in other words, outright lies made in order to get elected.

I therefore find it somewhat hypocritical, to say the least, that it is the Liberal Party of Australia who are now harping non-stop on a single "broken" promise made by a member of the ALP.

(Again, this internet thingy is amazing.)

Having said all of this, here is my statement as a voter living in Brand, and a voter living in Western Australia.

I support the carbon tax as an overall good not only for people Parmelia, not only for people in Brand, but for people in Australia, and people the world over. Global climate change is occurring, and we here in the south-western corner of Western Australia have been seeing the effects of it for the past thirty years or more. Something needs to be done to at least begin to tackle the problem. The carbon tax may not be the optimum solution to the problem, but it's better than nothing.

I find the highly negative style of advertising, polling, and campaigning used by the Liberal Party of Australia to be highly offensive. The Liberal Party of Australia has a strong tendency to provide such negative statements particularly surrounding policy areas where their own solutions are lacking either in detail or in existence (I checked your party's website - the last constructive thing I can see about a climate change policy is dated almost a year ago - all the more recent stuff is basically slinging off at the ALP, without offering constructive solutions). I'd be more willing to at least listen to your side of the argument if your party showed any signs of willingness to either fish or cut bait. Instead, the Liberal Party of Australia gives the strong impression of a bunch of whiny toddlers who are sorely in need of being put down for a nap while the grown-ups get on with business.

Sincerely,

Meg Thornton (Ms)

This entry was originally posted at http://megpie71.dreamwidth.org/20751.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

Current Mood: quixotic quixotic
Current Music: "NPWA" - Billy Bragg and the Blokes
Responsibility

The scandal over the phone message data theft in the UK is terrible, and one of the questions which is being asked is "who is responsible?". Who is responsible for this terrible thing happening? Who should take the blame? Who should we punish?

Well, from one angle, the Murdoch family and their News Corporation bear at least some of the responsibility, for creating a news climate where such things can happen, where they can be tried, and where they can be covered up with such success that the true depth of the scandal is only starting to become visible five or six years later. This means everyone in the chain, all the way up from the first journalist to pay the PI for information, right the way through the corporate hierarchy to Rupert Murdoch himself. They profited from the misery of others, and they haven't paid the price. Some of the responsibility is theirs.

From another angle, some of the responsibility lies with the advertisers, who are always seeking the ideal vessel to purvey their product - they want something which will attract a lot of people to see or hear their ads, but they don't want their precious product associated with anything bad. So the advertisers play their part in this, through demanding both the high circulation that the News of the World achieved, and through also demanding the cover-up of sources, and the hiding of illegal behaviour. They were willing to accept the high circulation figures, without asking what was done in the name of achieving this circulation. So some of the responsibility is theirs, also.

From a further angle, there's the responsibility of the telephone companies to provide education and data security for their users. In a large part, the crime of hacking into the message databases was caused by the lack of knowledge on the part of people who owned phones - they didn't know the pass-code existed, didn't know they could use it, didn't know they could alter it. So the pass-codes were left at their default. A simple procedural change, such as ensuring that the account was locked to external access should the user not attempt this within a month of opening their account, would have secured the vast mass of this data. That there was a back-door left not only unlocked, but practically gaping wide open, is not decent data security. So the phone companies bear some responsibility, too.

The journalists who paid for the stolen data bear responsibility, because they knew this data wasn't coming from kosher sources. They knew they weren't respecting the privacy of the people involved. They knew they were effectively breaking the spirit of the law, if not the actual letter of the law, by using this data in order to create their stories. They knew they were encouraging further breaches of the law by paying for the data.

The private eye who figured out how to hack into the phone message banks, and then sold on the data to the News of the World, also bears responsibility, as the one who committed the crime. According to reports, he was paid 100,000 UKP for his services.

There's the politicians who permitted the Murdoch family to purchase so much of the world's news infrastructure (the world's largest news gathering organisation is a privately owned family company). There's the police, who didn't understand the magnitude of the crime when it was presented to them (not to mention the police who were bribed into silence). There's the various managements and journalists of other news organisations, who let their concerns about their own profitability over-ride their interest in the privacy and rights of the people they purport to represent. All of these people are responsible, and all of them will probably be mentioned in articles regarding the whole scandal.

But there's one responsible group the news media won't mention. One group who will be allowed to skate by scot free. One group who won't ever be expected to look their responsibility in the face and name it for what it is. And that's us.

If you've ever bought a newspaper, if you've ever clicked on a link to a news site, if you've ever listened to news radio, or watched the news on television, you bear some responsibility for this as well.

As viewers, listeners, readers, we create the demand for news articles. As viewers, listeners and readers, we've fed the Murdoch machine, given it the money it needed to create a monolithic view of the way news "should" be, a monolithic view of "what sells newspapers, what sells advertising space". We have allowed our news to become tawdry, cheap, nasty, vicious, invasive, insensitive. We have allowed this, because we haven't spoken up and said no. We have allowed this because we've purchased the products the advertisers sell. We have allowed this because we've bought the papers, listened to the radio stations, clicked the links, watched the programs, bought the magazines. We have allowed this, we have facilitated this, by demanding more and more and more and more from the news media; by not criticising it enough; by continuing to feed the maw.

If you feel sickened by the actions of the News of the World; if you feel angry about the actions of the Murdoch family; if you feel self-righteous about the way the advertisers are fleeing the sinking ship, remember: we asked for it.

We asked for it. Now we have it.

Maybe we should start asking for something different.

This entry was originally posted at http://megpie71.dreamwidth.org/18706.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

Current Mood: thoughtful thoughtful
Thoughts on The News.Corp Phone Hacking Scandal

Latest news in this ongoing disaster is that the newspaper imprint at the centre of the scandal, the News of the World, is being shut down.

Certainly, the paper has been haemorrhaging advertisers since the scandal started breaking, and as the breadth and depth of the depravity involved has been further exposed, the advertisers are running further and faster to put distance between themselves and the newspaper that published the majority of the stolen voicemail data. But I have to wonder: what about the rest of the News International/News Corporation stable?

It's worth noting that the executive who was the editor of The News Of The World at the time when most of the data theft occurred is still employed. She's now the Chief Executive of News International, and while she's offered to resign, that offer has been resisted - apparently she "knew nothing of the crimes allegedly committed when she was editor" (sourced from News of the World shuts amid hacking scandal). Which, to me, doesn't really sound like an outstanding endorsement of her managerial ability, to be honest. Either she didn't know about such things (in which case, what the hell was she doing in order to earn her salary?) or she did know and pretended she didn't (which leads me to wonder whether she'd do the same sort of thing when faced with evidence of an embezzlement), or she did know, and took steps to cover it up (which means she's criminally culpable too). She's still employed by News International.

That Ms Brooks is still considered a valuable employee by News International leads me to question the management and ethical practices of the entire damn corporation. The problem which was "resolved" by data theft didn't start in the newsroom of The News of The World. It started further up the corporate ladder, with the constant push on all the News Corporation properties to obtain ever-increasing profits, ever-growing circulation, ever-climbing advertising revenues.

Another thing which interests me is the way that the various News Corporation properties tend to pass a story around. For example, here in Australia, the Australian newspaper will report on a story which "broke" in the magazine New Idea (both of these are News Corporation properties), or they'll pass on a story which started off on Fox News in the USA, or in the Sun over in the UK. So there's the potential for the scandal to go far further than just this one newspaper. If we examine stories propagated across the News Corporation stable of properties throughout the period in which one News Corporation property was buying information obtained through data theft, how many other stories are tainted with this same brush? How far did the rot spread? How far up did the rot go? Did it go all the way to the top?

(It's worth noting that the Australian head of News Limited has officially denied that such a thing could happen over here:

Today, News Limited chief executive officer John Hartigan told the company's Australian journalists "the behaviour that has been uncovered at the News of the World is an affront to all of us who value the integrity and credibility of good journalism, the reputation of the company and our own reputations as professionals."

"Phone hacking is the antithesis of everything we stand for. It is a terrible slur on our craft," he said in a statement to staff posted online.

"I am confident that the practices that have been uncovered in the UK do not exist in Australia, at News or any other respectable media outlet."
- sourced from Murdoch accused of tabloid closure 'stunt'

If, like me, you're a fan of Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister, you know never to believe anything until it's been officially denied.)

[I feel I should mention at this point that I have absolutely no monetary interest in seeing the Murdoch family go down. However, I do feel a certain moral and personal interest in the challenging of their ideology that what people are interested in is solely the cheap, the tawdry, the nasty and the unfriendly. The Murdoch family's News Corporation is a big part of the global kyriarchal bully culture, one which glorifies the petty, nasty side of the human psyche to the point where they present this as the only damn option there is. I don't want to read, watch or hear nasty comments about other people, so I don't purchase their products. Now, if only there were a viable alternative.]

This entry was originally posted at http://megpie71.dreamwidth.org/18534.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

Current Mood: thoughtful thoughtful
Oh gods, someone brick up Tony Abbott's mouth, please.

From these articles:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/20/3248095.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/20/3247842.htm

"Mr Abbott [...] says the Australian people should be able to vote on one of the biggest economic changes in Australia's history."

You what?

Well, of course. Let's have a plebiscite about this tax. Just like the one we had about the GST.

Oh, hang on. There wasn't one.

There was a lot of horse-trading between the various state governments and the Commonwealth government, and there was one hell of a lot of political bargaining between the various parties in the House and the Senate. But there wasn't a plebiscite. The idea of asking the Australian people about whether they'd like a brand new regressive[1] tax imposed on them wasn't even floated - possibly because the Powers-That-Be in Canberra knew perfectly well that the answer would be somewhere between "no" and "hell, no!" So we just had the Liberals engaging in a lot of horse trading with the minor parties and independents in the Senate (Senator Brian Harradine? Remember him?) and making the decisions for us based on what they thought we'd like (which led to such thoroughly logical things as condoms and safety razors being GST free, but feminine "sanitary articles" being taxed).

What about some of the other things we weren't asked our opinions of - things like going to war in Iraq; going to war in Afghanistan; participating in the "War on Terror" (what, nouns are a threat now?); the various "solutions" to refugee issues which mainly consisted of "White Australia Policy II"; the health insurance industry subsidies (aka "Medicare levy discount"); WorkChoices; the continuing "deregulation" of the Australian media - little things like those? Should the ALP have been able to stand up and say "we want a plebiscite on this" about every single issue?

I think one of the things Mr Abbott has forgotten is this: Australia is a representative democracy. This means instead of spending $69 million on a giant opinion poll of the Australian public over every single damn issue, we spent that $69 million once every three or four years on a bunch of smaller opinion polls about which person is going to represent our opinions over in Canberra. It's what the parliamentary system is for. We had an election a year ago. The results of that election still stand, even if Mr Abbott thinks the majority of the Australian public got it seriously wrong.

We had our plebiscite a year ago. We voted in a hung parliament rather than a simple majority of either party. We heard both leaders make commitments to work for a "better, less adversarial solution" to the problem of law-making. Funny how only the ALP seems to be keeping those commitments. Mr Abbott, your party doesn't appear to be willing to fish, or to cut bait - so why should we be listening to you?

[1] Regressive taxes are the ones which take a bigger proportion of your income the less you earn - and a 10% sales tax on most goods and services is definitely something which takes a proportionately bigger chunk out of a lower income, as opposed to a higher one. This is because people on a lower income spend a larger proportion of their income on inflexible (unchangeable) expenses - things like food, water, power etc - than people on higher incomes.

PS: For those wonderful people on the comments thread of the second article I listed who strongly implied that the GLOBAL problem of GLOBAL climate change isn't something Australians can (or indeed should) address by internalising the cost of pollution to our polluting industries, I have one simple question: in your opinions, who should be making the changes, and when?

I'm strongly of the opinion that the problem of global warming is somewhat like the problem of emptying the oceans - "every little helps". Someone has to try something. Someone has to go first. Why not us, and why not now?

This entry was originally posted at http://megpie71.dreamwidth.org/17319.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

Current Mood: irritated irritated
My 5c on Julian Assagne

Most of this was published yesterday as a comment on Shakesville, and it's something I've thought about for about a week or so. I figure it's quicker and easier to post it once here, and then I can link it everywhere else.

Long screed under here )

Or the teal deer version: playing the martyred hero of the Left doesn't immediately make Julian Assagne into one.

This entry was originally posted at http://megpie71.dreamwidth.org/11037.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

Current Mood: cynical cynical
Current Music: "The Masochism Tango", Tom Lehrer
Post-Election analysis

So, the election is over and done, the counting goes on, and it looks like we're going to have a minority government no matter which party gets the most seats (so far it's looking like 73 all for both Labor and Liberal - which means the balance of power, which is currently held by 4 independents and a Greens member, is going to be crucial in getting legislation across the line). It hasn't been a big win for either of the major parties, although Tony Abbott is busy talking up the idea of the Libs having a mandate to form a government (they don't) and that the Labor party has lost out to the Liberals (they didn't - most of Labor's lost votes went to the Greens).

Either way, we're getting the two standard post-election behaviours out of things. The first is the party which is perceived to have "lost" the election (in this case, the ALP) is turning into a circular arse-kicking contest. The second is having people saying the election result proves we're doin' it rong, and we should change the way Australian votes are cast or counted. The old chestnuts which have been brought out for their regular polishing are "abolish compulsory voting", "bring in first-past-the-post counting" and "one vote one value".

Let's deal with each of these in turn. The "abolish compulsory voting" one is fairly straightforward - in Australia, as in any democratic nation, one of the responsibilities of a citizen is to participate in the political process by voting in elections. So in Australia, we take this seriously, and expect people to turn out and receive their ballot papers so they can vote. If you don't turn out and get your ballot paper, you can be fined. It's a small fine ($50 - you pay more if you're caught speeding) but it's enough to make people actually head down to the local primary school once every three years and get their ballot papers. Note I'm not saying it actually makes people VOTE - the compulsory bit stops when you receive your ballot paper. You don't have to fill in a valid vote (and the number of people who voted invalidly during this election increased, which some folks are seeing as another message to the various political players). But you do have to do your democratic duty and participate in the process - even if nobody's taking their time to spoon feed you all the information about your local candidates, or their policies or similar.

I happen to think this is a good thing for Australia, overall. For one thing, it means elections are much more representative of the opinions of the Australian public than any poll, write-in survey or other measure, because there's a sufficiently large sample being taken (approximately 90% of all Australians over the age of 18). It's also much more representative than the sample obtained in such places as the United States (where the election results measure the opinions of as little as 40% of the US voting population) or the United Kingdom (again, about 40% turn-out). To put this in perspective - an elected government in the US or the UK can represent the opinions of as little as 20% of the population. An elected government in Australia represents the opinions of at least 45% of the population.

There's also issues of accessibility to be considered. In Australia, participating in an election is an enforced responsibility. Thus there is a requirement on the part of the people who administer the election process (the Australian Electoral Commission) to ensure the maximum number of people are able to participate in the voting process with the minimum of inconvenience. This means our voting day is inevitably a Saturday (as compared to a Tuesday in the US), when the majority of people aren't at work. Those who are working generally are allowed to take time off to vote, or are encouraged to put in a postal vote. There's also numerous polling places which have facilities for absentee votes (voting in an electorate you're not registered in because you're at work, on holiday, etc). There are facilities for Australians who aren't going to be in Australia when an election occurs to cast a vote by post. There are specialist polling facilities which go around hospitals. There are efforts made to make polling places accessible to persons who are using either permanent or temporary mobility aids (although these vary in effectiveness). There are even efforts to make it possible for persons who have vision impairments to be able to cast a vote in privacy (rather than requiring a sighted person to assist). All of this is the reciprocal side of Australians being required to turn out and get their ballot papers at each election.

Overall, I feel the requirement to turn out and receive a ballot paper is one of the more important ones in the Australian political system. It means we have a system which is accessible, and it means we have a system which encourages participation.

Now, on to "first past the post" counting. At the moment, the Australian system is set up so that in order to win a seat in the House of Representatives, a candidate must achieve a number of votes equivalent to 50% of the vote plus one vote more. If a candidate achieves that amount of votes on first preferences, then no worries, they're elected. But what if none of the candidates achieves the necessary votes to become elected on first preferences alone? In such a case, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and their votes are sorted on their second preference. Then we run the query again: does any candidate have 50% of the votes plus one vote more? (In programming, this would be a while loop - while nobody has enough votes to win, keep eliminating candidates from the bottom of the pile, and redistributing votes according to the next preference down the line).

An example, if you will. Consider the House of Representatives seat of Goddzone, with a population of 100,000. There are six candidates standing - one from the Worker's Party, one from the Conservative Party, one from the Environmentalist Party, one from the Farmer's Party, one from the Christian Theocratic Party, and one from the White Supremacist Party (so in other words, a pretty normal spread for an Aussie electorate). Each voter on election day will receive their ballot papers, and they'll be instructed (both on the ballot paper and verbally by the AEC official) to number the candidates in order of preference from 1 through 6. Here's the numbers after the first preference count:

 

First Round of Counting
Worker's Party40,000
Conservative Party40,000
Environmentalist Party15,000
Farmer's Party2,000   
Christian Theocratic Party2,000
White Supremacist Party   1,000
More long-winded political rambling )
Distributing Preferences from White Supremacist Party
Conservative Party40,400+400 2nd preferences from the White Supremacist Party
Worker's Party40,000 
Environmentalist Party15,000 
Farmer's Party2,400+400 2nd preferences from the White Supremacist Party
Christian Theocratic Party2,200+200 2nd preferences from the White Supremacist Party
More long-winded political rambling )
Distributing Christian Theocratic Party Preferences
Conservative Party40,900+400 2nd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
  +100 3rd preferences from the White Supremacist Party
Worker's Party40,500+500 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
Environmentalist Party15,900+400 2nd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
  +500 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
Farmer's Party2,700+200 2nd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
  +100 3rd preferences from the White Supremacist Party
More long-winded political rambling )
Distributing Farmer's Party Preferences
Conservative Party42,050+1,000 2nd preferences from the Farmer's Party
  +100 3rd preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via FP)
  +50 4th preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via FP)
Worker's Party41,800+1,000 2nd preferences from the Farmer's Party
  +100 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
  +100 3rd preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via FP)
  +50 4th preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via FP)
  +50 4th preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via CTP)
Environmentalist Party16,150+100 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
  +50 4th preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
  +50 4th preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via FP)
  +50 4th preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via CTP)
More long-winded political rambling )
Environmentalist Party Preferences
Conservative Party47,625+5,000 2nd preferences from the Environmentalist Party
  +200 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
  +300 4th preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
  +25 5th preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
  +50 5th preferences from the White Supremacist Party
Worker's Party52,375+10,000 2nd preferences from the Environmentalist Party
  +200 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
  +300 4th preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
  +25 5th preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
  +50 5th preferences from the White Supremacist Party
More long-winded political rambling )

Current Mood: quixotic quixotic
Thoughts on the Australian Election

No, I aten't dead. I've just been staying quiet due to things like the beginning of a new semester at Uni (three programming units and a maths unit which requires a lot of programming - if I haven't been in larval mode before, I will be by the end of semester) and lack of interesting stuff to say. But there's an election on Saturday, and I figure I'll just give a short (okay, very long) rundown of the way I'm seeing things.

Longwinded political ramblings below )

So this election, I'll be voting Green, with preferences going to the minor parties before either of the two big ones, and with Labor getting a higher preference than the Liberals. Much the same as last time, in other words.

This entry was originally posted at http://megpie71.dreamwidth.org/10058.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

Current Mood: busy busy
  Viewing 20 - 28 Forward