JC Political Thread - For All Things Political Part 2

[Calaber]

I think it's pretty clear that the target audience is in metropolitan Melbourne (and the outer suburbs of the other Australian capital cities).

And the point of that would be?

I agree with others who have said that advertising within Australia, in multilingual mode as they are currently doing, is simply saying to existing Australian residents "Look, see what we are doing?" ie point-scoring leading into the election. Like so many other commercials currently airing on TV. Education, Disability Insurance, (couple of others that escape me at present) - all designed not to inform Australians of how the schemes work, simply reminding the public that they exist. They are proudly shown to reinforce what the Government has done/is doing/will do. It's not illegal, unethical or immoral - it's politics 101. Either side would do the same thing under the circumstances. It puts the squeeze on the Opposition because they can only say what they will or won't do if they win the election and particularly in the case of the boats, steals Abbott's thunder. The government knows it's on a winner with the boats policy, Gonski and the NDIS. All policies have high social and public acceptance (Greens excepted, but who cares about them?)

The only things that can really stuff this up for the ALP is the timing of the election and Rudd Mk 2 turning out to simply be Rudd Mk 1 with a new set of clothes. If he takes too long announcing the election date, his gloss will start to wear off. It already has to some extent. Further, the boats policy is still in its infancy and hasn't had time to take effect. Rudd needs plenty of time, which he doesn't have, to have this policy work.

 

[Cheap6]

And the point of that would be?

I agree with others who have said that advertising within Australia, in multilingual mode as they are currently doing, is simply saying to existing Australian residents "Look, see what we are doing?" ie point-scoring leading into the election.

Exactly.

Further, the boats policy is still in its infancy and hasn't had time to take effect. Rudd needs plenty of time, which he doesn't have, to have this policy work.

When, not if, when, the policy doesn't work the election will have already taken place.

 

[Reaper]

I think it's pretty clear that the target audience is in metropolitan Melbourne (and the outer suburbs of the other Australian capital cities).

I'm fine with the advertising if it were paid for by the ALP and not the taxpayer. There have been some doozies in the past (both sides) but this takes the cake.

And the point of that would be?

I agree with others who have said that advertising within Australia, in multilingual mode as they are currently doing, is simply saying to existing Australian residents "Look, see what we are doing?" ie point-scoring leading into the election. Like so many other commercials currently airing on TV. Education, Disability Insurance, (couple of others that escape me at present) - all designed not to inform Australians of how the schemes work, simply reminding the public that they exist. They are proudly shown to reinforce what the Government has done/is doing/will do. It's not illegal, unethical or immoral - it's politics 101. Either side would do the same thing under the circumstances. It puts the squeeze on the Opposition because they can only say what they will or won't do if they win the election and particularly in the case of the boats, steals Abbott's thunder. The government knows it's on a winner with the boats policy, Gonski and the NDIS. All policies have high social and public acceptance (Greens excepted, but who cares about them?)

The only things that can really stuff this up for the ALP is the timing of the election and Rudd Mk 2 turning out to simply be Rudd Mk 1 with a new set of clothes. If he takes too long announcing the election date, his gloss will start to wear off. It already has to some extent. Further, the boats policy is still in its infancy and hasn't had time to take effect. Rudd needs plenty of time, which he doesn't have, to have this policy work.

The thing is with this policy, the agreement reached with PNG doesn't gel with the rhetoric. Rudd announced that all boat people deemed refugees will be resettled in PNG. The released information from the ALP makes no mention of *any* obligation for PNG to accept such people. Further to that, even at the announcement the PNG PM was not quite as gushing as Rudd. Rudd said that PNG "would take as many as necessary". The PNG PM said "as many as we can". It's a subtle but very important difference in this case.

I still think the concept can work. The problem is once again when you drill thru the detail (what little there is), it starts to unravel very quickly. That said, so much for Rudd "not lurching to the right on Asylum seekers" as he decreed when he was first rolled by Gillard. Makes it just as hard as it was with Gillard to decide what they really believe and what is done just to save their own skins. It's not something I like in a leader.

 

[Reaper]

Kevin Rudd flags increase to tobacco excise ahead of release of Government's economic statement - Leftie News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) <- quoted that one coz it's from the only "approved" media source on JC :thumbsup:

FFS. How dumb does mr Rudd think Australia is?? I'm a non smoker and really don't give a **** but really. This is not about health but about raising revenue. Just for once I'd like him to be honest - we need money and this is where we are going to get it.

 

[c2105026]

Kevin Rudd flags increase to tobacco excise ahead of release of Government's economic statement - Leftie News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) <- quoted that one coz it's from the only "approved" media source on JC :thumbsup:

FFS. How dumb does mr Rudd think Australia is?? I'm a non smoker and really don't give a **** but really. This is not about health but about raising revenue. Just for once I'd like him to be honest - we need money and this is where we are going to get it.

Yeh its just spin. But its ok, because it is 100% ok to be against smoking, pick on smokers etc. Since we can't pick on the gay community and coloured people any more (and rightfully so) we all need someone to pick on and nowadays its the smoker. Back when I was in Bali (and smoking at the time) you could light up pretty much anywhere. You could tell when a New South Welshperson was nearby. As soon as you lit up, even if they were on the opposite side of the room, they would start spluttering before the smoke reached them. Now I have no issue with strong regulation of the tobacco industry - Provided - we also stringently regulate all other avenues of vice. Namely Alcohol, Junk food, and gambling (in particular poker machines).

 

[Reaper]

Yeh its just spin. But its ok, because it is 100% ok to be against smoking, pick on smokers etc. Since we can't pick on the gay community and coloured people any more (and rightfully so) we all need someone to pick on and nowadays its the smoker. Back when I was in Bali (and smoking at the time) you could light up pretty much anywhere. You could tell when a New South Welshperson was nearby. As soon as you lit up, even if they were on the opposite side of the room, they would start spluttering before the smoke reached them. Now I have no issue with strong regulation of the tobacco industry - Provided - we also stringently regulate all other avenues of vice. Namely Alcohol, Junk food, and gambling (in particular poker machines).

ahem..... Last I checked Australia was supposedly a FREE country. Seriously, govco should #### off telling us how to run our lives.

 

[gossie]

Smoke smoke smoke that cigarette, smoke smoke until you smoke yourself to death--------------------

 

[Julie]

Forget taxing them wish the govt would grow a set and just ban the damn things. It has always been about revenue raising, not health. Phase it in over the next 5-10 years that they are a prescription drug only to be prescribed to addicts and never to anyone under 18. There will be complications, illegal tobacco and such, treat it as you would illicit drugs, most people are good law abiding citizens so it would save most people. Nanny state, who cares I for one am sick of seeing loved ones die because of their addiction to these cancer sticks 2 family members in the last 3 years and another 2 with lung and liver cancers who will be lucky to see out christmas.

 

[vr94ss]

Forget taxing them wish the govt would grow a set and just ban the damn things. It has always been about revenue raising, not health. Phase it in over the next 5-10 years that they are a prescription drug only to be prescribed to addicts and never to anyone under 18. There will be complications, illegal tobacco and such, treat it as you would illicit drugs, most people are good law abiding citizens so it would save most people. Nanny state, who cares I for one am sick of seeing loved ones die because of their addiction to these cancer sticks 2 family members in the last 3 years and another 2 with lung and liver cancers who will be lucky to see out christmas.

I smoke, well I've had 2 in the last 4 days, I'm always giving up, and if they just banned them I'd be rapt!

 

[c2105026]

ahem..... Last I checked Australia was supposedly a FREE country. Seriously, govco should #### off telling us how to run our lives.

I don't know, law already tells me I (and I assume all other persons in Australia) cannot drive whilst drunk/stoned/unrestrained/using a phone/exceeding the speed limit, shoplift, kill other people or domestic animals, lie in a court of law, vandalise other people's property, produce and market cocaine/heroin, sell shoddy products, lie for financial gain, steal money or other goods, or even discriminate on a variety of grounds. Pesky laws.....no organised human civilisation is free. There is always a degree of legal system and conformity.

Banning tobacco - great idea in theory. But pot is banned and the cops have enough issues with keeping on top of that. 'War on Drugs' will go up hugely. America tried prohibition of a widely used substance (booze), it didn't work because, as I understand, it was too hard to enforce.