Posts by Andre Alessi
-
"Pffffsssshhhhhttttt".
-
"Positive".
-
Hard News: The humanity, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
And that is where our Media have failed then.
Coverage of Dirty Politics in the media was generally pretty good-a little focused on gotcha moments rather than structural issues, sure, but it made headlines for weeks.
But voters now have more opportunities than ever to filter out the information they're not interested in. It used to be you'd have to sit through the 6 pm news from start to finish to hear the bits you want; now, people can just mute certain sources on Facebook or fast forward the DVR through the bits they don't want to hear, and that's that. You can't convince people to pay attention to something directly, you have to provide a context where they want to do that, and for a whole range of reasons that context didn't exist for many people.
-
Assuming that the Tsujihara email is the fake it appears to be, the two options as to its source are equally unappealing: either KDC got played and no one in his circle had the pull to talk him out of it, or he was in on the fake from the beginning and went ahead anyway.
-
Hard News: Privacy and the Public Interest, in reply to Keir Leslie,
If we had stricter lobbying rules a lot of what Slater did when acting under pay would likely have had to have been made public, which would have defeated the purpose.
The changes to the Electoral Act have certainly resulted in some interesting consequences.
-
Hard News: Didn't see that coming, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
When did IMP suggest hiring for below minimum wage?
They didn't. However, it's implicit in the policy:
$1.1 billion will be used to create shorter term jobs (3-18 months’ duration) and to administer the programmes. The remaining $200 million per year will be available for longer term grants to create sustainable work emerging from the initiatives supported.
The aim is to fill gaps where the market is not able to create and fund jobs and to create sustainable community-based employment.
The work will reflect the wide range of skill levels among those who are unemployed or under-employed.
The intention may be to fund work that would otherwise not get done because the immediate economic benefits don't justify hiring people to do the work, but that isn't how employers will actually use the grants. They'll see "free money for work people otherwise wouldn't do even at minimum wage".
I get that intent does count for something in policy, but explicitly calling the policy "right to work" should be raising the hackles of anyone who isn't actively anti-union.
-
Hard News: Didn't see that coming, in reply to James George,
That;s a bit strawman isn't it? There are many other alternatives - reminds me of a scheme I once co-ordinated which was all about getting the huge stack of unemployed artist registration cards 'off the books'...
I don't have a problem with the kind of scheme you describe, as long as it's limited, targeted and genuinely voluntary. But it's a different kettle of fish when a government makes this kind of scheme standard practice or compulsory for an industry, which is what IMP is proposing.
Imagine a situation where employers could routinely hire call center workers for below minimum wage on short term contracts to "fulfill a need", for example. It would be sold to the public as " giving new workers experience" even though call center experience is not particularly useful to workers, and the effect would be depressing wages further in what is already a low-paying industry.
-
I'm confused by IMP's "Right to Work" policy. There's a few good bits in there (especially the varying sizes of the R&D and innovation grants) but the name alone is a massive red flag, and:
The aim is to fill gaps where the market is not able to create and fund jobs and to create sustainable community-based employment.
This gets into the same economic issues as prisoner work schemes: either people are made to work in extremely low value jobs, or they compete with employers who have to pay much higher wages.
-
Hard News: We can do better than this, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,
the only PR offer I’ve had was to write about a well known brand of baked beans in exchange for one (1) can of the baked beans.
I've always suspected you were in the pocket of Big Bean, Robyn.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to SteveH,
Oh, I don’t doubt that he does enjoy it, but not in a particularly pathological way. He wouldn’t complain about criticism as much as he does if he was genuinely ill (which is an allegation I see tossed around regularly.) Getting attention is definitely a significant part of what he believes he’s doing.
My point was rather A) there’s nothing inherent in his politics that necessitates his behaviour (or vice versa), and B) there’s no reason to assume genuine mental illness as an explanation for his behaviour when his actions are viewed as a means to an end, even if he happens to enjoy distasteful elements of what he does. (That doesn’t mean I approve of his actions or think they’re justified in any way, just that I don’t think writing his behaviour off in those ways is particularly helpful.)