People advocating for digital voting under an Abbott government.

Weve got more chance of success by voting using pigeon messages than having a fully functioning digital voting system especially if we using nodes

Didn't see Labor introduce it...

Digital voting isn't 'online voting'.

It's computerised voting at a local booth.

I want to see the hanging chad...

What next for the Australian left?

A period of reflection, anger and despondency is expected. But calmer heads will soon realise the left must offer solid alternatives – here are some pointers

Antony Loewenstein

Treating voters with contempt is the perfect way for the left to guarantee itself permanent exile from the political scene.

On election night, Melbourne writer Catherine Deveny tweeted: “This is win for racists, morons, homophobes, fuckheads, jumped up bogans, misogynists, billionaires, haters, comedians.” Such sentiments might momentarily make you feel good and superior to your fellow voters, but in the end you’re merely speaking to the converted; succumbing to rage is the wrong response to an outcome you're unhappy with. Overland editor Jeff Sparrow perfectly articulated the issues the day after Tony Abbott’s victory:

The left can easily fall prey to bitterness, a disdain for the public who voted in such a deeply reactionary figure. That would be a terrible mistake. Denouncing ordinary Australians as fools and halfwits, as slackjawed dupes of Murdoch too dim to grasp the obvious, might make us feel better but hurling abuse at those you want to convince has never been a successful strategy, particularly in a context in which the left is all too often portrayed as a clique of self-satisfied elitists.

So let us look forward instead, and analyse what the left should (and shouldn't) do.

Blaming Rupert Murdoch for Labor’s loss only highlights the lack of viable media alternatives; the Australian Financial Review’s Neil Chenoweth rightly argues that News Limited’s influence is inflated by its own bluster. Finding new and original ways to cover elections is vital, including resourced, ethical and accountable independent coverage from every seat in the country via print, online and social media sources. This could be be financed through ingenuity and a desire for local news to grow (America shows us the way).

A plethora of minor parties thrived this election. One in particular, the Wikileaks party, should have been a far more effective advocate for free speech but was let down by internal mismanagement and lack of transparency (something highlighted by strong Wikileaks backer, Gary Lord, on the day of the election). It’s simply not good enough to claim that libertarianism is opposed by the left and right in Australia, which might explain why Wikileaks polled so poorly. A raft of high-profile departures during the campaign tainted the Wikileaks party’s oft-stated claims of accountability. I write this with sadness, after being a Wikileaks supporter since 2006.

By all means, let’s not ignore the consistent campaign by Murdoch’s minions dressed up as journalists and editors to destroy Labor and the Greens. The “absolutist tendencies” of the Greens, condemned by The Australian this week, is nothing more than corporate frustration over the Greens surviving and maintaining much of its parliamentary numbers; its national influence, likely reduced, will continue.

Already much has been written about the decline of the Greens vote and why this signals confusion amongst the public about the role of the party: are they left-wing agitators, permanent opponents of government, or simply paying the price for sleeping and working with a neo-liberal Labor party? I’d argue the last option. The Greens' humane policy on asylum seekers was arguably one of the key factors lifting its falling support. NSW Greens senator Lee Rhiannon is already frankly assessing what her party needs to do under a Coalition government to clearly differentiate itself from the Labor party on key issues such as tackling rising temperatures and Denticare.

Leaving Australian politics to the two major, pro-war parties is not a rational option so a vibrant Greens, and/or alternative left-wing force, is vital. The Greens need a thorough examination of the kind of party they want to be in the 21st century after unsuccessfully joining elite Canberra politics in 2010. For a party so committed to tackling serious climate change, it’s hard to celebrate then leader Bob Brown’s “win” over a climate package that locked in notoriously corrupt international “offsets”, especially from Europe.

The future viability of a party that wants to obtain far more than 9% of the national vote requires a serious investigation into what went wrong. History records very few examples globally of a left, green party succeeding by moving closer to the centre. The German Greens are currently suffering this fate.
The Greens candidate for the inner Sydney seat of Grayndler, Hall Greenland, wrote this week that “without a positive and convincing model of an alternative society, voters are going to be generally conservative and defensive.” This should involve explaining why a larger and more accountable public sector, better public transport, more independent foreign policy, open borders, serious action on climate change and more regulation on energy companies must all be part of any long-term strategy.

But this isn’t the 1960s or 1970s. Lives and the world have changed, so the left must adapt to different circumstances and explain why a bigger, publicly funded safety net – unlike the increasingly privatised network of failures in Western Australia under Liberal premier Colin Barnett – is the best way to ensure long-term prosperity.

A serious left will look both inwardly and globally for answers, and they may not like what they see. Canadian journalist Naomi Klein condemns mainstream green groups for foolishly jumping into bed with corporations to reduce carbon emissions. In a clear message to the Greens and other green groups, she explains that such partnerships have been a spectacular failure. She recently told Earth Island Journal that handouts to polluting corporations – a key part of Labor policy, backed by the Greens – has shown “the way in which neo-liberal economic orthodoxy has infiltrated the scientific establishment”. The scale of the climate crisis, due to the likely ongoing burning of dirty fossil fuels, requires sober consideration.

A period of reflection, anger and despondency is expected. But calmer heads will soon realise that a strong left must do more than just resist the onslaught of cultural, economic, climate and covert wars. Whether it’s the Greens or other political forces, a palatable and popular left shouldn’t just wait until the stock market crashes before expecting a rise in support. The global financial crisis in 2008 should have been a golden age for the left, a rare opportunity to show the failures of the Wall Street corruption. The Occupy movement was a brief and glorious moment.
Never underestimate the resilience of vulture capitalism. The challenges faced by the left remain great.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/12/what-next-australian-left

A terrific leftie article. But who's gonna pay for all that largesse?

lol @ Turnbull on Facebook.

-PB

That's a good idea, but I can see a lot of people going "well what's the point?" But it'd also help stop accusations of vote tampering.

Malcolm Turnbull rejects online petition to keep Labor's NBN plan, saying democracy has spoken

The Coalition has hit back at an online petition to scrap its National Broadband Network plan, saying the election victory gives it a mandate to implement its policy.

The petition, launched earlier this week by Queensland university student Nick Paine, has gathered more than 200,000 signatures.

Mr Paine, 20, said he wanted to protest the Coalition's plans to switch the NBN to a $29.5 billion fibre-to-the-node model.

He wants the new government to continue rolling out the $44.1 billion fibre-to-the-premises network begun under Labor.

The Coalition Government's communications spokesman, Malcolm Turnbull, posted a statement on his website saying the party's election win gave it a mandate to go ahead with its NBN plan.

"The promoters of this petition apparently believe that we should ignore the lengthy public debate on the NBN that preceded the election and also ignore the election result," he said.

NBN plans compared

   
Fixed line speeds   100mbps
(1000mbps in future)   25-100mbps
Satellite speeds   12mpbs-25mbps   12mpbs-25mbps
Fibre to home   93% of premises   22% of premises
Fibre to node   0% of premises   71% of premises
Finished by   2021   2019
Cost   $44 billion   $29.5 billion

"[That] we should, within days of the election, walk away from one of our most well-debated, well-understood and prominent policies.

"Democracy? I don't think so."

A fibre-to-the-premises network connects every home and business with optical fibre cables.

The Coalition plan uses optical fibre to street cabinets and then uses Telstra's copper network for the last leg.

It is ultimately slower internet, but it can be rolled out faster and cheaper.

Mr Turnbull said the suggestion that a fibre-to-the-premises network should be rolled out regardless of time or cost was "reckless in the extreme".

"The NBN project at present is running over budget and way behind schedule," he said.

"There will be a strategic review conducted within the next 60 days which will show how long it will take and how much it will cost to complete the NBN on the current specifications and what that means both to the taxpayer and to the consumers."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-12/malcolm-turnbull-labels-anti-nbn-petition-reckless/4954858?

Some people are stupid, we had an election last week which to all intents and purposes decided this issue,,,,you can't vote one way and then petition for a different result, naive.

Edited by Joffa: 12/9/2013 10:04:08 PM

wahh waahh..I want my interwebs and i went them now..just more self-entitled gen Y's havin a cry that tax payers won't pay for their toys

So basically..."If you voted for one of our policies, you voted for ALL of our policies and we won't be changing anything, regardless of popular opinion."

Am I allowed to cry about negative gearing yet? Or is that sacred cow of the boomers untouchable? Or the car FBT tax rort?

Plus your post isn't even correct, NBN earns money for the Government, it will make it's investment cost back, any taxpayer who doesn't order a service (and no-one is forced to) will not pay a cent of the NBN.

Not that it matters anymore but....


Households will be $3,800 richer by 2020 thanks to speedy broadband like NBN: report
By Monique Ross

Australian households would be about $3,800 a year better off in 2020 with super-fast broadband like Labor's National Broadband Network (NBN), according to new research.

Independent forecaster Deloitte Access Economics, which was commissioned by the Government to evaluate the benefits high-speed broadband would bring to families, notes the NBN would help make the nation a "fully digital economy".

Its report found households would reap the benefits of a boosted e-commerce industry, more online services, greater employment opportunities and savings in travel time and money.

"Our estimate is average annual household benefits will be worth around $3,800 in 2020, in current dollars," the report said.

"Around two-thirds of these benefits ($2,400) are financial benefits, the rest are the equivalent monetary value of consumer benefits such as travel time savings and convenience of e-commerce."

The report found Australians would see higher quality goods and services at lower prices "as businesses take up new productivity-boosting applications of the digital economy".

It also found speedy broadband would allow more people to work from home, leading to reduced travel costs, higher workforce participation and more jobs - particularly for those in regional areas.

In a joint media statement issued by Labor, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Communications Minister Anthony Albanese hailed the report.

NBN plans compared

   
Fixed line speeds   100mbps
(1000mbps in future)   25-100mbps
Satellite speeds   12mpbs-25mbps   12mpbs-25mbps
Fibre to home   93% of premises   22% of premises
Fibre to node   0% of premises   71% of premises
Finished by   2021   2019
Cost   $44 billion   $29.5 billion

Read our explainer on the network differences

"This report demonstrates that the NBN will not only transform the Australian economy and improve our national competitiveness, but will also directly benefit every family in the country," they said.

"Federal Labor is building the NBN because it is so important for Australia's future prosperity.

"Tony Abbott will cut the NBN, just like he will cut the SchoolKids bonus, cut health funding, and cut increases in superannuation payments.

"When it comes to super-fast, affordable and reliable broadband, only Federal Labor will do it once, do it right, and do it with fibre."

The NBN Co is using a technology called 'fibre to the premises', which goes all the way to a home, to build most of the network.

The Coalition has said it would continue to roll out fibre optic cable but unlike Labor's $37.4 billion plan, it would not extend right up to the house.

Instead, it would rely on Telstra's existing copper wire network to connect to premises. It says this method is faster and cheaper, but it will come with slower speeds.

The report notes that in 2020, download speeds for high-speed broadband would be anywhere between 25 and 100 mega bits per second, or even 1 gigabit per second.

It says fibre to the premises (FTTP) systems like the NBN would likely be capable of achieving this.

Turnbull says Australians want fast broadband 'now'

However, Opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has also pledged that 25 mbps would be the minimum speeds achieved under the Coalition's policy.

Mr Turnbull says all Australians will be better off if they have very fast broadband, but he says under Labor, that will not happen any time soon.

VIDEO: Turnbull says Coalition will deliver same benefits sooner (ABC News)
"Labor's completed less than 2 per cent of its fibre build after four years of construction. It will take decades to complete it," he said.

"If you believe that there are very big economic benefits from universal, very fast broadband, then you want to get it built as quickly as possible and as affordably as possible. And we will deliver that."

Mr Turnbull says the report does not address the arguments for fibre to the premises or fibre to the node.

And he says the speeds that Deloitte refers to to are all available under the Coalition's plan.

"The Deloitte report is not an argument in favour of fibre to the premises, it's an argument in favour of everyone having very fast broadband," Mr Turnbull said.

"I totally endorse that. I've got a few issues with their methodology but I agree with the idea that everyone should have very fast broadband but they should have it now."

High-speed broadband in different homes

Deloitte Access Economics also used scenarios provided by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to weigh up how high-speed broadband would impact on different types of households.

It found a single person aged over 75 could be up to $7,000 better off each year because improved access to online health services may reduce the number of doctor visits needed and keep them out of an aged care home.

A university student aged under 25 with a casual job could access education online, and thus live at home, saving about $5,000 in 2020.

A single-income couple that runs a small business and has two children could be more than $7,000 a year better off due to factors including boosted productivity and better education opportunities for their children.

"The type of impacts varies between different household scenarios. For example, for some there are significant financial benefits, but only modest time-saving benefits," the report said.

"In other situations, households may be out of pocket financially, but this may be more than compensated by other benefits.

"Further, there are a range of time factors to consider: in the single year of 2020 benefits may be low, but there can be significant long-term benefits, such as from additional earnings through education."

The report's analysis was based on gross domestic product (GDP) and the number of households in Australia in 2013.

"It does not look at forecast GDP or population estimates in 2020, as these would be influenced by a number of factors other than high-speed broadband," the report notes.

The authors also say their report is not a cost-benefit analysis of high-speed broadband, and "does not include analysis of the capital or operational costs of broadband networks".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-04/report-shows-households-will-be-3800-better-off-under-nbn/4932976

Boomers? I'm Gen X (44 y o)and have two rentals,all paid off positively geared, plus my home Every year I pay $15k in additional tax related to these properties. If and when I sell I'll get stung 25% in CGT of the increase in their value. If I was to sell tomorrow that will be $200+k.

Where did I get the money: I busted my arse to earn a place in a professional degree at Melb Uni coming from Melbourne's West, then worked through all uni breaks and on weekends, and then on qualification, worked 50+ hours per week, where drove my old man's 1979 VB Commodore with rusted floor for 5 years. No "gap year", no Euro holidays, no gadgets, 60 inch TV's.

Most of my mates are still paying off their one home- same opportunities as me, but they made different choices. My son will have a home to live in and avoid the rent trap. Do I gave a fig about my mates kids who won't beacsue their parents made different choices. No effen' way.



Whoa there a minute.

The NBN is being built right now using some of my tax payers dollars, right now. If I don't order the service I will NOT get my tax dollars back, and I have no say in where any of the future profits end up: more baby bonuses, more maternity leave, more waste on useless laptops for school kids, and fuck knows what hair-brained schemes they'll come up with

Oh dear won't touch this one :lol:


Ideologically you obviously don't believe in government spending any money on infrastructure, social welfare or incentives to get more people in the workforce. I respect that, however:
If you don't have any say on where the future money is spent, why do you have any say now?

Why not? don't tell me you think its all about good luck and birth right? That everyone who is a "have not" is so because of how the "haves" set society up so others fail?

I've grew up as one of the "have nots". I did what I could to improve my lot. Many of mates in the exact same situation made different choices and ended up with different outcomes. Should I feel an obligation to support them and their children? No, not one iota.



Wrong.

I came from a blue collar Labor home, and always voted Labor until 2007, because in the past it was a party that had fairer social policies: universal health care ala Medicare, improving employability for everyone through education and training, protection against the exploitation of vulnerable groups and support for the traditional family unit.

Today its a party built on the politics of envy, the politics of sex, pandering to left wing nutters, reckless spending of other people's money, and the dismantling of the nuclear family unit where fathers in particular are seen as meal tickets and largely superflous.

As far as having a say where future money is spent, I still don't have a direct say in it, but I now know where less of it will go. At least that's something.

Edited by stefcep: 13/9/2013 08:47:16 AM

Mate, I applaud you for your endeavour but blanket statements about everyone else reek of ignorance.


Whatever you were in the past you're not talking like one now.

Oh shit. There are roads being built right now, that you may never drive on, but you won't ever get your tax dollars back!

Oh noes! :O

-PB

Good analogy, there are driveways being built too, that doesn't mean the taxpayer should pay for them.

Labor, party of hypocrites?

Not even one week after the election Labor is abandoning former PM Kevin Rudd and even suggesting he should leave the parliament all together and not serve his full term on the back bench.

There is something really wrong with a party that one week ago tells us to go behind a party leader and our PM and support and elect him for another term, one week later total backflip he is even a wrong person for his electorate.

At least SOME tax payers get to use the roads, the internet connections are way below the forecasted number, unsustainable for the money spent, at this connection rate in the never never simple pie in the sky stuff.

And I agree with everything you have said there, however;

This is a nation wide infrastructure upgrade, was never going to be something that was simply done quickly (by political/social standards) over the massive mass of land that is Australia.

Also, while it might be rocky now, how can you say that the LNP version of the NBN is in any way *better* than the current plan?

-PB

NBN fanboys don't realise it's not the FTTH opponents are fighting, it's the business case. It's not that we all want corroding copper last mile technology into our homes and businesses, or that we prefer 25mbps to 100mbps, or that we're afraid of progress, it's that there isn't a justifiable reason commercial or economic to spend $90 billion taxpayer dollars installing fibre to 93% of households and businesses. You can understand the logic of rolling it out in business parks, schools, hospitals etc as these are the kinds of end users who would truly benefit from scalable speeds and drive productivity and innovation the economy, but why spend $3-$5k taxpayer dollars connecting old grannies, retirement villages and mum and dad households who are consumers of bandwidth and not drivers? It makes sense if people want access to this kind of speed that provides no social or economic benefits to greater society that they would pay for this themselves rather than taxpayers.

I've come to the conclusion most voracious supports of NBN aren't concerned at all about the economics of it, it's basically just a dick measuring contest with other countries to see who's got the biggest speed.

Well it would be better if it comes in much cheaper, delivered sooner, easier to build, cheaper to access, promotes competition and delivers the same benefits to business and society as FTTH.

Just to give you an example of a business case for rolling it out to homes.

I work as a software developer for a Queensland organisation remotely from Adelaide. My role requires working with Universities in pretty much every state in Australia to implement the software we are developing.

I meet regularly with my manager and other team members in Queensland via Google Hangout and a variety of other technologies (Skype, Goto Meeting etc). On top of that, deploying the application requires uploading files from 100-500MB in size regularly.

My internet connection at home (even though I sync at 20Mb which is close to what the Libs NBN plan will provide) reduces my productivity significantly.

Now I work with people at JCU in Townsville and they tell me how small the software development market is up there. With the NBN, it opens up plenty more opportunities for them to work without having to move south.

Anyway, not many people are doing what I'm doing now but I firmly believe this is the future. If I had the NBN at home now, I would not have to drive across town to get to my office that my employer is leasing for me. Extrapolate that out and we don't have to spend as much on roads. Is it worth me spending $3K+ to get fibre installed? Probably, but I don't have that type of capital to spend and I'd rather spend that on solar panels if I had it.

mcjules, I think you missed the point that not everyone is in your position of requiring FTTH? Like the analogy above that the govt is responsible for the road, but you are responsible for your driveway, FTTN means that those that want the fibre to their home can get it, and those that don't need it don't have to have it. You can still get FTTH if you want it. But rusty's point was Labor wanted to build FTTH regardless of the likelyhood that said home would require superfast internet. Akin to building that driveway to a house that doesn't have a car.

what is your current internet connection????

That's not really a business case is it? Most people won't be teleworking and even if they were not necessarily requiring 100mbps or higher nor will the investment in maintaining roads and public transport decrease. Super fast broadband won't replace offices and the need for people to interact face to face with fellow employees, suppliers and customers.
Sure there would be social benefits by running fibre all the way, just like there would be even greater benefits connecting regional and rural Australia to fibre , but just like the cost benefit isn't justified for regional and rural Australia the cost benefit for residential lacks depth and clarity as well.

If you were to spend $3k connecting fibre, extrapolating this over say 15 years it would cost you about 50c per day to have fibre in your home. If you can't justify spending that for your own needs I can't see why the expectation should be for taxpayers to spend $3-5k on homes who don't have any need.

I was just making the point that there are business cases for having fibre to the home. People would say I'm in the minority and it's true right now, however there are many that wouldn't even consider trying working or running a business from home. Build it and people will use it.

There are practical and technical reasons why FTTN is a poor choice too. Not to mention Liberal's costings do not factor in everything while the $90 billion they keep throwing around assumes the absolute worst.

For what it's worth, I'm more than happy for the Libs to do a proper cost-benefit analysis. There is no doubt there are some cost savings measures available to them without having to change the technology stack.