tcpip | Work/SAGE stuff, More RuneQuest, ALP Elections, The Tory Agenda and Perth

Borderlands on Wednesday followed by a CCNA class at the somewhat distant Heidelburg NMIT campus. Early morning work meeting for Datalink on Thursday, followed by two extremely busy and challenging days on Friday and Monday which regrettably included a moronic customer screaming down the 'phone because he couldn't type his new password in properly (seriously!). Spent all day today working on my presentation to the SAGE-AU conference and will probably be doing that tomorrow as well. Speaking of said organisation, have received a book (The Real World Network Trouble Shooting Manual, 2005) to review.

Spent a sizeable part of Thurday with

strangedave,

doctor_k_ and

caseopaya meandering around Melbourne. The summary of our adventures consisted of yum cha, chocolate, Satan and space aliens. A wonderful adventure and strangely appropriate with such people. Sunday's Unitarian service wa by former MHR, Peter Milton on "The dangers of the nuclear industry". It was quietly brilliant; consise, well researched and factual. Appropriately uranium sales to China have been criticised. Following this was a RuneQuest IV combat system playest with Peter, Andrei, Jay and Erica. The system works surprisingly well, and draws a nice distinction between big weapons (dodge these) and little ones (parry 'em). Afterwards Erica, Andrei and I played more RuneQuest (the main story) because you simply can't get enough ;-)

I've just sent a nomination off to become an ALP State Conference delegate, although I don't like my chances in the Melbourne Ports Federal Division. Meanwhile the branch stacking wars are heading to the courts following the ALP National Exec overturning Victorian state rules designed to prevent stacking (despite legal advice to the contrary) and a small mountain of evidence tabled at the Admin Committee regarding endemic stacking in the new safe Labor seat of Gorton. Applause to Labor Unity's Rosemary Barker who, in an act of rare principle in the ALP, acted against her own faction in providing the evidence.

Anyone notice that John Howard's plans for a single national industrial relations system were overwhelmingly rejected last Sunday by the Liberal Party's federal council? Could the lack of media interest in this extraodinary development indicate some mainstream media bias? Could you imagine the same thing happening to a Labor leader? (thanks

greylock for alerting me to this). Whilst on-topic, Costello has said that all workers could lose the protection of unfair dismissal laws. Meanwhile, on a state level National leader Peter Ryan has claimed that a recommendation that same-sex couples could adopt is "mad", despite the best evidence stating there is no development differences.

Ahh, lets see... Media bias, class war and attacks on personal rights... What's missing from this Tory equation? Of course. The "you've got to keep 'em separated" department. An RMIT study shows that suburban sprawl will take over most undeveloped land in within a decade. Meanwhile the good folk at Prosper Australia have arranged a spot for me at the Uni of Melbourne's Centre for Public Policy forum on Equity in Sourcing Revenue symposium.

Heads up Perth people. I booked tickets today. I'll be in the Western Lands from September 6 to 15. Saturday the 10th and Sunday 11th sounds like especially good days to catch up.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

the welfare state itself is smaller
If a bigger share of GDP is being spent on more people, it is bigger, period. It might be less intensively focused, but it is bigger. (And since payments have gone up, not even that is true.) And I wasn't referring to Family Allowance or related payments in that % of working age population.

But this is not what you have asserted.

You claimed;

Since Govt expenditure is at a record (high) level of GDP,

and

as is the % of working age population on income support, I think it is safe to say the welfare state is bigger.</i< Those two things do not mean that the welfare state is bigger. It may mean that more people receive income support. It may also mean that the government is spending more money proportionally (and not necessarily on welfare - well maybe "business welfare"). But it does not mean that the welfare state is bigger. I want further evidence.

While income support can refer to any form of income transfer, things such as Disabled, Sole Parent, unemploment benefits, Student allowances etc was what I meant and is a fairly common usage.

And the pattern of Commonwealth expenditure hasn't changed much, so more expenditure in total means more welfare spending.

While income support can refer to any form of income transfer, things such as Disabled, Sole Parent, unemploment benefits, Student allowances etc was what I meant and is a fairly common usage.

Well, I note that the government's official figures now include Employer Superannuation Contributions as welfare expenditure. :/

And the GST as a State/Territory tax. (Despite what the Constitution says on the matter.)

Work/SAGE stuff, More RuneQuest, ALP Elections, The Tory Agenda and Perth

Re: Housing (quotes from article)

Re: Housing (quotes from article)

Re: Housing (quotes from article)

Re: Housing (quotes from article)

Re: Housing (quotes from article)