Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[Saint]

Some people like cigarettes too. Shall we bring advertising for those back?

We allow junk food and sugar advertising with some regulation....

Smoking has a direct link to death and poor health.

Sugary and junk food are probably worse for Australia overall than gambling. This is why appropriate regulation is more appropriate than a ban.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

We allow junk food and sugar advertising with some regulation....

Smoking has a direct link to death and poor health.

Problem gambling has direct links to impoverishment.

Sugary and junk food are probably worse for Australia overall than gambling. This is why appropriate regulation is more appropriate than a ban.

I strongly disagree, and I think you're severely underestimating the harms of problem gambling.

 

[Saint]

Problem gambling has direct links to impoverishment.


I strongly disagree, and I think you're severely underestimating the harms of problem gambling.

I think problem gambling is a problem. But problem gambling is predominantly in pokies dens and far lesser in the advertising related gambling.

I think people under-estimate the impact of lots of things and latch on to the cause of the month.

The problem with gambling ads which has brought it to mainstream attention was the amount of ads, not the harms (which were there before gambling advertising took such a large portion of TV advertising).

https://aifs.gov.au/media/betting-advertising-linked-riskier-gambling-behaviour-and-greater-harm-new-research-finds

Have a look at this Govt agencies links. They're all about public attitudes, not actual harms or problems. They're linking to news articles on Twitter, FFS.

It seems to me like the problem definition is: "There's too many gambling ads" and too little focus on what's actually causing the harms and how to go about fixing it.

They'll do something about gambling ads, people will stop seeing the ads and the "problem" will go away. But the level of problem gamblers will move an imperceptible amount, since problem sports gambling is just a fraction of problem gambling. Lotteries and scratchies are as much of a problem.

Here's some actual statistics just in case you're waiting for a ban on sports betting apps to make any impact on problem gambling at all.

Gambling in Australia

This topic summary@aims to:improve understanding of gambling participation and expenditure in Australiadescribe gambling-related impacts on health and wellbeinghighlight emerging gambling trends...

www.aihw.gov.au

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I think problem gambling is a problem. But problem gambling is predominantly in pokies dens and far lesser in the advertising related gambling.

I think people under-estimate the impact of lots of things and latch on to the cause of the month.

The problem with gambling ads which has brought it to mainstream attention was the amount of ads, not the harms (which were there before gambling advertising took such a large portion of TV advertising).

https://aifs.gov.au/media/betting-advertising-linked-riskier-gambling-behaviour-and-greater-harm-new-research-finds

Have a look at this Govt agencies links. They're all about public attitudes, not actual harms or problems. They're linking to news articles on Twitter, FFS.

It seems to me like the problem definition is: "There's too many gambling ads" and too little focus on what's actually causing the harms and how to go about fixing it.

They'll do something about gambling ads, people will stop seeing the ads and the "problem" will go away. But the level of problem gamblers will move an imperceptible amount, since problem sports gambling is just a fraction of problem gambling. Lotteries and scratchies are as much of a problem.

Here's some actual statistics just in case you're waiting for a ban on sports betting apps to make any impact on problem gambling at all.

Gambling in Australia

This topic summary@aims to:improve understanding of gambling participation and expenditure in Australiadescribe gambling-related impacts on health and wellbeinghighlight emerging gambling trends...

www.aihw.gov.au

View attachment 2084315

That's kind of an odd graph considering those activities would be largely illegal for 16-17 yo's.

Is there another graph that shows how many 16-17YO's like to take the piss when completing surveys?

 

[JackOutback]

I think problem gambling is a problem. But problem gambling is predominantly in pokies dens and far lesser in the advertising related gambling.

I think people under-estimate the impact of lots of things and latch on to the cause of the month.

The problem with gambling ads which has brought it to mainstream attention was the amount of ads, not the harms (which were there before gambling advertising took such a large portion of TV advertising).

https://aifs.gov.au/media/betting-advertising-linked-riskier-gambling-behaviour-and-greater-harm-new-research-finds

Have a look at this Govt agencies links. They're all about public attitudes, not actual harms or problems. They're linking to news articles on Twitter, FFS.

It seems to me like the problem definition is: "There's too many gambling ads" and too little focus on what's actually causing the harms and how to go about fixing it.

They'll do something about gambling ads, people will stop seeing the ads and the "problem" will go away. But the level of problem gamblers will move an imperceptible amount, since problem sports gambling is just a fraction of problem gambling. Lotteries and scratchies are as much of a problem.

Here's some actual statistics just in case you're waiting for a ban on sports betting apps to make any impact on problem gambling at all.

Gambling in Australia

This topic summary@aims to:improve understanding of gambling participation and expenditure in Australiadescribe gambling-related impacts on health and wellbeinghighlight emerging gambling trends...

www.aihw.gov.au

View attachment 2084315

We are basically at the beginning of the advertising offensive for gambling (coupled with the ubiquity from online gambling and apps). Saying it's not a problem right now so let's not do anything about it yet is basically willing problem gambling to become the biggest addiction issue for our kids. You tackle the issue before it becomes an insurmountable problem not after.

 

[Saint]

We are basically at the beginning of the advertising offensive for gambling (coupled with the ubiquity from online gambling and apps). Saying it's not a problem right now so let's not do anything about it yet is basically willing problem gambling to become the biggest addiction issue for our kids. You tackle the issue before it becomes an insurmountable problem not after.

They're mostly on pokies, which don't have TV advertising.

If you can look at this chart, and any other chart in that link, and think the actual issues of "problem gambling" will be solved or even nudged in any significant way by a ban on sports gambling ads, then you might not understand the real issues.

Problem Gambling is the problem. The question is "how does advertising affect that and what should we do about it".

Banning gambling advertising as a blanket ban will allow people to wipe their hands and put problem gambling out of sight and out of mind without actually solving any "problem gambling".

 

[JackOutback]

They're mostly on pokies, which don't have TV advertising.

If you can look at this chart, and any other chart in that link, and think the actual issues of "problem gambling" will be solved or even nudged in any significant way by a ban on sports gambling ads, then you might not understand the real issues.

Problem Gambling is the problem. The question is "how does advertising affect that and what should we do about it".

Banning gambling advertising as a blanket ban will allow people to wipe their hands and put problem gambling out of sight and out of mind without actually solving any "problem gambling".

They're mostly on pokies... now. For the next generation, it will all be on apps, advertised on TV as a "great way to spend time with your mates". It's insidious, it's gross, I didn't think I would ever find one person in favour of allowing it to remain.

If advertising didn't work, companies wouldn't advertise. If advertising bans didn't work, companies wouldn't fight it tooth and nail. There will always be addiction issues around drugs, alcohol, gambling, smoking. Advertising just absolutely guarantees you the problem will be worse, no ifs, no buts.

 

[Saint]

They're mostly on pokies... now. For the next generation, it will all be on apps, advertised on TV as a "great way to spend time with your mates". It's insidious, it's gross, I didn't think I would ever find one person in favour of allowing it to remain.

If advertising didn't work, companies wouldn't advertise. If advertising bans didn't work, companies wouldn't fight it tooth and nail. There will always be addiction issues around drugs, alcohol, gambling, smoking. Advertising just absolutely guarantees you the problem will be worse, no ifs, no buts.

So the problem with the new generation is that they are going to be online gambling, so we're going to ban TV ads. And online ads will continue......

I agree advertising works, but can we at least pretend we understand the actual problems rather than everyone just being upset with too many TV gambling commercials.

 

[Gough]

They're mostly on pokies... now. For the next generation, it will all be on apps, advertised on TV as a "great way to spend time with your mates". It's insidious, it's gross, I didn't think I would ever find one person in favour of allowing it to remain.

If advertising didn't work, companies wouldn't advertise. If advertising bans didn't work, companies wouldn't fight it tooth and nail. There will always be addiction issues around drugs, alcohol, gambling, smoking. Advertising just absolutely guarantees you the problem will be worse, no ifs, no buts.

The other issue with gambling advertising is the blurring of the line between advertising and content, a lot of the social media adverting makes it hard to tell the difference.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I think problem gambling is a problem. But problem gambling is predominantly in pokies dens and far lesser in the advertising related gambling.

Problem gambling exists everywhere. Just because pokies are the most egregious form of it, that doesn't remove the risk of harm from other forms of gambling. None of it should be promoted. This is like saying spirits are bad because of their high alcohol content but beer isn't bad because of its much lower alcohol content. It's a fallacy because they're both harmful and can both be abused.

I think people under-estimate the impact of lots of things and latch on to the cause of the month.

Are you implying gambling is the "cause of the month"?

The problem with gambling ads which has brought it to mainstream attention was the amount of ads, not the harms (which were there before gambling advertising took such a large portion of TV advertising).

I disagree with your reasoning, because social attitudes change over time even if the underlying harm hasn't changed. The health risks of tobacco were known for decades before they finally got rid of cigarette advertising. From the other direction, the harms of marijuana have been known for a long time too, yet much of the Western world is moving towards legalising it. You haven't provided any actual proof that the social attitude towards the harms of gambling hasn't changed.

Have a look at this Govt agencies links. They're all about public attitudes, not actual harms or problems. They're linking to news articles on Twitter, FFS.

So what? We live in a democracy where laws are often made according to public attitudes and aren't actually based on objective harm. I've never seen an analysis that suggests alcohol is less harmful to individuals or to society than marijuana, but which one of those is legal and which is illegal?

And I'd also argue that public attitudes and the actual harms are not always distinct from one another. There can be a public reappraisal of whether we should accept a particular harm or not, based on shifting attitudes and the level of harm society has encountered from either the lack of restrictions on something, or its prohibition.

It seems to me like the problem definition is: "There's too many gambling ads" and too little focus on what's actually causing the harms and how to go about fixing it.

Based on what exactly? One can support an end to gambling advertising and also want more support for mental health, which is what actually causes addiction. I'd argue that mental health support is more likely to be effective if gambling isn't being thrust in everyone's faces, though.

They'll do something about gambling ads, people will stop seeing the ads and the "problem" will go away. But the level of problem gamblers will move an imperceptible amount, since problem sports gambling is just a fraction of problem gambling. Lotteries and scratchies are as much of a problem.

Of course they're just as much of a problem. None of them should be allowed to be advertised.

Here's some actual statistics just in case you're waiting for a ban on sports betting apps to make any impact on problem gambling at all.

Gambling in Australia

This topic summary@aims to:improve understanding of gambling participation and expenditure in Australiadescribe gambling-related impacts on health and wellbeinghighlight emerging gambling trends...

www.aihw.gov.au

View attachment 2084315

What's your point here, that pokies are worse than sports betting? I agree, and that's why I want pokies banned. Or at the bare minimum, plain packaged like tobacco, so all the shiny lights and graphics that flood the senses and help perpetuate addiction are removed.

But again, that doesn't make sports gambling free from problems, unless you're trying to suggest there are no problem sports gamblers.

 

[Rob R]

We allow junk food and sugar advertising with some regulation....

Smoking has a direct link to death and poor health.

Sugary and junk food are probably worse for Australia overall than gambling. This is why appropriate regulation is more appropriate than a ban.

Junk food and sugar hurt the individual, gambling and smoking hurt people around them as well as the individual.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Not Important]

yep! we know what ‘thug’ is. albo should rise above the man with no social conscience.

 

[Gralin]

Murphy wanted to deal with online gambling reform as well

We do other shit things isn't a justification for letting this shit thing continue as much as Saint wants it to be

 

[JackOutback]

So the problem with the new generation is that they are going to be online gambling, so we're going to ban TV ads. And online ads will continue......

I agree advertising works, but can we at least pretend we understand the actual problems rather than everyone just being upset with too many TV gambling commercials.

The idea that banning advertising will drive people to overseas online gambling was addressed by the bipartisan inquiry, the same scare tactics were tried in Spain, the evidence was it did not happen. It's just another furphy thrown up by a gambling industry using the same tactics as the tobacco industry to stall action so they can profit a little longer.

 

[Saint]

The idea that banning advertising will drive people to overseas online gambling was addressed by the bipartisan inquiry, the same scare tactics were tried in Spain, the evidence was it did not happen. It's just another furphy thrown up by a gambling industry using the same tactics as the tobacco industry to stall action so they can profit a little longer.

I'm not worried that the gambling ends up online. I'm worried that the sport ends up online because they have more gambling revenue. To this end, the gambling platforms themselves could buy the sporting rights.

It's already happened with Rugby Union and the A-League, that they've gone behind online paywalls and practically disappeared from broader conversations.

I'm not talking about online gambling, I'm talking about online advertising for gambling.

I want action to take it away from when kids are watching, I just don't think blanket bans on TV ads will work. And banning stuff online is near-impossible, so why push people there?

 

[Swan4Life]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/pms-tonedeaf-gaza-response-risks-repeat-of-voice-disaster/news-story/402e76c36afc6cab4c5badf567de9167

Albanese’s response to Peter Dutton’s decision to oppose the voice was to accuse him of negativity, division, lowering public standards and threatening our relations with regional neighbours as he allowed others to accuse the Opposition Leader of racism. Albanese accused people opposing the referendum of being “chicken Littles”.

Dutton’s response was to ask reasonable questions, seek facts and information, encourage indigenous leaders who did not support the voice and warn people that there would be unintended consequences for giving an indigenous voice body the power to intervene in government decision-making.

Public opinion flipped, Albanese was accused of misleading the public about the extent of the voice and his commitment to truth-telling, as well as using insults instead of providing factual argument. Dutton got the national mood and the politics right while Albanese has suffered ever since for the misjudgment.

The current debate over immigration and the security checks on people coming to Australia from Gaza – 3000 mostly tourist visa issued and 1300 arrivals since the October Hamas terror attack – is shaping in a similar fashion to the voice debate.

An astute piece from Shanahan, who is arguably the best in the business.

Just when you think that Albanese couldn't possibly add weight to the argument that he is way out of his depth as a PM, he manages to lower the bar of mediocrity yet again. The man is simply incapable of engaging in any debate that doesn't involve meaningless catchphrases such as "fear and division" and does require substance and tangible evidence. At this rate he is sleepwalking the ALP to electoral oblivion.

One term gummint.

 

[peetoo]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/pms-tonedeaf-gaza-response-risks-repeat-of-voice-disaster/news-story/402e76c36afc6cab4c5badf567de9167

Albanese’s response to Peter Dutton’s decision to oppose the voice was to accuse him of negativity, division, lowering public standards and threatening our relations with regional neighbours as he allowed others to accuse the Opposition Leader of racism. Albanese accused people opposing the referendum of being “chicken Littles”.

Dutton’s response was to ask reasonable questions, seek facts and information, encourage indigenous leaders who did not support the voice and warn people that there would be unintended consequences for giving an indigenous voice body the power to intervene in government decision-making.

Public opinion flipped, Albanese was accused of misleading the public about the extent of the voice and his commitment to truth-telling, as well as using insults instead of providing factual argument. Dutton got the national mood and the politics right while Albanese has suffered ever since for the misjudgment.

The current debate over immigration and the security checks on people coming to Australia from Gaza – 3000 mostly tourist visa issued and 1300 arrivals since the October Hamas terror attack – is shaping in a similar fashion to the voice debate.

An astute piece from Shanahan, who is arguably the best in the business.

Just when you think that Albanese couldn't possibly add weight to the argument that he is way out of his depth as a PM, he manages to lower the bar of mediocrity yet again. The man is simply incapable of engaging in any debate that doesn't involve meaningless catchphrases such as "fear and division" and does require substance and tangible evidence. At this rate he is sleepwalking the ALP to electoral oblivion.

One term gummint.

But the ‘potential’ for an in bred dysfunctional royal family to interfere in decision making is to be defended to the last person? Strange logic

And by the way potato head doesn’t even have ambition for ‘gumment’ just wreck anyone else making a difference

What is his plan for cost of living? Shame they didn’t think about that when it was clear there was an issue?

 

[Bloods86]

Albanese’s response to Peter Dutton’s decision to oppose the voice was to accuse him of negativity, division, lowering public standards and threatening our relations with regional neighbours as he allowed others to accuse the Opposition Leader of racism. Albanese accused people opposing the referendum of being “chicken Littles”.

Dutton’s response was to ask reasonable questions, seek facts and information, encourage indigenous leaders who did not support the voice and warn people that there would be unintended consequences for giving an indigenous voice body the power to intervene in government decision-making.

Public opinion flipped, Albanese was accused of misleading the public about the extent of the voice and his commitment to truth-telling, as well as using insults instead of providing factual argument. Dutton got the national mood and the politics right while Albanese has suffered ever since for the misjudgment.

The current debate over immigration and the security checks on people coming to Australia from Gaza – 3000 mostly tourist visa issued and 1300 arrivals since the October Hamas terror attack – is shaping in a similar fashion to the voice debate.

Yawn, another unoriginal partisan opinion piece. Play the hits again!

At this rate he is sleepwalking the ALP to electoral oblivion.

Sleepwalking to wherever the Coalition went last election doesn't sound good.

The man is simply incapable of engaging in any debate that doesn't involve meaningless catchphrases

Interesting accusation from yourself. But congratulations on posting without calling anyone a socialist, marxist or woke.

 

[Carn The Berries]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/pms-tonedeaf-gaza-response-risks-repeat-of-voice-disaster/news-story/402e76c36afc6cab4c5badf567de9167

Albanese’s response to Peter Dutton’s decision to oppose the voice was to accuse him of negativity, division, lowering public standards and threatening our relations with regional neighbours as he allowed others to accuse the Opposition Leader of racism. Albanese accused people opposing the referendum of being “chicken Littles”.

Dutton’s response was to ask reasonable questions, seek facts and information, encourage indigenous leaders who did not support the voice and warn people that there would be unintended consequences for giving an indigenous voice body the power to intervene in government decision-making.

Public opinion flipped, Albanese was accused of misleading the public about the extent of the voice and his commitment to truth-telling, as well as using insults instead of providing factual argument. Dutton got the national mood and the politics right while Albanese has suffered ever since for the misjudgment.

The current debate over immigration and the security checks on people coming to Australia from Gaza – 3000 mostly tourist visa issued and 1300 arrivals since the October Hamas terror attack – is shaping in a similar fashion to the voice debate.

An astute piece from Shanahan, who is arguably the best in the business.

Just when you think that Albanese couldn't possibly add weight to the argument that he is way out of his depth as a PM, he manages to lower the bar of mediocrity yet again. The man is simply incapable of engaging in any debate that doesn't involve meaningless catchphrases such as "fear and division" and does require substance and tangible evidence. At this rate he is sleepwalking the ALP to electoral oblivion.

One term gummint.

Yup... Seems perfectly balanced and impartial to me....

 

[Ghost Patrol]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/pms-tonedeaf-gaza-response-risks-repeat-of-voice-disaster/news-story/402e76c36afc6cab4c5badf567de9167

Albanese’s response to Peter Dutton’s decision to oppose the voice was to accuse him of negativity, division, lowering public standards and threatening our relations with regional neighbours as he allowed others to accuse the Opposition Leader of racism. Albanese accused people opposing the referendum of being “chicken Littles”.

Dutton’s response was to ask reasonable questions, seek facts and information, encourage indigenous leaders who did not support the voice and warn people that there would be unintended consequences for giving an indigenous voice body the power to intervene in government decision-making.

Public opinion flipped, Albanese was accused of misleading the public about the extent of the voice and his commitment to truth-telling, as well as using insults instead of providing factual argument. Dutton got the national mood and the politics right while Albanese has suffered ever since for the misjudgment.

The current debate over immigration and the security checks on people coming to Australia from Gaza – 3000 mostly tourist visa issued and 1300 arrivals since the October Hamas terror attack – is shaping in a similar fashion to the voice debate.

An astute piece from Shanahan, who is arguably the best in the business.

Just when you think that Albanese couldn't possibly add weight to the argument that he is way out of his depth as a PM, he manages to lower the bar of mediocrity yet again. The man is simply incapable of engaging in any debate that doesn't involve meaningless catchphrases such as "fear and division" and does require substance and tangible evidence. At this rate he is sleepwalking the ALP to electoral oblivion.

One term gummint.

Is this the same Shanahan that wrote all those puff pieces for George Pell, the infamous protector of paedophiles?

When you say best in the business, what exactly are you referring to?

 

[Bloods86]

Is this the same Shanahan that wrote all those puff pieces for George Pell, the infamous protector of paedophiles?

When you say best in the business, what exactly are you referring to?

Possibly also the one who was trying to drum up hope that Howard would win in 2007.

 

[Saint]

Is this the same Shanahan that wrote all those puff pieces for George Pell, the infamous protector of paedophiles?

When you say best in the business, what exactly are you referring to?

Protecting and enabling criminal behaviour as long as it suits the benefactors of the Australian (newspaper), not people.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/pms-tonedeaf-gaza-response-risks-repeat-of-voice-disaster/news-story/402e76c36afc6cab4c5badf567de9167

Albanese’s response to Peter Dutton’s decision to oppose the voice was to accuse him of negativity, division, lowering public standards and threatening our relations with regional neighbours as he allowed others to accuse the Opposition Leader of racism. Albanese accused people opposing the referendum of being “chicken Littles”.

Dutton’s response was to ask reasonable questions, seek facts and information, encourage indigenous leaders who did not support the voice and warn people that there would be unintended consequences for giving an indigenous voice body the power to intervene in government decision-making.

Public opinion flipped, Albanese was accused of misleading the public about the extent of the voice and his commitment to truth-telling, as well as using insults instead of providing factual argument. Dutton got the national mood and the politics right while Albanese has suffered ever since for the misjudgment.

The current debate over immigration and the security checks on people coming to Australia from Gaza – 3000 mostly tourist visa issued and 1300 arrivals since the October Hamas terror attack – is shaping in a similar fashion to the voice debate.

An astute piece from Shanahan, who is arguably the best in the business.

Just when you think that Albanese couldn't possibly add weight to the argument that he is way out of his depth as a PM, he manages to lower the bar of mediocrity yet again. The man is simply incapable of engaging in any debate that doesn't involve meaningless catchphrases such as "fear and division" and does require substance and tangible evidence. At this rate he is sleepwalking the ALP to electoral oblivion.

One term gummint.

That's funny.

The same Dennis Shanahan thought it was a good idea when the Liberals were doing it.




Go to about here in Shanahan's article history to see when the people's champ Morrison was up against Albanese. Every article pre-election is that Morrison isn't conservative enough and ever article post election is that Albanese is awful in every way.

It's partisan hackery at it's finest. It's funny that Swan4Life found an article which Shanahan had directly contradicted when it came to Afghanistan and Ukraine (or more accurately, that it was the Libs doing it, it was fine, if it's the ALP, it's not)

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/author/dennis-shanahan/page/32

 

[Festerz]

Mark Kenny, as always, with a calm and rationale attack on the timidity of Albanese when it comes to much needed and widely supported reform of Australia's gambling advertising laws and how it is symptomatic of policy cowardice when it it comes to implementing reform for the greater public good.

When Parliament returns this week, political financing and gambling reform will be on the agenda. As the Nine papers reported on Saturday, even Howard now wants to see a ban on the scourge of ubiquitous gambling advertising.

He joins a raft of both conservative and progressive figures who back the far-sighted work of the late Labor MP Peta Murphy.

With such cross-party agreement, banning all advertising of this gormless and socially destructive industry is a no brainer.

If a Labor government cannot even take the gamble with unpopular gambling ads, what hope tougher structural reform?

Opinion: No risk is too small to avoid for Labor. Just don't call them cowards

By Mark Kenny A version of this article was originally published by The Canberra Times. Ask any ex-prime minister about mistakes or cowardice in their time and you'll get spirited denial. The very suggestion of fallibility invites long-rehearsed accounts of how media depictions were unfair...

ausi.anu.edu.au

 

[Saint]

The committee wanted a full ban, the Government and opposition are publicly only talking about limited bans. The Greens and teals want full bans.

The commitee's recommendation was to ban advertising online gambling. It leaves Lottos able to advertise as well as local TABs and PubTABs.

If you've seen an ad for an online casino, you've seen an illegal ad, by the way.

 

[Chief]

giving an indigenous voice body the power to intervene in government decision-making

Only it didn't.

Lies defeated the referendum.