Campaign Stickers: Free via Email Request or $1 Donation (Expired) @ Smart Energy Council

1114190

Here here an election is near and what better way to express your thoughts at the current Government or our industrious leader on a bin.

If you want better ones they will cost you

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/scott+morrison+pm+stickers
https://shop.australianunions.org.au/products/scomo-bumper-s...

From the Council. If you want them free Contact Lindsay.

You can bulk order them to a single address for free (just let me know quantities) or people can pay as little as $1 $5 $10 $5 for a pack via the donation link. There's also the option to pay another amount.

Mod - Description edited. Donation minimum is now $5 $10 $5 (custom field) instead of $1. Free stickers are via email only (according to information above). We'll consider the donation part expired due to the minimum price increase, we assume they are still available for free unless told otherwise (please report if so).


Mod - This deal meets our posting guidelines & there have been previous similar deals posted. #1 Stop Adani Sticker Pack, #2 Start Adani Sticker Pack, #3 Australian Greens Bumper Sticker, #4 Free Tote Bag Delivered From Sam Hibbins MP.

As always, votes need to be made within the voting guidelines. Any negative vote without an explanation given (e.g. "agree" or "no deal") will be revoked by a moderator as per this list. Neg votes for any other reason won't be removed by a mod. These are verbatim phrases.

Related Stores

smartenergy.org.au
smartenergy.org.au

Comments

  • angrymob

    • +25

      😂

        • +43

          On the topic of stopping the boats, the LNP did a great job stopping the Ruby Princess.

        • +41

          Stopped the boats? What Morrison did was hide everything behind Operation Sovereign Borders, but we did find that he was actually using taxpayer money to bribe people smugglers. So much for taking the “sugar off the table”. We also saw the inability of his govt to solve the issue of asylum seekers held in detention at a cost of billions/year, a problem still ongoing. We also saw their failure to prevent COVID arriving on boats (Ruby Princess), to implement quarantine (a federal responsibility), and now our national border security embarrassment over Novak Djokovic. History will not be kind to Morrison or his shambolic excuse of a government. Spin is not governing.

        • +49

          The dude went to Hawaii while half the country was on fire. He's a loser.

            • +18

              @dealman:

              Give him a break for taking a family holiday,

              Worst bushfires in recent history, and he's on Holiday with his mate from QAnon? It sounds like a time when a country would need a leader. He seems to be missing every time there is a crisis.

              You guys hated the same way on the previous PM Abbott lifetime volunteer firefighter too.

              It's generally agreed that this was a positive thing that Abbott did whether you agreed with his politics or not.

    • +16

      Does Ozbargain now support gifs in comments? :D

      • +11

        *Chaos ensues

      • +18

        I hope not or the comments are going to devolve in to that Michael Jackson gif with the popcorn anytime something controversial comes up

    • +8

      Needs more pitchforks

    • +12

      Neil, I'm surprised. If you want this site to be all inclusive, thats not the way to go about it.

      The OP doesnt care about the site, they just care for their own political agenda.

      Previously allowed posts sort of set a standard, although frankly what you and the other moderators think are "fair" and "reasonable" are also judgements.

      If this site allows political promotions then shouldnt these, be from any organisation that is permitted to publish political material in Australia.

      • +15

        Free is free. The community sets the standards not the mods

        • +1

          Not necessarily true. They have standards also known as guidelines/rules. These are set by the moderators and site owner. With community input, but still their final call.

          • +5

            @RockyRaccoon: But for deals we set it. If it was against rules it would be removed.

            • +1

              @Slippery Fish: Yes but my comment you are talking about isn't about what the community set as a standard. It was a post by a mod, that included features etc that the community itself cant access.

              As such I was commenting on the actions by the mod in this instance, not the community. I also accept that the mod has been here a long time and is well respected (which this mod knows I do) . However even well respected persons can be questioned sometimes.

      • -8

        He's from Melbourne, he's probably the type that has a photo of Andrews on the ceiling above his bed.

        • +7

          More abuse on the mods. Bit childish.
          Lol your location is Melbourne too.

        • +5

          I have photos of both Daniel Andrews and Karen Andrews on my ceiling as I don't pick favourites.

          • @neil: Well variety is the spice of life :).

    • Let the Smart stickers unite us :) and Bin/clean up the mess from the last years.
      It cost me 1 email to the great Lindsay for fully free Smart Green stickers. I will donate some to my neighbors.

      Happy New Year. Change (for better:) Matters (all else is Free speech :(

  • +132

    Is free political advertising material a bargain now?

    • +98

      Free sticker.

      • -13

        So by that reasoning, a bargain of an already free sticker would be they pay me to take it?

        • +3

          If you ever manage to score a bargain on a bargain, the initial bargain clearly wasn't a bargain was it?

          • +11

            @cydia9k: if a bargain appears in the forest and noone is around to see it, was there a bargain?

            • +2

              @melbstheburn: I have the new TESLA HYBRID. Just need to find out how you light the coal in the boot of the car.

            • +1

              @melbstheburn: What is the sound of one bargain clapping?

          • +1

            @cydia9k: Bargain-ception.

            • @Skinnerr: That just sounds like consumerism with extra steps

      • +43

        Political donations are not bargains.

        • +59

          clive, lendlease, big 4 banks, transurban etc would beg to disagree

          • -4

            @jabroni: Some, a result of inefficient government workers, not political affiliation. Lendlease still getting billions of dollars from both labor and liberal state governments. Yet still less expensive and more efficient than hiring government workers. Maybe privatising isn't such a bad idea, privatise the government IT department and you might get better systems than the current broken and bugged crap like vaccine bookings, check in apps, long forgotten covid tracking app and a myGov system that was like 20 years later than it should have been. Imagine a government ran bank, OOF that's a scary thought.

            • +8

              @Juice-Wa: I didn't specify a political affiliation?

              but the return on investment is spectacular - see jobkeeper [dividend keeper in some cases] for examples of profit making companies [or even non tax paying entities] receiving millions

              running projects properly is not a government vs private issue - its jobs for boys/mates/donors leading to poor choice of vendors which leads to poor outcomes

              dont forget privatisation would need more money to cover company profits

              Singapore has very little privatisation yet runs very smoothly however government ministers are paid very well and the punishment for corruption is severe jailtime

              • @jabroni: Singapore has a very different working culture. If you work in an industry with prominent government and private arms (such as engineering), you would know that the generally lazy, slow and inefficient stereotypes ring true with government workers. That's why company review websites like glassdoor are littered with reviews of government turned private workplaces are full of phrases like "full of council workers", "don't expect to get anything done", "old government org mentality". If you've ever had to work as a contractor for the government you would understand that government vs private working attitudes is the issue (not to paint them all with the same brush but generally speaking).

                Some of the worst run workplaces are either government organisations, which are not affiliated with party and stay long after you vote someone out (funny how people blame these incompetence's on the leader of a party), or workplaces heavily influenced by the union (talk about over paid, under worked and lazy).

                • -8

                  @Juice-Wa: Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue about anything at all, ever.

            • +9

              @Juice-Wa: "Yet still less expensive and more efficient than hiring government workers. Maybe privatising isn't such a bad idea, privatise the government IT department and you might get better systems than the current broken and bugged crap like vaccine bookings, check in apps, long forgotten covid tracking app and a myGov system that was like 20 years later than it should have been."

              Proven to be bullshit.
              https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/contractors-cost-dou...
              https://www.michaelwest.com.au/privatisation-of-the-public-s...

              • -3

                @martygeeoz: A unionists perspective on contracting, the only argument that can ever be made is higher costs. Union and government workers have never been able to argue from a perspective of outcomes or quality. The broken record that forgets that for every extra dollar that's spent is well worth it since they spend less money on deliverables. Our country is going to be left behind because of old unionist ideals producing nothing but poor working attitudes. Labor can suck it if they think the union is the way forward for Australian workers.

                • +4

                  @Juice-Wa: Completely ignored the facts by spouting more anti-union rhetoric. Well done.

                  • @martygeeoz: The facts are that contracting work costs more, as per your references that's the only fact they present

                    The broken record that forgets that for every extra dollar that's spent is well worth it since they spend less money on deliverables.

                    Seems I have not ignored the facts, well done for your unnecessary emotional defense.

                    • @Juice-Wa: "According to my own bullshit and without providing any evidence or links to back my statement up, the broken record that forgets that for every extra dollar that's spent is well worth it since they spend less money on deliverables."

                      FTFY.

                      • -1

                        @martygeeoz: Call it an expert observation then, as someone who has worked for companies contracted by government entities and someone who has worked on union sites. Anyone having experienced the union without being in the union (mainly professionals) speak very poorly of this organisation of man child bullies. Even people in the union hate it and are only members because they are bullied to join.

                        And Government, well the proof is in the pudding. Look at all the IT systems, they could be delivered by a second year IT student with access to stack overflow in half the time.

                        • -1

                          @Juice-Wa: The "Government IT systems" you're critical of are contractor provided. You're defeating your own argument. Be it public or private sector, the people who yell the loudest about the benefits of outsourcing know the least about the end product.

                          • @kevinroast: Whether or not that's true, it's still initiated, project managed and approved by government workers. Which means they are the ones who set the expectations with tender documents and are the ones who accept the end product.

                            The people who yell the loudest are usually the ones who aren't satisfied that their own team has the knowledge or expertise to deliver the end product. Lack of knowledge and expertise is one of the main reasons for outsourcing.

              • @martygeeoz: "The outsourcing destroys government accountability"
                Still having 2-party preferential voting Destroys government accountability.

                But if we outsource the Government we can Bin them much quicker instead of voting every 3-4 years & we call that "A MOMENT of democracy". What about the rest of the 3-4 years (repeated many times)?
                Shouldn't we treat them as contractors & renew the contract only if they improve the wellbeing of the majority (not the establishment)?

        • agree

        • Especially such poor ones. Look elsewhere to see how you end up voting for left… USA, Europe,…

      • +114

        I’d gladly put this free sticker on my bin.

        (Profanity) Scomo.

        Could’ve easily made Rapid Antigen Tests free for everyone, taxpayers would’ve been happy for it. Instead we now have major shortages and vulnerable people have to stand hours in line for it, PCR tests have ridiculous lines of people and cars. Scomo doesn’t care as he sips coconuts with trips to Hawaii from taxpayer money

        • +9

          Instead of buying (profanity) tanks he should have given us RAT tests.

        • Shouldn't it be on the RED bin instead of the yellow one?

        • -8

          They shouldn't make it free.
          You don't understand the financial burden of healthcare.
          We are so lucky in this country to still have free healthcare. But with the amount of entitled people such as yourself. This country will not sustain this approach.
          People of this country should start appreciating just how lucky we are to have the health service we have. We are one of the few remaining countries with free health care.

          • +14

            @maverickjohn: Few remaining countries with free health care?? My man usa is one of the few remaining countries who doesn't have free health care among developed countries.

            • +1

              @DrScavenger: I'm not sure if they're referring to healthcare since they're incorrect but I can understand his point.
              A more correct analysis would be that the Australian government has been burdened with the cost of welfare which (I believe) should be paid to people in order to reduce social inequality and much more… Therefore is not 'incorrect' to say that we're privileged to live in a country which offers such welfare (Child care subsidy, Pensions, Disability support, Career Allowance… etc).
              Welfare has a heavy burden on our economic system and it only has been increasing as of recent years. With a 0.1% RBA Interest rate, our country has little left in terms of monetary and fiscal policy to strengthen the economy or to provide for more in terms of welfare.
              That's why those who are aware of the situation of the economy seemingly have no choice but to support the liberal party instead despite its many issues.

              • +5

                @Yve: LOLOLOL.. OMG.. American Conservative Capitalist arguments here to privatise the Health care system and become another America where people die every day without healthcare and buying insulin costs 10-20x more than it is today. Because.. "Capitalism is fantastic and perfect".

                Maybe.. the government should stop listening to the Bullshite coming out of America through their "Independent" ASPI "think tank" to spend many billions of dollars on military hardware and useless nuclear Submarines that crash into nothing for no reason. Or start taxing large corporations properly by weeding out their methods of tax havens and making them contribute to Australian society.

                • +4

                  @bchliu: Stop tunneling, I never mentioned anything about privatising healthcare.

                  • +1

                    @Yve: No.. but all your arguments are based on the same arguments as privatising healthcare in US. One thing leads to another (and not slippery slope either in this case).

                    • +1

                      @bchliu: A weakened economy is not correlated with healthcare privatisation or capitalism/democracy. You should really learn more about economics before you make such statements. A socialist country can have a strong economy just like how a capitalist country can have a strong economy.
                      Successful countries are successful because of sound economic policy and that applies to socialist and capitalist countries.
                      It's blanket sentiment like 'your arguments are based on the same arguments as privatising healthcare' is what weakens our labour party.

                      Your argument would be slightly better but still incorrect if you suggested that "American conservative capitalists argue for the usage of laissez faire policies to maximise economic output as a means to strengthen the economy. However the pitfalls of that statement lies in how social inequality is amplified through the privatisation of healthcare." However that it still irrelevant to what I'm saying because fiscal (in this case) and monetary policy is not really related to the privatisation of welfare.

                      • +2

                        @Yve:

                        A socialist country can have a strong economy

                        Feel free to provide examples….

                • +4

                  @bchliu:

                  LOLOLOL.. OMG..

                  Is that what passes for an argument to you?

                  Healthcare IS a basic human right.

                  Just saying stuff doesn't make it true…

            • +2

              @DrScavenger:

              My man usa is one of the few remaining countries who doesn't have free health care

              Australia's healthcare isn't free either. You pay a medicare levy, and if you earn above a certain income you will also pay insurance.

              • @1st-Amendment: Yes well nothing is free. But it's cheaper this way overall

                • @DrScavenger:

                  Yes well nothing is free. But it's cheaper this way overall

                  So when your life is on the line you prefer the cheap option?
                  You get what you pay for, and the US healthcare industry is more expensive because it offers higher quality solution. It might not extend to as many people, but if you are not dirt poor, you get a lot better options than anywhere else in the world.

          • +1

            @maverickjohn: Healthcare IS a basic human right. NOT a luxury.

            Simple fact: If a country that doesn't have a healthy population, then how can they "produce" effectively? Especially if only the laziest rich are the only people to be ENTITLED to healthcare, then who's left to actually do the work to "produce"?

            • +1

              @bchliu: I don't disagree, I'm just saying if we are expecting everything to be for free what is now a right may become a luxury.

        • +2

          What does your post have to do with this 'bargain'

        • +5

          Could’ve easily made Rapid Antigen Tests free for everyone, taxpayers would’ve been happy for it.

          I'm a taxpayer and I'm not happy to pay for it. Why do lefties always think they get to speak for others?

        • +3

          Nothing is free. Someone end up paying. This time the tax payer.
          Pretty sick of this free mentality that commies love.

        • +2

          The tests should be provided for free because it makes economic sense to do so. What is the opportunity cost of not providing the tests? I suspect that is is significantly more than providing adequate testing resources would be.

          Given that ANZ's consumer spending data shows that the start of this year has been as slow as any point in the pandemic, there is likely a corresponding drop in consumer confidence. Humans are pretty risk averse when confronted with perceived unknown and uncontrolled dangers. If we test more people then we will feel more comfortable that the risk is known and controlled. One way to improve consumer confidence, and in turn improved spending, would be to provide people with enough testing to assure people that they weren't going to be constantly exposed to a highly infectious virus.

          Assuming you want the economic impacts of the pandemic to be short, the people you want to encourage to spend are those with disposable income. Now you could argue that they could spend that disposable income on getting tested but that's a little pointless as they now no longer have that money to spend elsewhere in the economy. It is even worse if people are avoiding work because they aren't able to access tests as that will be harming productivity in addition to spending.

          Economies of scale also mean governments are capable of buying the tests much more cheaply than you or I can as individuals. Then there's the price inelasticity of healthcare which makes it much more susceptible to price gouging.

          Basically there are no good economic reasons I can think of for the government not to make them free. Sorry, other than lining the pockets of for-profit businesses making a killing on selling the tests; businesses that are likely donors to the LNP.

          That's without discussing the health and ethical reasons to make them free.

          To me, it appears that the government has absolutely cocked up planning and procurement then made a wholly ideological decision not to provide them for free when painted into a corner.

          • @twjr: Adding to twjr's comment, the PCR/RAT test consumption will be most likely highest for some jobs and not others. Those interfacing with other people would have higher need for the tests as opposed to a WFH programmer. That's also should've been part of the consideration/distribution strategy. These people-facing jobs are not necessarily high-paying jobs (actually most people-facing jobs are not high-paying jobs).

            Making essential items for public good free have also shown to be the better approach historically as otherwise you'll find some selfish individuals hoarding them and selling them online at marked up prices, which defeats the purpose of the item. This was what happened to the vaccine. Consider the situation where the vaccine was not free?

          • +3

            @twjr:

            The tests should be provided for free because it makes economic sense to do so.

            Does it? Feel free to show your calculations because just saying something doesn't make it true

            What is the opportunity cost of not providing the tests?

            If you don't know this then how can you claim it to make economic sense? Logic does not compute.

            Mass testing is to support the suppression strategy, which was never going to work. That is slowly starting to sink in now despite many people calling this out 2 years ago.

            Humans are pretty risk averse when confronted with perceived unknown

            The unknown has nothing to with the virus and everything to do with arbitrary restrictions being imposed completely randomly. No amount of extremely costly testing changes this.

            Basically there are no good economic reasons I can think of for the government not to make them free

            Yeah but 'what you think' is not how economics work. You need to show a demonstrable economic benefit for something to make economic sense. So if you have that, let's see it.

            • @1st-Amendment: Assuming the government buys the tests on the wholesale market and that people test only as required based on current testing recommendations:

              Wholesale cost (less than $3) x number of tests (n) < private cost (more than $10) x number of tests (n)

              What arbitrary restrictions are currently in place now that weren't at the end of last year that would explain the decline in retail spending to the lowest point since the pandemic began?

              • +2

                @twjr:

                Wholesale cost (less than $3(news.com.au)) x number of tests (n) < private cost (more than $10) x number of tests (n)

                Currently the cost to me and many people I know is $0. $0 wins.

                What arbitrary restrictions are currently in place now that weren't at the end of last year

                Are you serious?
                Lock down, no lock down, interstate travel, no interstate travel, QR code, no QR code, Mask, no mask, singing, no singing, dancing, no dancing, 14 day isolation, 10 day isolation, 7 day isolation, all close contacts, only contacts you share a house with for more than 4 hours etc etc…

                This shit changes every week on a completely arbitrary basis. Try running a business under that regulatory environment and see how you go.

            • +1

              @1st-Amendment: Modelling by Flinders University suggests it would save the government money.

              • +2

                @ihfree:

                modelling…

                Lol modelling….
                Is this the same modelling that predicted an October peak? Or the modelling that said we'd have 200,000 deaths? Or the modelling that said the arctic would be ice free in 10 years 40 years ago?

                Models are just best guesses. The media love them because they are all arts school grads who have no idea how scientific models work. Don't fall into that trap.

                • -1

                  @1st-Amendment:

                  Modelling by Flinders University

                  Modelling a virus or global temperatures and costs associated with tests is quite different. There is a lot more confidence around the prices of PCR tests and RATs.

                  Nice straw man, though.

                  • +2

                    @ihfree:

                    Nice straw man, though.

                    Your argument was based on modelling and I argued against the reliability of modelling. So not only do you not understand how modelling works, you also don't know what a straw man is. Well done…

                    • @1st-Amendment: You're attacking the modelling for tests by attacking modelling for covid and global warming. Sounds like a straw man to me. They're very different - on scale and known data going into the models.

                      • +1

                        @ihfree:

                        Sounds like a straw man to me.

                        This is not inconsistent with my claim.

                        Models are still best guesses no matter how you try to spin that… but don't just take my word for it: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/finance-why-econo...

                        • @1st-Amendment:

                          Why Economic Models Are Always Wrong

                          An article on the 2008 financial crash. Once again, they're very different - on scale and known data going into the models.

                          • +1

                            @ihfree:

                            they're very different

                            Sure, because you say so.
                            Cognitive dissonance is a beautiful thing lol…

                            • @1st-Amendment:

                              Sure, because you say so.

                              Well, to start with, we know the costs of tests:

                              • PCR tests about $150.
                              • RAT - $3/test.

                              Other aspects such as cost to the economy based on additional testing would likely be harder to model accurately. With or without the modelling, there are other reasons to do it - eg: protecting vulnerable people(We live in a society!), preventing supply chain collapse, etc .

                              Cognitive dissonance

                              Yes, yes it is.

                              • +1

                                @ihfree:

                                Other aspects such as cost to the economy based on additional testing would likely be harder to model accurately.

                                Yet here you are lol…

                                • -2

                                  @1st-Amendment: There are a few issues here:

                                  • Media representation of modelling
                                  • What is being modelled
                                  • The complexity of what is being modelled
                                  • Your training by Sky News to distrust science

                                  I'm a taxpayer and I'm not happy to pay for it. Why do lefties always think they get to speak for others?

                                  If testing is deemed necessary, i'd prefer the government pays less for it. It's good to reevaluate a strategy rather than writing off changes as "lol modelling."

                                  Secondly, I'd prefer to not to be subsidising fossil fuels and instead let the market dictate, interfering with markets like news and tech or paying for anything on this list https://www.mdavis.xyz/govlist/

                                  • @ihfree: Only fossil fuels, or you're also against the comparatively larger subsidies for solar and renewables?

                                    • @UncleRico: Got a link to confirm that? IIRC, it's the other way round.

                                  • @ihfree:

                                    Your training by Sky News to distrust science

                                    So since you don't understand what a straw man is, this a great example. It's even funnier when you're try to claim I'm anti-science when I'm the one giving the references reputable science websites to support my position and you're only giving media stories that don't even link to the original study. Excellent demonstration

                                    If testing is deemed necessary, i'd prefer the government pays less for it.

                                    Good for you. Now learn to separate your opinion and/or modelling from actual facts.

                                    Secondly, I'd prefer to not to be subsidising fossil fuels…

                                    Cool story, so now you're out of ideas you're changing the subject to an Anti-Liberal party rant?

                                    • @1st-Amendment: Never said I'm above it. Lol your reference is about "economic modelling" but nice try trying to twist it to suit your agenda.

                                      I made the assumption after seeing you use the divisive term "lefty." Besides from showing your simple thinking, it's a fair assumption you're a Rupert fan.

                                      Good for you. Now learn to separate your opinion and/or modelling from actual facts.

                                      Lel.

                                      Anti-Liberal party rant?

                                      Not really anti-liberal unless Liberal means propping up failing markets and corruption. If you can't separate Liberal ideology from corruption, I feel sorry for you.

                                      The Liberals have their hands tied by Beetroot otherwise they'd likely have a greener policy.

                                      • @ihfree:

                                        I made the assumption

                                        Of course you did. Guessing is the same as a fact to you, you've made that abundantly clear.

Login or Join to leave a comment