What a nice looking family.
Apart from ‘the vibe’, what has this government actually achieved?
Next year, it’s 50 years since the defeat of the Whitlam government and voters will have their chance to mark the anniversary by dispatching a first-term government that’s worse than Whitlam’s.
It’s a big call to do it given it’s not since 1931 that a first-term government has failed to win a second term but on every measure, the Albanese government is failing Australians. Our national security, economic strength and social cohesion are all in decline and are all being undermined by the policies and attitudes of what’s clearly the worst government we’ve ever had.
As I said, it’s a big claim given the chaos of the Whitlam years, and the border security disaster and mammoth governmental waste of the Rudd-Gillard era. Plus, the cognitive dissonance of the Turnbull aberration when an instinctively centre-right government was led from the centre-left.
Still, ask yourself this question: is there anything at all that the Albanese government has actually achieved, other than winning office in 2022?
Gough Whitlam addresses the crowd near Parliament House, Canberra.
We’ve now had six quarters of negative growth per person, a household recession unmatched in 30 years, that’s masked by record numbers of foreign students and low-skill immigrants artificially boosting the overall economic statistics but without contributing to our long-term economic strength. With the world more dangerous than in seven decades, the government has deliberately weakened our armed forces while making theatrical announcements about defence acquisitions far into the future.
Based on little more than the vibe, the government embarked on an unsuccessful referendum campaign to divide Australians permanently by race. Most recently, panicked by the Greens’ threat to its inner-city seats, the government has even pledged to forgive 20 per cent of students’ HECS debts, in a perverse act of reverse redistribution from low to middle income workers who’ve never seen the inside of a university but who will ultimately pick up the tab, to the better-off graduates who are its beneficiaries.
On top of large, government-funded wage rises for privately employed care workers, unlinked to productivity gains, and subsidies for power bills that the government’s own policies are driving up, the government has even considered new taxes on landlords, supposedly to boost housing supply, as if higher taxes on anything could ever make it more available and affordable. More spending, more taxing, and more regulating are the Albanese government’s habitual response to every problem that it excuses by pointing to two accidental surpluses on the back of high commodity prices, not government fiscal restraint (the very same commodities that it would ban if it could).
In the case of the current government, economic decline, military weakness and social division aren’t the regrettable results of factors beyond its control or even of sensible policies poorly executed. Arguably, these are the Albanese government’s actual objectives because a government-dependent country will be more likely to vote Labor, a weaker country will be less capable of standing for freedom, and a divided country will be more prone to the identity politics which is the speciality of the modern left.
To justify itself, the government claims that it has boosted the wages of childcare workers and aged care workers, and – in fairness to people doing necessary and often physically and emotionally draining work – it’s hard to deny them the extra money. Likewise, it’s hard to begrudge the families of children with severe disabilities NDIS support, but a scheme that was meant to focus on those with the most acute need is now routinely rorted by users and providers, with annual costs already exceeding our nation’s defence budget and set to explode to over $100bn within a decade.
Too often, Labor claims strong employment numbers as proof of their economic stewardship, yet two-thirds of the growth is in public sector or in publicly funded roles, not the private sector workforce that builds our prosperity.
Former prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard greet the crowd during the Labor campaign launch in 2019.
Much of the government’s economic ineptitude is left-wing prejudice against “greedy capitalists” and obliviousness to the need for wealth to be created before it can be redistributed. And much is the product of fearmongering about a “climate emergency” which is supposed to mean that reducing emissions is more important than maintaining coal and gas exports, keeping power prices down, and even the protection of prime agricultural land and pristine national parks from being carpeted with wind turbines and solar panels.
Trump’s election should prompt a rethink of the climate alarmism and rent-seeking, best exemplified by the 70,000 turning up for the latest COP meeting in Azerbaijan (including the Taliban). Plainly, maintaining energy independence is essential to sovereignty. With the US, China and India (collectively responsible for around half of global emissions) all refusing to put reducing emissions ahead of economic growth and national security, what difference can Australia make? Especially given the ongoing importance of fossil fuels in vital industrial processes such as steelmaking and fertiliser production, quite apart from the generation of power.
Impoverishing ourselves without making any meaningful difference to climate is worse than virtue signalling; it’s deliberate self-harm yet it’s by far the most messianic feature of the current government.
This was on graphic display this week with the government’s disavowal of the British Labour government’s “expectation” – published then swiftly withdrawn – that Australia would join its AUKUS allies in a civil nuclear partnership as the best way to keep industries strong and still de-carbonise. It was always bizarre to insist nuclear power was essential at sea but unthinkable on land. Especially as Australia has safely run a medical nuclear reactor in a Sydney suburb for seven decades. But being so obviously out of step with its social democratic allies makes our government seem not just ideologically blinkered but technologically stupid. Then there’s the government’s sudden reticence about announcing its 2035 emissions targets (due in February 2025), because it plans to withhold even worse news on energy prices until after the election. And these targets won’t just hit power bills but cut deep into sectors like transport and agriculture.
Everything this government does is about structural change for the worse: more house renters and fewer homeowners; a much bigger government and public sector workforce and a much smaller productive one; woke big businesses even more under the sway of industry fund shareholders; ever bigger bureaucracies, especially activist ones promoting diversity in everything except opinion; and, of course, the coming laws against misinformation and disinformation that will be used to stifle free speech that offends against the canons of political correctness.
This is a government that thinks hugely expensive pumped hydro schemes make more sense than proven nuclear power; that preferences the rights of asylum seekers to the right of the community to be safe from foreign criminals; that’s quicker to compensate people in Afghanistan for alleged war crimes than to stand behind soldiers who have risked their lives for our country; that prefers the personal choice of confused adolescents to best (and prudent) medical practice; and that gives trans rights precedence over women’s rights to their own safe spaces and sports.
As Paul Keating once observed, when you change the government, you change the country. And when it’s this bad, you’ve got to be thankful we will all get our say in a matter of months.
"This is a government that thinks hugely expensive pumped hydro schemes make more sense than proven nuclear power;"
Hydro power beats nuclear hands down on ROI.
Energy return on investment - which fuels win? - Carbon Brief
Image: Datteln coal power plant. Credit: Arnold Paul. The days of easy to extract fossil...www.carbonbrief.org
I could pick the rest of that article apart, but why bother, it's another Right Wing rant by a Murdoch publication.
22,000 hydro sites around the country.Could you name the best location for a hydro system in WA, SA, and the NT?
And while you're at it, which rivers in Australia would we dam to build new hydro?
22,000 hydro sites around the country.
There are 22,000 possible sites for pumped hydro storage in Australia
Professor Andrew Blakers has identified a rich bounty of sites suited for pumped hydro storage. That's good news for renewable energy in Australia.arena.gov.au
Some States are less advantaged but we have a national grid (except WA), and if WA taxpayers want to pay for reactors that no one else will use then don't come begging to the rest of us.
There will always be a few protestors but when the majority have to choose between the lights going out or a few bushwalks then the Greenies will quickly be outnumbered.First, I would like to see the cost to build hundreds of mini dams and the mini hydro systems for states like SA and WA. And then I would grab my popcorn as the governments tried to block rivers and change the environment where the public currently live, walk, explore and enjoy, and indigenous land rights are involved.
View attachment 188271
In 1982 protesters and environmental activists worked with the Australian Government to stop the damming of the Franklin River.This action saved a key wilderness area in Tasmania and created a political precedent for the raising of environmental concerns in parliament.The political success of the environmental groups involved ultimately led to the formation of the Greens, Australia’s third most popular political party behind the Liberal–National Coalition and the Labor Party.Franklin Dam and the Greens
1982: Protests against Franklin Dam in Tasmania lead to formation of the Greenswww.nma.gov.au
There will always be a few protestors but when the majority have to choose between the lights going out or a few bushwalks then the Greenies will quickly be outnumbered.
And by the way, dams provide recreational facilities like boating, fishing, water skiing, swimming etc that the population can enjoy so it's not all bad news environmentally.
First, I would like to see the cost to build hundreds of mini dams and the mini hydro systems for states like SA and WA.
Point is that the person who wrote that attack piece in the Australian has no idea of the merits of hydro or other competition to nuclear, they were simply parroting Liberal party mantras.
Undoing the damage done to the farming community by Scott Morrison's big mouth in regards to China would be one thing I can think of.
Undoing the damage done to the farming community by Scott Morrison's big mouth in regards to China would be one thing I can think of.
Looking objectively at what the Coalition are proposing, they're not proposing to cease development of renewables and replace that with nuclear outright. Rather, they're proposing to build some nuclear in order to reduce the scale of renewables.It was always bizarre to insist nuclear power was essential at sea but unthinkable on land. Especially as Australia has safely run a medical nuclear reactor in a Sydney suburb for seven decades.
@Smurf1976 Just a little bit on farmers and land clearing.Looking objectively at what the Coalition are proposing, they're not proposing to cease development of renewables and replace that with nuclear outright. Rather, they're proposing to build some nuclear in order to reduce the scale of renewables.
It's a bit like saying nobody's suggesting to stop building houses, but put up a few multi-storey apartment towers and that reduces the scale of house building required. That's a similar concept.
As to the impacts of hydro, ultimately that's a value judgement, it's not something that can be argued as wrong or right based on a calculation. The time to restore nature following the removal of a large dam is somewhat uncertain and variable, but to the extent there's a generic answer it's broadly accepted as 500 years, same as any other major land disturbance.
That is of course conditional on the dam's construction and existence not having caused a species extinction. If it does then it's an irrecoverable, permanent loss. That does of course apply to any development.
Of the approximately 100 known extinctions in Australia since European settlement, there's 1 extinction and 1 near extinction attributed to hydro development and I'll be the first to say that should not have been built.
That said, the cause of the near extinction is thought to not be the hydro scheme itself but rather, the decision to intentionally "stock" the lake with trout so that recreational fishers could catch them. Trouble is, the trout ate the now virtually extinct species and the fishers haven't caught all the trout. Had that not been done, the hydro development of itself probably wouldn't have had that effect although there'd still be one other species wiped out by dams.
That said, of the other 98 well one thing stands out - agriculture's taken a hell of a toll. This map shows the spread of extinctions nationally and it's pretty clear where the hot spots are:
Taken from this article: https://theconversation.com/scienti...-species-and-the-result-is-devastating-127611
Now look on Google maps and see what's there. It's not dams and power stations, it's farms where they cleared the lot.
Now obviously there's a need for agriculture, I'm not hating on farmers, but if there's serious concern about the environment then it's a far bigger problem than hydro.
On this issue politics or all sides are absolutely full of it. Labor tells the public we'll have 82% renewable energy by 2023 which isn't their actual plan and is simply unachievable. The coalition says they'll build some nuclear and omits to draw attention to that not being the only thing required, since they're not proposing anywhere near enough nuclear to fully replace the renewables, only a portion of it. In case you're wondering where Labor gets the 82% figure from, what they actually mean is 82% renewable electricity, they just chose to omit that detail and use the term energy instead. Bit like saying "music" when in truth you're only counting rock and no other genre.
All power pollutes, all of it. There's no such thing as non-polluting energy just as there's no such thing as a free lunch. If you think there is, it just means you haven't worked out where the pollution is occurring or how you've paid for the meal but it's there somewhere, that's 100% guaranteed.
What we get to choose is the location and form of pollution and ultimately that's a value judgement since it's impossible to "prove" that one thing is better the other when we're dealing with subjects as diverse as fine particles to gases to the loss of scenery to radioactive waste to potentially geopolitical conflict as the consequences. It's not at all straightforward to compare those - what's the value of 10km2 of land submerged under a hydro storage versus 210,000 tonnes of LNG versus 300 million litres of diesel per annum?
They can't be directly compared, it's a value judgement as to their relative importance and will of course be site specific as well.
They are still going to vote on digitally tatooing every citizen who wants to enjoy social media, using the Online Safety Ammendment Bill. The basics of such scheme are not novel :- "Show Me Your Papers" comes to mind.Horrible mummy's little prince who glories in his slithering ascent from a housing commission flat.
Look-at-me Albo and Wong tripped up on this ambitious assault on Australians. Must have been affecting their polls - although a bit of a riddle as Albo is known as a man of unshakeable integrity.
View attachment 188459
Is that opt-in, opt-out, or compulsory?They are still going to vote on digitally tatooing every citizen who wants to enjoy social media, using the Online Safety Ammendment Bill. The basics of such scheme are not novel :- "Show Me Your Papers" comes to mind.
You (we all) know it will be, ipso facto, compulsory.Is that opt-in, opt-out, or compulsory?
If it means we have to use real names, I'm out. Too many nutcases out there.You (we all) know it will be, ipso facto, compulsory.
Unfortunately that is their intention. Either submit to digital ID or f*** off social media.If it means we have to use real names, I'm out. Too many nutcases out there.
It's gotta be some sort of cruel joke. I guess VPN and Private DNS is the way out ?If it means we have to use real names, I'm out. Too many nutcases out there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?