Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Search results for 'anonymity'

Search Results for: anonymity

The late #Charlotte Dawson, Twitter and easy anonymity on the internet.

TV personality Charlotte Dawson, who was found dead in her home in inner Sydney on Saturday. Photograph: Don Arnold/WireImage

TV personality Charlotte Dawson, who was found dead in her home in inner Sydney on Saturday. Photograph: Don Arnold/WireImage

Ah be prepared for another large outpouring of “grief” for the death of another “celebrity” and the scions of our own media go into overdrive to praise Charlotte Dawson who committed suicide in Sydney on Saturday . I have been quietly watching this story unfold and examining the reactions from the social media . Especially interesting has been the attribution of blame to those shining lights of humanity who populate the nameless denizens  of Twitter. Apparently Dawson was seriously addicted to arguing with them and subject to some rather nasty taunting and suggestions that she should kill herself. Now its probably impossible to quantify just how much this sort of online cruelty influenced that fatal appointment with a rope but given the revelations that Dawson’s whole life and career was in some sort of meltdown and her underlying depression  I tend to think that such a suggestion is rather too simplistic.  None the less there has been quite a few commentators to the news story suggesting (quite correctly IMHO) that easy anonymity is a great contributor to the meanness, cruelty  and level of rancour shown to Dawson in her social media immersion.

At the very least there is a good argument that Twitter and all social media should be required to know who it is that is signing up for access to their service so that those who are using it as a medium for harassment or pernicious cruelty can be both traceable and accountable. Of course there will be those who will make the counter argument that ” the internet” should be free and that there is no need for any accountability beyond the disdain/disapproval  of other users. From my experience this is a nonsense especially in something as ephemeral as Twitter, even more so when those who misuse social media just keep reinventing themselves if it becomes untenable to continue with one particular online identity.  More and more as the boundary between our online and “In Real Life” existence become ever more blurred and merged the more we have to extend the accountability that we have in the real world to our existence online and the sooner that this is achieved the better all of our lives will be.

With respect Comrades

twitter_bird_ban_140.htease

Social Media, Online Privacy and Free Speech Anonymity: a guest post by Fiona Causer

Freedom of speech is one of the most treasured rights of citizens of democratic nations around the world. Yet debate about freedom of speech continues in the twenty-first century as technology provides new methods of communication.  For with these new communication channels come new challenges to professionals in the position of protecting these free speech rights.  This makes the demand for savvier legal practitioners even greater than before.  In order to have a chance to defend future victims of violated online trust, many paralegal online education programs are tasked with providing technologically-aware graduates ready to face these potential violations to online privacy and free speech.

More than ten million Australians use Facebook and millions of others use other social media sites such as Twitter and YouTube to share information with friends and families and, sometimes, to express political opinions. While no one suggests that the explosion of social media use should be curtailed, many people are concerned over the forum social networking sites provide for anonymous comments, which can often contain vitriol that the posters would not necessarily express if they were face-to-face with someone with an opposing view.

Many Facebook users assume their posts are viewable only by their friends, but anything that has been posted online can be found and viewed by computer-savvy hackers, sometimes with dramatic consequences. Numerous people have been fired after making derogatory comments on Facebook or Twitter about their employers.

The consequences of some social media posts are far greater than an individual’s firing when the comments are of a political nature. For example, a private site on Facebook used by more than 1000 current and former members of the Australian military was discovered to have numerous posts that were offensive to women, Muslims and immigrants. Hundreds of the posts included expletives and hateful language. The discovery of the site, which has now been shut down, created a scandal in the Australian army and will likely result in the firing of the posters.
In another instance, Tony Mitchell, an Australian teaching English in Bahrain, was fired from his position and deported for writing about the political unrest in the country on his Facebook account. According to an article on NextWeb.com, Mitchell found out that his Facebook page was being monitored by people he had added as friends to his page who then forwarded the information to his university’s human resources department.

Situations such as Mitchell’s may encourage some social media users to create fake identities to protect themselves yet be open about their opinions. However, the ability to hide an identity on social media could lead to abuses if users use their anonymity to write inflammatory posts. If anonymous or false identities become too prevalent, it may be possible that restrictions could be put in place on social media networks to prevent this type of behaviour.

In order to take full advantage of the benefits of social media without compromising a person’s employment or safety, users of social media are advised to be careful about what they post. Embarrassing photos, rude comments about other people, explosive political rants and complaints about work can all cause personal problems such as loss of employment or the loss of important relationships. A good rule of thumb to avoid problems with social media is to assume that every item posted may be read by an employer and a close relative. Anything that would offend either of those people may be better left off a social media site. While freedom of speech is a right that every Australian treasures, with freedom comes responsibility.

Dr Jason Wilson thinks that Internet anonymity is an unequivocally good thing, sigh

The Good Doctor Jason Wilson

For someone who teaches about the new media the good doctor seems to be extremely naive about the issue of internet anonymity,  as his opinion piece at Crikey demonstrates

Free speech at risk as Google embroiled in ‘nym wars’

by Jason Wilson, an assistant professor in journalism at the University of Canberra

There’s a struggle going on at the moment between the world’s biggest internet company and its users over the right to be pseudonymous or anonymous online.

There is just NO right to anonymity in the law of any country on the planet, in fact most legal systems are predicated upon the notion that citizens should be obliged to speak and act in their own names so that if they violate the law by doing so that they can he held to account

Google is facing a growing backlash over a policy that effectively forces people to use their “real names” on its new social media service, Google+.

Personally I think that this is a good thing because it means that discourse  will be more civil

At first Google deleted several accounts set up with pseudonyms or online handles. When this turned into a PR disaster, it tried a different approach, but with the same end point in mind. Whatever your reasons, however legitimate your concerns, revealing your real name to the world is a condition of using their service.

If there are the rules set up by the service provider that you don’t like, you are quite easily able to avoid them by simply  not using the service

This has taken some of the shine off the factory-fresh social network.

No not really it just means that those who use the service will be able to enjoy an environment where those that they interact with are real people rather than fakes with potentially underhanded agendas

It’s reminded many of the catastrophic handling of privacy issues in its last attempt at getting on the social media bandwagon, Google Buzz.

Well this is the curse of not checking what is involved in enabling any thing on the net isn’t it?

Some users are furious. Many argue that their pseudonymity is necessary because speaking under their real names would endanger their employment, their relationships, or even their personal safety. A website, my.nameis.me, showcases the concerns of those who feel they can only speak freely under a pseudonym, because of their fears of harassment, discrimination, physical harm, and in some jurisdictions, arrest and punishment up to and including execution.

If you don’t want to use the social media  internet in your real name then the solution is simple just don’t use it at all

Testimonies there show that it is the most marginalised who have the most to lose. Part of their indignation arises from the arrogance of large internet firms who seem to be trying to change the rules of online speech, and thus remove the protections people have enjoyed for decades.

This is utter bollocks those with the most to lose are the scum-bags and arseholes who use the net for malicious purposes, no one is obliged to participate in anyway on-line but if they do then they have to abide by the rules and expectations of the entities that offer the social media platforms.

An incensed blog post from danah boyd characterised this as an “abuse of power”.

This is part of what are being called the nym wars, a genuine free speech battle overlooked by some in Australia who are currently too busy defending Rupert Murdoch’s right to own 150 newspapers.

What rot! besides the fact that there is no right to anonymity no one’s right to free speech is at risk in this or most western countries, if you are mindful of the laws of defamation you can say anything you please on the internet and there is no doubt that civility is enhanced when your identity is known.

The often crude privilege-blindness of the other side of the debate was given expression last week by Facebook’s former marketing director, Randi Zuckerberg (who left the company to launch a social media firm called RtoZ Media), who said:

I think anonymity on the internet has to go away. People behave a lot better when they have their real names down … I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors.

What she failed to consider was that many “hide behind anonymity” online because of very real risks to them and their families.

There is only a risk to anyone from their on-line utterances come when they act like arseholes Jason, like when they defame or try to discredit people who post in their real names from behind those Pseudonyms that you so endorse. Your problem is that you don’t appreciate that it is the mixed population on line that is the problem, If everyone was equally anonymous then it would not matter at all what anyone says about another person, but when you have some who post under pseudonyms and some who post under their real names you run in to the accountability problems that I know all to well

Similar arguments are made frequently in this country by some journalists who are irritated by pseudonymous online critics. Indeed, it’s the same sentiment that was expressed in justifying the “outing” of the pseudonymous “Grog” as Greg Jericho by The Australian last year.

While I tend to agree that there was no real need to out Greg Jericho he has clearly not suffered form the experience, in fact it served to raise his profile substantially and he certainly has not lost his day job either. Then again he has always written as if his name was known and that he could be held accountable for anything that he has said.

Coming from the profession that should be most committed to free speech, it’s pretty ugly. The idea  seems to be that operating under their real names will make people moderate their criticisms. Whichever way you look at it, it’s an attempt to limit people’s speech.

There has always been some limits on “free speech” so the suggestion that it could or should be otherwise is just a furphy here. The question is all about getting the right balance and expecting that on-line speech should be  be bound by the same expectations as we have for other types of public expression like the print media, radio or television is not unreasonable.

A lot of people making these complaints are relatively new to online debate — we can hope that they will toughen up and see that the odd flaming is the price we pay for a relatively free flow of information.

No Jason some of us have been going on about this issue for years mate and we do so because we have had the first hand experience of people using anonymity of the internet  to disparage and defame them and their being no practicable way to bring those offenders to account.

Meanwhile, we need to reflect on what the “nym wars” show us: that the most powerful internet giants will actively erode our freedoms when it suits their interests. How should we respond?

Perhaps there is a middle way to be advocated here, namely that the providers of the social media  platforms should oblige their users to disclose their verifiable identities to sign up but allow people to then post under a screen name. Thus if there is a problem with what is said  an aggrieved party can seek redress either by direct negotiation or through the courts. Thus people will be encouraged to good on-line behaviour and those squeamish souls who lack the courage to speak in their own names can still play in the On-line sandpits .

Cheers Comrades

On the subject of blogging, anonymity and employers


Photo of “Cathrine” from the Uk’s Daily Telegraph

Photo of “Catherine” from the Uk’s Daily Telegraph

On the subject of blogging, anonymity and
employers: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun…2– 23109,00.html
Bridgit Gread Homepage 07.19.06 – 2:34 am #

——————————————————————————–

Bridgit Gread…. I carefully perused your link to the newspaper article that you provided for readers. I assume it was in defence of, and pertaining to Mr Lefty’s situation and your views on this subject. However it more then ever reinforces my view on anonymity, for as you can plainly see being anonymous got Catherine the “La Petite Anglaise” into more trouble than Ginger Meggs…. lol.
Jason Hansford 07.19.06 – 3:27 am #

You find some very interesting things when you look through the comments to various blogs I found this in the comment thread at Boltwatch. The nefarious Bridgit Gread sights this story as a reason that Bloggers should remain anonymous .But lets consider just what Catherine has been saying about her work place and employers.

My workplace is an oasis of Britishness in Paris. Like in the British embassy, all French rules are suspended upon entering the building and you have to set your watch to GMT. There is a framed portrait of Her Majesty QE2 in the entrance hall. We got a day off for the golden jubilee. We have Tetley tea and fresh milk in the kitchen (as opposed to nasty French UHT, which makes a terrible cuppa).

When writing to clients we have to address them as “Esq”, e.g. Percival Goldman Esq. The dictionary tells me this is “a title of respect for a member of the English gentry ranking just below a knight”.

It’s a bit tricky to know who ranks just below a knight these days and who doesn’t. The only explanation anyone could venture when I asked for clarification was “it’s a class thing”. Makes one proud to be British.

This other boss is very old school. He wears braces and sock
suspenders (although I don’t have any firsthand experience of those), stays in gentlemen’s clubs when in London, and calls secretaries ‘typists’. When I speak to him, I can’t prevent myself from mirroring his plummy Oxbridge accent. His presence at this precise moment is both unhelpful and potentially embarrassing. Not least because W is on the speakerphone, and is an outrageous flirt. I pray that he has heard Old School Boss arriving and busy myself with connecting cables.

As for my own boss reading this blog? It is my worst fear. He’s
an expat it the land of the Frogs, as is his wife, so you never know whether one day their internet surfing might wash them up on these shores. I imagine the main issue my employer would have with my blogging would be to establish whether I post on company time. Mostly I blog at lunctime or in the evening (the time of posting being irrelevant and events not necessarily occurring on the day I say they do), but of course I do surf other people’s blogs and write my own during slack periods at work. Pre petite anglaise I used to openly read the Guardian when my in tray was empty, and the response this elicited from my boss was usually along the lines of ‘oh yes, I read that story too this morning on my palm pilot, what do you think about it?’, but you never know for sure how people will react, do you? So, as a precaution, you won’t find me moaning about my boss here. Anyway, *coughs*, he is the best boss I’ve ever had, and it would be difficult to fault him.

This is just a sample from posts that come up under the subtitle of working girl in the blogs categories. Now I actually agree with Bridgit that there is some convergence between this story of a blogger who has come unstuck in Paris and the story of a young lawyer who found him self in hot water over his blogging activities and that is they were both most indiscreet about how they went about it. Like Catherine a certain “MrLefty” posted his own photo in his blog and like Catherine a certain MrLefty was indiscreet about discussing work matters in his blog . But unlike Catherine, “MrLefty” was given a warning and he deleted the blog in question.

Does this story actually demonstrate that blogging anonymously has some virtues for its author? Sure it does but it also shows the same thing that is demonstrated in the case of “MrLefty”. Namely that you can blog anonymously if you wish but that every time you write about your life you should do it as if your name is known and the subjects of your posts will be reading what you write. Because one day they might and then your indiscreet comment may well come back and bite you in away that may be rather nasty .

Just a small after thought to this post Bridgit Gread posts this as a retort to Jason

Well then ‘Jason’, I can only assume your comprehension skills are lacking. The woman was sacked because her employer was able to learn details about her private life from her blog. There was no ‘need to know’ on the employer’s behalf; he/she just went trawling or was told about it by a third party. This to me is complete justification for blogging anonymously, particularly if you want to be open and honest on your blog and/or have a mean-spirited employer.
Bridgit Gread Homepage 07.19.06 – 12:00 pm #

Well if Bridgit had actually read the blog in question instead of just the report she quotes in her original comment she would have discovered that Catherine actually left her page up on her computer and her boss found out when he used her terminal at work .But she was not sacked because of the details of her private life but because her posts that refer to her workplace and her employers was considered at best indiscreet and at worst defamatory . So much for some one who claims to be a journalist checking her information…


On the subject of blogging, anonymity and employers


Photo of “Cathrine” from the Uk’s Daily Telegraph

Photo of “Cathrine” from the Uk’s Daily Telegraph

On the subject of blogging, anonymity and
employers: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun…2– 23109,00.html
Bridgit Gread Homepage 07.19.06 – 2:34 am #

——————————————————————————–

Bridgit Gread…. I carefully perused your link to the newspaper article
that you provided for readers. I assume it was in defense of, and pertaining to
Mr Lefty’s situation and your views on this subject. However it more then ever
reinforces my view on anonymity, for as you can plainly see being anonymous got
Catherine the “La Petite Anglaise” into more trouble than Ginger Meggs…. lol.
Jason Hansford 07.19.06 – 3:27 am #

You find some very interesting things when you look through the comments to various blogs I found this in the comment thread at Boltwatch. The nefarious Bridgit Gread sights this story as a reason that Bloggers should remain anonymous .But lets consider just what Catharine has been saying about her work place and employers.

My workplace is an oasis of Britishness in Paris. Like in the British embassy,
all French rules are suspended upon entering the building and you have to set
your watch to GMT.There is a framed portrait of Her Majesty QE2 in the
entrance hall. We got a day off for the golden jubilee. We have Tetley tea and
fresh milk in the kitchen (as opposed to nasty French UHT, which makes a
terrible cuppa).

When writing to clients we have to address them as
“Esq”, e.g. Percival Goldman Esq. The dictionary tells me this is “a title of
respect for a member of the English gentry ranking just below a knight”.

It’s a bit tricky to know who ranks just below a knight these days and
who doesn’t. The only explanation anyone could venture when I asked for
clarification was “it’s a class thing”.

Makes one proud to be British.

This other boss is very old school. He wears braces and sock
suspenders (although I don’t have any firsthand experience of those), stays in
gentlemen’s clubs when in London, and calls secretaries ‘typists’. When I speak
to him, I can’t prevent myself from mirroring his plummy Oxbridge accent. His
presence at this precise moment is both unhelpful and potentially embarrassing.
Not least because W is on the speakerphone, and is an outrageous flirt. I pray
that he has heard Old School Boss arriving and busy myself with connecting
cables.

As for my own boss reading this blog? It is my worst fear. He’s
an expat it the land of the Frogs, as is his wife, so you never know whether one
day their internet surfing might wash them up on these shores. I imagine the
main issue my employer would have with my blogging would be to establish whether
I post on company time. Mostly I blog at lunctime or in the evening (the time of
posting being irrelevant and events not necessarily occurring on the day I say
they do), but of course I do surf other people’s blogs and write my own during
slack periods at work. Pre petite anglaise I used to openly read the Guardian
when my in tray was empty, and the response this elicited from my boss was
usually along the lines of ‘oh yes, I read that story too this morning on my
palm pilot, what do you think about it?’, but you never know for sure how people
will react, do you? So, as a precaution, you won’t find me moaning about my boss
here.
Anyway, *coughs*, he is the best boss I’ve ever had, and it would be
difficult to fault him.

This is just a sample from posts that come up under the subtitle of working girl in the blogs categories. Now I actually agree with Bridgit that there is some convergence between this story of a blogger who has come unstuck in Paris and the story of a young lawyer who found him self in hot water over his blogging activities and that is they were both most indiscreet about how they went about it. Like Catherine a certain “MrLefty” posted his own photo in his blog and like Catharine a certain MrLefty was indiscreet about discussing work matters in his blog . But unlike Catharine, “MrLefty” was given a warning and he deleted the blog in question.

Does this story actually demonstrate that blogging anonymously has some virtues for its author? Sure it does but it also shows the same thing that is demonstrated in the case of “MrLefty”. Namely that you can blog anonymously if you wish but that every time you write about your life you should do it as if your name is known and the subjects of your posts will be reading what you write. Because one day they might and then your indiscreet comment may well come back and bite you in away that may be rather nasty .

Just a small after thought to this post Bridgit Gread posts this as a retort to Jason

Well then ‘Jason’, I can only assume your comprehension skills are lacking. The woman was sacked because her employer was able to learn details about her private life from her blog. There was no ‘need to know’ on the employer’s behalf; he/she just went trawling or was told about it by a third party. This to me is complete justification for blogging anonymously, particularly if you want to be open and honest on your blog and/or have a mean-spirited employer.
Bridgit Gread Homepage 07.19.06 – 12:00 pm #

Well if Bridgit had actually read the blog in question instead of just the report she quotes in her original comment she would have discovered that Catherine actually left her page up on her computer and her boss found out when he used her terminal at work .But she was not sacked because of the details of her private life but because her posts that refer to her workplace and her employers was considered at best indiscrete and at worst defamatory . So much for some one who claims to be a journalist checking her information…


Guardian comments

In response to wordinedgeways

Snowden probably caused the deaths of many agents of his country in the field which is treason and deserving of a capital sanction

View discussion

In response to wordinedgeways

They were not “desperate” people they were arrogant and greedy people who gambled their lives and lost The world is a better place without them, its as simple as that.

View discussion

In response to guffawer

guffawer

The ALP wont win an election promising another Tax on energy that was rejected not 3 years ago. The ALP wont win an election when Chris Bowen demonised anyone who negative gears

think the policy is all about shoring up their primary vote by trying to lure back those who have defected to the Greens the problem is that there are far more who will defect away to the government than will return to the fold over this.

View discussion

In response to johngood123456

They don’t like it up em!!!!! fro those who don’t get johngood123456’s allusion

View discussion

In response to Ranger010

Don’t assume that criticizing the carbon tax proposed By Shorten means that anyone has to endorse or defend “direct action” both are bad but Shorten’s new scheme is going to be orders of magnitude worse by any measure that matters.

View discussion

In response to markingstar

What would delight me more would be you ceasing to cut and past big slabs text from elsewhere instead of commenting properly like the rest of us

View discussion

In response to voltron1966

voltron1966

Especially with your mate, murdoch, spreading lies and misinformation for you flat-earthers. Hopefully, he’s too busy with his new succubus, I mean wife.

Murdoch certainly does not have the sort of power and sway that you imagine he has.

View discussion

In response to Helicalgroove

Helicalgroove

Its still a return to the Carbon tax

No it isn’t. I’m not going to repeat what Doomglitter has already told you, but no it is not.

As far as the voting public are concerned if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then its a duck no matter how much you and your ilk claim it is some new species of bird.

Thanks for illustrating what I was referring to with my comment about Liberal misinformation though.

I am being utterly truthful here

View discussion

In response to markingstar

markingstar

BHP revealed it paid $4.25 million to the Minerals Council of Australia to help its campaign against the mining tax in 2010. You will be delighted.

That is utterly irrelevent

View discussion

In response to thefinnigans1

thefinnigans1

Direct action has a carbon tax/price

Well I don’t support that scheme either frankly we should do nothing rather than waste money on futile actions. That said it is a lesser evil than the Carbon Tax but not by much

View discussion

In response to DoomGlitter

DoomGlitter

The Clean Energy Act of 2011, which established the emissions trading scheme as a mechanism to deal with climate change, talks about a “price” on carbon, not a tax.

The Gillard government typically referred to a “carbon price” when communicating its policy.

You can hide behind semantics in your comments as undoubtedly the Labor party will hide behind semantic during the election campaign but taht won’t change the public perception that this is still a Carbon Tax being proposed by the Labor party. Its a poisoned chalice filled with climate change Kool Aid.

View discussion

In response to Kaikoura

an amount so small that it can not be measured…………. this is an attempt to raise the Carbon tax form its well deserved grave and the public will reject it in greater numbers than they will welcome it

View discussion

In response to Helicalgroove

Its still a return to the Carbon tax and while that may play well to the “Greens” demographic the rest of the country will refuse the poisoned chalice in droves even with out a government campaign against it.

View discussion

In response to CanadaChuck

A sneaky Carbon Tax is still a carbon tax no matter how Labor try to dress it up in almost impenetrable complexity. And no matter how complex the Lab0r party make its New carbon tax it will still make absolutely zero difference to the climate.

View discussion

In response to murph73

Like you Murph73 I have long favored the idea of creating a separate legal instrument to meet the needs of same sex couples, but sadly the activists are unwilling to accept that because of their fallacious idea that apples are precisely the same as oranges when everyone knows that you can make a pie with apples but you can’t do the same with oranges even though both are fruit.

View discussion

In response to coppersmith

coppersmith

While I share the concerns expressed in this article, I wonder if reflexive intolerance isn’t a normal, even necessary, part of the dialectic of social change.

two wrongs do not make something right More importantly behaving badly to others no matter how much you feel it is justified hinders rather than enhances your cause no matter what it might be.

Marginalised people and there supporters who are on the verge of achieving a hard-won victory over conservative and reactionary forces in society are likely to see that success as fragile.

How they feel simply does not matter

Shaming people for expressing dissenting views may be quite deliberately silencing debate in an effort to ensure that their acceptance is firmly entrenched as part of “the new normal.”

That is just a form of bullying and its often counterproductive as well

While I don’t like to see reasoned debate on an issue shut down, I would be very willing to have critics of transgender people (or Islamic identity, or aboriginal peoples, or what have you) loudly shouted down in the public square until we stop seeing video of people on busses loudly abusing some minority that they are personally offended by.

How very totalitarian of you !
Look if people don’t have the freedom to offend then they have no freedom of speech at all. And if they don’t have freedom then you won’t either.

Maybe a rule of thumb: When vile prejudice if no longer acceptable on the political right, then we’ve reached the point where the left needs to be ready to ease off the knee-jerk response. On many of these issues, we’re just not there yet.

That is ridiculous. under your regime we would never be there, just as it was under Stalin

View discussion

In response to coppersmith

coppersmith

While I share the concerns expressed in this article, I wonder if reflexive intolerance isn’t a normal, even necessary, part of the dialectic of social change.

Marginalised people and there supporters who are on the verge of achieving a hard-won victory over conservative and reactionary forces in society are likely to see that success as fragile. Shaming people for expressing dissenting views may be quite deliberately silencing debate in an effort to ensure that their acceptance is firmly entrenched as part of “the new normal.”

While I don’t like to see reasoned debate on an issue shut down, I would be very willing to have critics of transgender people (or Islamic identity, or aboriginal peoples, or what have you) loudly shouted down in the public square until we stop seeing video of people on busses loudly abusing some minority that they are personally offended by.

Maybe a rule of thumb: When vile prejudice if no longer acceptable on the political right, then we’ve reached the point where the left needs to be ready to ease off the knee-jerk response. On many of these issues, we’re just not there yet.

View discussion

In response to laclem

laclem

Also, what are the arguments against same sex marriage that aren’t based in bigotry and homophobia? Genuine question, as I haven’t heard one yet.

There are quite a few of us out there who are for individual liberty to have any kind of sexual relation ship with another consenting adult that pleases you but have reservations about changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples.

View discussion

In response to PDGFD1

PDGFD1

I see no ‘problem’ there. As long as the discourse doesn’t descend into abusive language.

Maybe that is because you feel the advantages of politicla correctness within the bubble of your fellow minions of the left here where contary opinons are so very often denounced or disallowed even when they are presented in a polite and respectful way.

IF ‘tother side will brook no opposition at all, or claims any and all criticism is ‘intolerance’ then you are dealing with someone who isn’t capable of civilised discourse.

Actually it is your side of the arguments who do that Just look at any thread about feminism and you will find tons of comments removed , supposedly for violating community guidelines but what they have really done wrong is disagree with the prevailing orthodoxy here. Its things like that which does the politcally correct team no favors.

View discussion

In response to martyboy

Yes even readers like me agree with the thrust of this article

View discussion

In response to JohnTiler

JohnTiler
its no more biased that the sources you cited and no matter what its bias you can not deny what it says about your citations which is that all of the ‘research about same sex parenting has a faulty methodology caused mainly by having a rather small and self selected sample rather than a larger more randomized selection and a suitable control group.

View discussion

In response to JohnTiler

John
I can google studies that support my opinion as well:

In his study, published earlier this year, Sullins examined the National Health Interview Survey’s results from 1997 through 2014. The survey, which has been done since 1957, gave Sullins 1.6 million people as his total sample size, including 207,000 children and 512 same-sex couples raising children.

Sullins said that the size of his study gave it a specific strength that other studies on the issue lack. He pointed to 47 studies that say children raised by same-sex couples are not worse off than children raised by opposite-sex parents, all done prior to 2010. “The mean sample size of all of these studies was only 39 children.”

“Only four studies used a probability sample….And the largest of these probability samples was only 44 female same-sex families,” said Sullins. Sullins cited Canadian researcher Doug Allen, whose work has famously showed that children are better off when being raised by parents of the opposite sex, to highlight another flaw in those studies — that the participants are often recruited through the LGBT community via ads and other methods, and therefore have tremendous biases.

The results of Sullins’ study are clear — 7.4 percent of children raised by opposite-sex parents have emotional issues, while 17.4 percent of kids raised by same-sex parents have similar issues. Similarly, 10.2 percent of kids raised by opposite-sex parents have ADHD and other emotional issues, while 19.3 percent of kids raised by same-sex parents have the same issues.

More than 10 percent of opposite-sex parents get their children treated for emotional issues, while more than 17 percent of same-sex parents do the same. And 6.9 percent of kids raised by opposite-sex parents are prescribed medication, compared to 21 percent of children raised by same-sex parents.

“Parent education and income makes no difference” in how children turn out, said Sullins, nor does “family stability” or “age, race, and sex of the child,” or emotional issues that parents have.

Sullins also criticized the popular idea that the children of same-sex parents are bullied and otherwise ill-treated compared to their counterparts raised by opposite-sex parents. He pointed to the National Health Survey (NHS), which he noted has “several good measures” related to such matters. When he looked at the NHS survey, Sullins found that children “with opposite-sex parents were stigmatized at a higher rate,” and that “the differences were augmented — it didn’t explain the differences, it aggravated the differences.”
Source

As i said same sex couples can certainly do an adequate job of parenting but lots research has found that children raised by both of their biological parents do better in life and as such that is the model that we should support and encourage.

View discussion

In response to JohnTiler

JohnTiler


the day that a same sex couple can produce offspring without the intervention of technology and a third party gamete is the day that I will endorse Gay marriage…

Gay couples can also adopt, foster and become legal guardians for children.

Which is both admirable but irrelevant to the point you are trying to counter here

Gay marriage would therefore endorse and strengthen this social endorsement of an enduring pair-bond which has been a foundation stone of human society (your criterion).

No it wouldn’t because a same sex pairing is not the same as heterosexual pairing when it comes to raising children it can be certainly be adequate in a functional sense but children do better when they can experience both male and female examples while they are being raised .

Try again Iain, this really is getting tedious.

Well I enjoy the journey of a discussion as much as its destination.

View discussion

In response to JohnTiler

John
the day that a same sex couple can produce offspring without the intervention of technology and a third party gamete is the day that I will endorse Gay marriage, until then I will continue to argue that instead of co-opting marriage same sex couples should be seeking a separate legal instrument to meet their need for pubic affirmation of their relationships. A separate legal instrument solves all of the political problems and achieves the desired endgame of legal recognition without alienating those in our society who so strongly believe that marriage is only possible between a man and a woman.

View discussion

In response to JohnTiler

JohnTiler

Really? that must surely give the Christians, who by and large are tolerant of homosexuality the moral high ground then.

No matter how much some individual church people opine against homosexuality the reality is that most Christians are not advocating for it to be criminalized and if you ask them privately they will admit to a “live and let live” attitude. That is tolerance, heck that attitude is evident even in Australian Christian Lobby leader, Lyle Shelton.

Perhaps your definition of tolerant is different to the rest of the world?

My definition of tolerance does not require anyone to like that which they will tolerate, in fact accepting something that one strongly disagrees with is by definition “tolerance”

View discussion

In response to JohnTiler

JohnTiler

Because marriage is a heterosexual institution for the continuation of the species

It’s a real wonder our species managed this continuation prior to us ever inventing the institution of marriage.

Marriage, or a social endorsement of an enduring pair-bond has been a foundation stone of human society for as long as we have been a distinct species because it takes so long to bring our offspring to maturity.

View discussion

In response to rattis

rattis

Aggressive, sharp, arrogant responses.

And why is that a problem?

Your dissection of everyone’s commentary demonstrates how much you’re enjoying arguing your point, regardless of who you offend.

Yes I enjoy the process here and I am unmoved by the possibility that someone might be offended in the process because I assume that all here are grown ups.

Like a true bully, your thriving on a knowing that regardless of who you harm, you can hide behind a simplistic ideology that in a way excuses your prejudices.

Commenting here is entirely voluntary and given the fact that those arguing for your side out number the other by orders of magnitude its a bit rich to claim that I am bullying anyone.

As I mentioned to another individual who constantly looks to battle via this issue, I’d bet anything that behind the lines, theres a perfect stereotypical fit of somebody who thoroughly enjoys offending the gay community- middle aged, white heterosexual Christian male (someone who hasn’t had to fight for an inch of social justice because they’re the @ssholes who have dictated notions of social normality for centuries).

Sorry to disappoint you but I am a life long atheist, I am a bit past middle age and I have absolutely nothing against the concept of homosexuality per se. In fact I have repeatedly argued for every individual’s right to copulate with any other consenting adult regardless of gender.

And gay marriage is just another social change that further diminishes your position of power at the top of the class.

You see I reject the “hierarchy of victimhood” that is implicit in your claim above and the very last place that I would be is “top of the class in a position of power” I’m just putting the argument I believe in in an open forum, just as you are.

View discussion

In response to rattis

rattis

Iain, you clearly have more time than me to argue a point.

Not by an measure a crime to have more time as far as I am aware

I’m no longer interested in your rant.

Sorry to bear that you have been an interesting interlocutor

But you should know that in the midst of your discussion is a message being sent to gay people that you believe their relationships are not worthy of marriage.

Its not a matter of “worthiness to marry” as much as its a case of a same sex relationship does not meet the necessary prerequisites for the institution.

This in turn suggests you consider them inferior.

Not inferior just different

This is a message that hurts people who are born different to you.

engaging in our polity on any issue is not for shrinking violets ratis and if someone is ‘hurt” by disagreement then they need to toughen up a bit

I can walk away from this debate knowing that all I am hoping for is an inclusive society that finally recognises the value of a gay relationship and that the law of the land finally embraces same sex relationships as equal.

Well I think that forcing the latter in pursuit of the former may well backfire

You have to live with the thought that you’re campaigning against the rights of a minority who want nothing more but recognition in the eye of the law that who they love is acceptable and meaningful. And I don’t think your determination is doing anything for your cause.

The thing is I believe that you have a substantive acceptance of homosexuality in this country and I am very pleased that is the case its just that I believe that changing the definition of marriage is a bridge too far.

View discussion

In response to SeanoQ

SeanoQ

Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”

Yes I take that as a personal mission statement.

View discussion

In response to BulbousAlsoTapered

BulbousAlsoTapered

the moral imperative to yourself is to demonstrate to those people how to do tolerance properly.

Which has been my practice of a life time

A starting point would be to support SSM and Safe Schools.

No that does not follow

View discussion

In response to Joshua Monkie

Joshua Monkie

Intolerance exists on both sides. Singling out only progressives for this seems pretty intolerant in itself.

I’m not saying my side of the argument is entirely blameless but my experience has been that the progressive side is somewhat worse.

View discussion

In response to rattis

rattis

So Christians are ‘tolerant’ of homosexuals.

In our country they largely are, it seesm to me taht your vision of Christianity would see them all from the same mould as the Wetsbrough Baptists when taht si simply not so in this country

Do they consider them equal?

I don’t speak for them but I would say that the vast majority think that all people are equal in their humanity

Why is there a broad movement by the Church to remove the safe schools program (designed to teach acceptance of difference) from state funded schools?

Because the content of that program is as you progressive like to say “problematic” on a number of levels and it does not actually teach acceptance as much as it teaches a “social justice” orthodoxy that is of questionable virtue.

And why is there an aggressive push to ensure the gay community are locked out of the concept of ‘marriage’?

Because marriage is a heterosexual institution for the continuation of the species

Why? Because Christians ‘tolerate’ homosexuals but they do not consider them equal.

No because a same sex couple can never create children without the intervention of a third party

They never have, and they will continue to campaign to supress them.

We live in a pluralist society and that means that Christians do not have to like or approve what you choose to do, they simply have to let you do as you please as long as you hurt no one else in the process. It seems to me that you are desperate for their approval and that you will hate on them until they give it to you.

You are supporting a movement of bullies.

No I’m not supporting your side of the argument who are the real bullies here.

View discussion

In response to FatzKatz

FatzKatz

So, you are saying Christians are bigots by default Iain?

Certainly Not

Not very clever at this intellectual jousting are you?

Better than you, by any measure though…

View discussion

In response to laclem

laclem

By which you mean criticism of Christians, of which you are intolerant. #irony

You and everyone else here is entirely welcome to criticize Christians and I’m just as free to point out when you and your pals commit precisely the same sins that you accuse Christians of.

View discussion

In response to Davesnothereman

Davesnothereman

Yes Iain, I am intolerant of bigots and will make no apology for it.

Really? that must surely give the Christians, who by and large are tolerant of homosexuality the moral high ground then.

View discussion

In response to rattis

rattis

What, intolerance of bigotry and an intolerance of Chrustians who refuse to tolerate homosexuals as equal?

If Christians* were being intolerant (which the clear majority certainly are NOT intolerant) then surely the moral imperative to yourself is to demonstrate to those people how to do tolerance properly.

Christians playing the victim is utterly absurd. If you want to be tolerated, all you have to do is accept others for who they are.

As Jesus famously said “let those among you who is without sin cast the first stone” The point that John Haldane was making about a lack of generosity in debate is clearly evident in your own comment firstly you mock Christians with unnecessary sarcasm (* above) and then you demonstrate precisely the sort of behavior you are complaining about from Christians.
And before you denounce me as a Christian I will tell you that I am an atheist.

View discussion

You can bet london to a brick that there will be lots of evidence of intolerance form progressives in this thread

View discussion

In response to iBreed

iBreed

So as long as our troops were better than our enemies, we should not be critical of our troops at all, even a century after the fact?

We should not be “critical” of them in a way that implies a general sort of bad behavior that was not actually the case.

View discussion

In response to iBreed

He is a stupid stupid man who fails to put the very few incidents into the proper perspective, namely that such behavior by Australian troops is/was considerably more rare than it has been by the totalitarian enemies that this country has fought wars against. There was not “comfort women” for Aussie soldiers as there were for the Japanese. and any Aussie bad behavior has always been subject to the military justice system.

View discussion

In response to LindaTC

Exactly right Linda flirting is one of the things that puts a sparkle into life and its not something that anyone should have got upset about.

View discussion

In response to MikeFlanagan

Mike
My argument is not at all about “ideology trumping science” its very much about putting what you claim is “concern” and “dismay” into its proper social context. I think that you are simply letting your confirmation bias see the public opinion of this issue through a distorting lens.

View discussion

In response to 58656e

58656e

I think you are completely wrong about the public’s feelings …
No doubt you do. However when your perception is so jaundiced, as to allow you to describe the very real concerns raised by the best available science as ” [t]he sky is falling millenarian rhetoric of the AGW panic merchants,” your credibility as a witness is impugned to the point that no reasonable person can take you seriously.

On the contrary I make a point of having a very wide and diverse social circle
ratehr than just the latte sipping echo chamber that you obviously inhabit. None the less you do raise an important point when you talk about concerns, as IO pointed out in my reply to MikeFlanagan the public’s “concerns” are directly proportional to the immediacy of the threat so something that is claimed to be a disaster this afternoon is far more worrying that something that is predicted to be an issue in 100 years. We have had about decades of dire predictions and that has put this issue very much into “the boy who cried wolf” territory. Frankly if anyone is living in a bubble its you. Most of the people I meet pay lip service to the AGW orthodoxy but they don’t have any heart in it.

I put it to you that beliefs rampant in the denialist bubble you appear to inhabit do not necessarily reflect the views of normal society.

You see this is a matter of science so why do you use the language of faith? Maybe its because the whole climate change industry is really a misanthropic Millenarain cult which is terrified of heresy.

View discussion

In response to IanCPurdie

And you forget or ignore the fact that a lot of people are subscribed (as I am) just to see what the other side are doing.

View discussion

In response to MikeFlanagan

I took a good look at the 2014 survey and form that its pretty obvious why they dropped the whole deal. Its a very vague and rather unfocused effort that really does not tell us much.
Frankly to use the term “dismay” in relation to the public’s level of concern is, well hyperbole. Dismay is what you feel when your life is in immediate danger or your child is very ill. Even if the AGW proposition is correct its impossible for the public to feel a sense of threat after so many dire predictions that have not come to pass (Tim Flannery and Al Gore can take a big bow on that score) and on top of that the public understand that nothing they can do is going to make much of a difference anyway. So the natural consequence is that people down grade their real concern about the issue accordingly. When people are powerless tpo change something they cease to worry about it in any real sense , sure they may do things like be more energy efficient, recycle or even keep chooks “for the planet” but they are still rather sanguine about the issue. You see I am a Boomer and that means I spent my formative years under the shadow of the Cold war and the MAD doctrine and try as you might the vague possibility that the climate may change in a way that is bad for humanity simply does not have the same urgency as the very real fear that the bombs may obliterate us.

View discussion

In response to MikeFlanagan

Mike
I think you are completely wrong about the public’s feelings about climate change they are simply over the endless The sky is falling millenarian rhetoric of the AGW panic merchants. They will happily accept things like improved energy efficiency. But they reject the hair shirt policies of the extreme Greens.

View discussion

In response to Lesm

Lesm

Technology has been around for the last two hundred years and has been used at different times by employers to replace human beings with machines.

Actually Len its been around since long before the industrial Revolution

Those instances were the proximate causes of various revolutions in some countries, and Parliamentary reforms in others of a more democratic bent.ve continually, with minor interruptions, to a more civilised society

Maybe so but neither are likely in contemporary Australia there is simply a total lack of awareness of the implications of things like self serve checkouts in supermarkets and even our public libraries, Personally I refuse to use them and I try to spread the word to all and sundry. Never the less So many of you socialists simply don’t seem to get it that if self serve checkouts are too successful then there will be fewer jobs in retailing, not that you lot generally care about such low status jobs

. In the end these are matters for decision by the people in a democracy and the people will ultimately decide, in much the same way as they have over that last two hundred years, to protect the rights of human beings over machines. As someone so wisely said, “machines are good servants, but bad masters”.

The machines have already got a very decent foothold and in fact it may well be too late. But you are wrong to imagine the machines becoming our masters what they are going to become are willing slaves who will compete with those workers who are now getting double time and a half on Sundays. And as you yourself point out machines make VERY good slaves, they never ask for more pay and they never complain about working longer hours.

View discussion

In response to Lesm

You forget the one thing that this will drive more than any other and its already a problem, namely businesses will simply get machines to do the job instead of a casual, or haven’t you noticed the self serve checkouts at the supermarket ?

View discussion

In response to droverscat

droverscat

Part of these Fair Work powers wold be to ensure employers did not have the right to just ‘seeya’, in the same way that would ensure ‘phoenix’ companies would be banned.

There are way around it if you are that keen/desperate.

The Greens haven’t peaked – they’re about to increase their influence substantially

The public are rapidly tiring of their far left thought bubbles

View discussion

In response to bestusername

bestusername

Plenty of businesses already offer 3 month casual contracts as a trial period. The Greens are simply trying to make it a standard contract across the board in order to boost permanent job numbers.

You simply can not wind back the clock to the time before widespread casual employment because all of the service focused businesses, your food and retail businesses would not be profitable without casual labor.

You’d know this if you did something other than sit on your computer all day trying your damnedest to channel Andrew Bolt.

On the contrary I have been hunched over an angle grinder and Mig welder for most of the day. That said YOU would not run the line you do here if you had the slightest inkling about how business works, Hint it has nothing to do with socialism.

View discussion

In response to MarekBage

MarekBage
Thankfully the Greens have peaked and we will never have to deal with this stupid policy but if it did happen all that would happen is that at the end of the qualifying period employers would say See ya and employ new workers.
That said I agree that the banks need to lift their game when it comes to the way that they view workers like your wife when it coems to getting a loan but this proposal won’t do it.

View discussion

In response to BlueThird

I wrote my blog for a decade ant that particular obsessive made it her mission in life to harass me for most of that time.
And no its not doxing to know more about the person harassing you, the fact of the matter is that I could have “doxed” her but I chose not to even though she thoroughly deserved to have the world know all about here secret internet hobby.
For blogging to be truly civilized I think that you have to give up any notion of anonymity because then all players tend to behave better knowing that they can be held responsible for their deeds. You see over the course of that decade of blogging I have had every sort of threat that you can imagine, (yes even rape threats) I have had hate sites devoted to me created, my children threatened I have had fake Gay dating profiles created and had my face pasted into bestial pornography. I have been repeatedly misquoted and attacked for things I did not say or do. Its simply too tedious for words these days which is one of the reasons I am so sanguine when a woman complains because someone has been unkind to them on twitter
. The internet is simply not a “safe space” and it never will be you just have to know that and be tough if you want to play there no matter what you have in your trousers.

View discussion

In response to steerpike82

My children are quite a bit further along than yours but it may be something you are familiar with but she was never a “girly girl” and she was not consciously channeled into what would be the traditional role for a girl either, For a start I was always the primary carer for my children changed most nappies provided all of the nurturing when they were small, it has always been me they come to if they have scraped a knee or need emotional comfort so their family is not traditional. Even so certain gendered behaviors have emerged anyway which is why I am fairly convinced that those must be innate (for the most part) as for the crying thing well I council both of my children to be tough and stoic because I reckon that has very good survival value for both genders. But at two expecting a boy not to cry is a bit much.
I don’t know about the claim that “boys need more care” Both girls and boys both need care but what each needs is not always the same you have to feel your way through it and just do the best you can, frankly don’t sweat it too much try to persuasion rather than being a domestic dictator and most importantly no matter what they throw at you stay calm because if you don’t they will lose respect for you authority.
Frankly all of the tough stuff is ahead of you and gender will be the very least of your worries.

View discussion

In response to Wizzby

Third time lucky

I say that online bullying is a problem for all users, both male and female and I personally don’t think there is substantially more of it directed at women then is directed at men, but I do think that women are more likely to complain about it than men are which would skew the figures somewhat.

View discussion

In response to BlueThird

I am absolutely certain about her identity, little things like her posting from the same IP address is a dead giveaway as are straight out admissions when I caught her out but no matter what name a person uses they can’t disguise their rhetorical style, or even things like them making the same typos under different personas. But like all liars what trips them up is the lack of consistency in the lies they tell and when you have them commenting at your blog on a daily basis its easy enough to keep track of what they say.

View discussion

In response to Earl_Grey

I wrote a political blog for a decade and was often abused for doing so and the worst offender was a woman who kept inventing new personas every time I banned and told her to go away.

View discussion

In response to steerpike82

steerpike82

I do have one of each, with such small age gap they might as well be the same age. I’ve seen the difference in treatment. But thankyou so much for your condescendence, it really is s breath of fresh air.

Unless your children are fraternal twins there must be a minimum of nine months between then and that is not an insignificant gap in terms of their development. I find it hard to believe you when you claim to have seen ” difference in their treatment” because you as the parent would have to be the primary source of their socialization. But if you mean that you noticed that each child had different aptitudes consistent with the expectations that we have for each gender maybe its just their different natures being perceived and reinforced by the adults around them.
What our children become is obviously derived from both their innate qualities and the things that we as parents teach them.The notion that its all about nurture rather than the nature of individuals just does not stand up to any sort of close scrutiny.

View discussion

In response to Aussiealltheway

Aussiealltheway

That’s likely – not. Ian Hall is just a very angry, obviously humiliated person. Let him have his little sook. Boo hoo hoo.

I am neither angry nor do I feel humiliated

View discussion

In response to steerpike82

steerpike82

They aren’t treated equally though.

When you have one child of each gender as I do you may kid yourself that you can make them the same by the way that you raise them but reality soon knocks that silly idea out of your head. As much as I wanted to teach my daughter about the use of my workshop she was having none of it where as my son LOVES making stuff. As a parent you can and try very hard to treat them equally but that does not equate to treating them the same.

View discussion

In response to Wizzby

Wizzby

No the theory is sound but often poorly understood by those who would rather it didn’t require so much effort.

If the gender theory that claims all identity is a construct rather than an expression of innate qualities then it would not be so hard to mold individuals according to the theory.

View discussion

In response to Aussiealltheway

Aussiealltheway

Clearly, you do not.

As it happens I have a 16 year old daughter and an an eleven year old son which is why I know that that your wild gender generalizations are utter bullshit. Neither I nor any of the other parents I know treat their children as you suggest.

View discussion

In response to GRP2015

GRP2015

On line bullying of women is still on ongong problem and is getting worse.

It isn’t actually and it does women no good service to pretend that disagreeing with what they may say online is bullying.

Unsupported allegations against women by online bullies who are afraid of influentional women is getting worse.

No it isn’t

It is totally unacceptable when even Ministers of Govt engage in such activities.

Like what?

One has to ask just what is wrong with these people.

Sadly too often people like you ,make such claims (while anonymous) without a shred of evidence

Are they so frightened by these women that they have to resort to unsupported claims against such women.

I still think that you are mistaking robust online “debate” for bullyingNo doubt the Guardian will investigate their activities and hold such people to public account.

We await the Guardian’s response to defend women from such online bullying.

View discussion

In response to Aussiealltheway

You don’t have any children of your own do you?

View discussion

In response to Peter Mitchell

Peter
Legislation is only a small part of an MP’s duties

The LNP were the kings of obstruction in opposition, they are now merely reaping what they have sewn.

I saw not one needle and thread in the hands of the LNP in the run up to the 2013 election, sorry but I could not resist :o)

View discussion

In response to TheotherClaw

TheotherClaw

You rebel you!

I’ll take that as a complement

That’ll learn them, they’ll shaking in their boots when they find out your sharing your strategy.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who takes advantage of the system

View discussion

In response to Eileen Kelly

Eileen Kelly

You are fortunate to be able to “pay it off in full at the end of month”.

We live within our means and take this as our mantra:

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”

Unless the cash to make those monthly pay-offs is coming from under your mattress though, you are still holding funds in a bank account somewhere. Fees and charges will apply to holding accounts and your credit card. In my eyes the banks are still the ones sticking it to you (just slightly less than they’re gouging some others).

Our account is always in the black and as such it does not attract “fees” I also make sure that I don’t use ATMs that are not owned by my bank.You can avoid most of the fees if you make the effort.

View discussion

In response to equalsfortytwo

equalsfortytwo

you’re almost as smug as mal, it’s a trait people don’t appreciate.
just a free tip for you

Sigh……………

View discussion

In response to bestusername

bestusername

Shows just how useless the LNP is when they can’t pass legislation with a majority in both houses and a cross-bench mostly made up of conservatives.

If the government had a majority in both houses (which they don’t) then the leanings of the cross benches would not matter

View discussion

In response to Peter Mitchell

Peter Mitchell

Iain they’re paid to pass legislation, failure to do so is a failure to do their job.

No they are paid to represent the voters in their electorates, legislation is only a small part of the job.

Politics is about knowing when to compromise, the Liberals see that as a sign of weakness but by not doing so they are ironically powerless.

Tell that to the cross bench who have been ridiculously obstructive

View discussion

In response to moveonover

moveonover

The Gillard minority government successfully passed 561 bills through the parliament

.
That did not save them from being our worst government in living memory and don’t forget that their most contentions legislation like the carbon and mining taxes were quickly repealed because they were so bad.

I would suggest it is the ideological poor quality that constipates the coalition legislation , most of which I might add is still sitting in parliament and is reflected in their budgets.

and you would be wrong in that suggestion

View discussion

In response to dargie

dargie

Yet strangely , when a Labor govt. has a hostile Senate the Coalition thinks it’s quite ok to thwart them. Bit of logic please.

I think that a hostile senate is bad no matter what

View discussion

In response to ID0423880

ID0423880

Wrong. They haven’t been able to pass legislation because the legislation they have put up is ideological crap that’s not in the national interest.

No you are just too incline towards the left to realize that having an obstructive senate (no matter who is in power) does the country a great disservice.

The cross bench aren’t the problem, it’s the governments policy.

Frankly I think that giving six nutters the power to block legislation is profoundly undemocratic

Delusional to think otherwise.

Our senate is a profoundly undemocratic institution and you only have to see how many votes it takes to elect a senator in Tasmania and compare it to how many it takes to elect a senator in Victoria to see why.

View discussion

In response to RMcC63

RMcC63

It’s a theory and a bloody good one, you might feel uncomfortable thinking about it but deep down you know it’s true.

If you believe that then have I got a deal for you on a slightly used bridge…

View discussion

In response to karmapolice

karmapolice

We vote for policies and parties here, not a president- that’s the fatal mistake Turnbull also made.

Actually we vote for MPs who then elect a PM However the Government will be bringing down its budget shortly and that will contain more than enough “policy” to make any one happy.

View discussion

In response to MikeTaree

MikeTaree

Iain, even if Turnbull just scrapes in he will have lost many of the backbenchers in marginal seats who supported him in his coup over Abbott.

I really don’t think that will be the outcome

To quote Gandalf at the end of the Two Towers film “Sauron’s wrath will be terrible, his retribution swift”.
And clownshoes will be back on his rampage.

Tony Abbott is simply not Kevin Rudd no matter how hard you want pretend that he is.

View discussion

In response to Wheelspinner

Wheelspinner

Your last, best hope is that the people will find the Leader of the Opposition more objectionable than your lot when they go to the ballot box.

On the contrary I think a lot of people are sick of change for its own sake and they will appreciate stability. especially if a DD cleans out the cross benches or gives the governemnt a more workable senate

After almost 3 years, there is no policy platform to stand on, no record of achievement to point to and no future direction for the country. Nothing.

“Steady as she goes” is pretty good for most folk, except you minions of the lefty who want to constantly reinvent everything even when its not broken.

View discussion

In response to ID0423880

ID0423880

And somehow Turnball has made the genital herpes option attractive.

Go figure.

Only to those who attend “conversion parties”

View discussion

In response to Stephen Prowse

Stephen Prowse

Not any more, we need to get the “least worse” (to paraphrase FDOTM) and at the moment our PM is performing very badly. The ALP has credible policies on the table.

Only in the eyes of those like you who would NEVER vote for the LNP under any circumstances.

View discussion

In response to MrsFappy

I’m not wrong, Under labor there were leaks form the Gillard and Rudd camps

View discussion

In response to thefinnigans1

Really? We both know that for the ordinary generally nu-engaged voters its the personality of the leader that matters and Shorten is as popular as genital herpes

View discussion

In response to fredgladys

Actually being able pass their legislation will make a biog difference to the government and its the reason that they have not, as you put it , been able to do the job they are paid for.

View discussion

In response to RicardoK

But fewer leaks than we saw under labor rule.

View discussion

In response to thefinnigans1

No it won’t because the alternative is Bill Shorten and that is a most unpalatable choice indeed.

View discussion

In response to RicardoK

If you want to stick it to the bank then do as I do buy everything with your credit card and pay it off in full at the end of the month…

Guardian comments 29 May 2016

In response to BlueThird

BlueThird

Seventy plus responses out of 1278 (not 1400, and yes, I checked) is a relatively small proportion. But you didn’t say that; you described those 70 replies, and your 8000 words, as ‘my tiny involvement’. Unless you’re mentally feeble, with no understanding of commonly used English words, you’ve resorted to intellectual dishonesty, again. Since you claim a degree in English from a reputable university, we really have no choice but to assume the latter.

Sigh the definition of” tiny ” is this :

tiny
ˈtʌɪni/
adjective
adjective: tiny; comparative adjective: tinier; superlative adjective: tiniest

1.
very small.
“a tiny hummingbird”
synonyms: minute, small-scale, scaled-down, mini, baby, toy, pocket, fun-size, petite, dwarfish, knee-high, miniature, minuscule, microscopic, nanoscopic, infinitesimal, micro, diminutive, pocket-sized, reduced, Lilliputian; More

All rely on a comparison to a larger whole thus my involvement in this thread even at
“70” out of 1285 comments IS a tiny proportion of the whole and my description of said postings as my tiny contribution both accurate and of course entirely honest

And this is how it goes: you pile one intellectually dishonest statement on top of another, as I found out many months ago when I responded to some of your arguments in good faith. I’m long past the point of trying to engage with you on those terms.

But You are the one being dishonest here not I

Rather than do that, I choose to highlight your ongoing intellectual dishonesty, by examining the content and style of your posting. But that certainly doesn’t make me a vigilante moderator.

The content and style of my posting is tot the topic here and by trying to police them you certainly are trying to be a vigilante moderator

Now obviously, you don’t like being criticised like this, but since this isn’t your forum you simply can’t control how other people respond to you.

You are simply meddling in a role that is beyond the remit of any commentator here which is to discuss the topics put up by the staff writers.

If you don’t want to be criticised for being dishonest, don’t be dishonest. That’s entirely within your control. Very little else is. And obviously, if it’s not me criticising you, then it’s going to be someone else. That is the simple reality you have to face.

You have made this claim before it was bullshit before and its bullshit now. your obsession with me will not be placated by anything I do now just as it has never been placated in the past in other forums when you have used other names.

The whole point of these threads is that ordinary folk can discuss the issues and enjoy doing so.

In saying that you highlight exactly why it is that it’s so important that your behaviour is challenged. You aren’t ordinary folk: you’re an extremist with an axe to grind, and have no concern for reality, logic, or decent argument – those things only get in your way. Your ongoing intellectual dishonesty removes any possibility of others here enjoying an argument with you. I’m clearly not the only person to think that.

I am simply not in any sense an “extremist” my political position on the political compass turns out to be slightly left of center in the more libertarian quadrant, And clearly the only one with an axe here to grind is you.

Your intellectual dishonesty is, of course, also extraordinarily arrogant: so far as you’re concerned, the rules of civilised argument simply don’t apply to you.

Lets consider what the rules of civilized behavior are in this place, Hmm It boils down to being polite and affable to your interlocutors and trying to stick to the topic, yep I think I manage to do that pretty well without any major trouble, But lets look at your behavior here by way of contrast… Every comment you have posted to this thread have been intended to bag me personally (contrary to community standards) not one of them has addressed the topic and you have even managed to have about half of those comments disallowed by the real mods so it would seem that YOU are the one who does not get the rules of civilised argument not I

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

“It’s not hard to see the religiosity of many of the arguments from your side of the issue.”

My side of the issue is that of my fellow scientists. For those not trained in the intellectual rigors of that discipline old habits of thought die hard. I see even more similar patterns among those who deny the science but rather than accuse them of being a religion I criticise their lack of evidence, lack of logic and sheer scholastic sloppiness. Science is a discipline.

I am not trained in the sciences but I have had a life time interest in debating believers about their religion this webpage lays out the science as a religion proposition quite well
But don’t despair because like many religions Science certainly has some good utility when it comes to living our lives better.

Similarly you need to provide evidence for your assertion re scientists such as me; otherwise you are merely expressing a belief, bereft of evidence.

This piece looks at the issue as a matter of semantics

I have some family members who are christian but can’t make sense of their beliefs.

I have long rejected any notion of the supernatural but at the heart of Christianity is the simple notion of treating others as you would wish to be treated and various rather admirable ideas about being kind to each other.

I’ve known christian ministers who have become atheists.

Yes and I have known a few dedicated Marxists who started out as Catholics, maybe the common ground is certainty and a love of central authority

I had a number of colleagues who are muslim and have traveled into the then war zone muslim regions of the southern Philippines. They have the best food.

Not for me, I come form the English tradition of plain food
rather than having so many flavorings added that you can’t taste what you are actually eating.besides which I could never give up bacon!

View discussion

In response to BlueThird

BlueThird

To remind you yet again of what you should already know: the heart of delusion lies in maintaining an idiosyncratic belief or impression, despite that belief or impression being contradicted by reality or rational argument.

You are over thinking what is an entirely innocuous participation in this comment thread by little old me

And quite clearly, the gap between reality and what you think and say goes directly to the issue of delusion. So let’s see what new evidence you provide.

You are the one who is delusional here

…you obsess with my tiny involvement with a thread that has nearly 1400 comment by other people in it.

The hard reality is that you’ve made more than 70 replies in response to this article, and have pasted considerably more than 8,000 words, yet you characterise that as your ‘tiny involvement’.

I had not bothered to count my comments here but even the most rudimentary math will tell you that even with 70 comments out 1400 is substantially less than one twentieth of a single percentile of the whole thread and unlike your comments (which are all,including the ones removed by the mods, about bagging me) I have been engaging in a civil and affable manner with people like Walsunder and mostly on the topic here as well.

Do numbers as uncomfortable as those really not serve as a wake up call to just how far away your thinking is from reality?

The whole point of these threads is that ordinary folk can discuss the issues and enjoy doing so. I am in fact quite good and keeping to the posting rules here and I really don’t understand why you are so obsessed with confronting me when I comment here. Its simply not your place to play vigilante moderator and if you would stop playing your silly game it would be better for everybody here.
Sadly, the rest of your arguments are hardly any better.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

The tory bloke I handed out how to vote cards next to at the recent council elections was mad keen on Rugby Union as are so many of his ilk. In Brisbane Rugby League has always been the working class game.

Another thing we agree on.
As I said I have spent years knocking football of all types now as I get older I enjoy following it as common ground with my two brother which has meant that I have had to try to get may head around its rules and conventions I now think I know enough to just about have a conversation about the game and not sound like a total noob…

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

“I just don’t rate many of the things done ‘to address climate change’ very highly when it comes to their effectiveness.”

You should give yourself more credit for what you have done as one of the 7.4 billion and as one of the human population of a country with one of the
highest per capita carbon emission rates.

Well I have done my bit when it comes to treading lightly on the planet and I have been really big on reusing and recycling stuff….
That said can I explain why I think that the use of that per capita claim is rather bogus? It does nothing for but suggest, . erroneously, that we are more imprtant in the global equation than we actually are and its only ever raised to activate reader’s guilt chips (mine has long been disabled) in fact its essentially a rather dishonest polemical device invented to let the much bigger emitters like China and India off the hook > In terms of the global problem a per-capita measure of emissions is meaningless. Surely you can see that can’t you?

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

I have three cats and much experience in their herding. However we are talking about science and its application, something I’ve spent a lifetime doing with some success.

Sure but as you will probably appreciate when you try to herd four cats its exponentially more difficult than heading three of them, five is an order of magnitude more difficult and sic is more difficult again ect ect

We are not talking about religion and singing from the same song sheet. I note that for someone who like myself claims to not do the god thing or religion thing, you keep using the language and ways of thinking of religion and those who talk of god things.

Its a metaphor Wal

As for singing in tune my partner has a good singing voice as has our daughter. I can harmonise passably. These things are somewhat genetic. We got free stout in Ireland.

The point being that singing together is not easy or can be reliably assumed.

“the band you are a big fan of”

I don’t think of my appreciation of the many bands I’ve seen and enjoyed could be classified as fandom. The last wonderful band I heard was that behind Mary Black earlier in the year but at my age fandom is not the right word to describe my appreciation but neither was it the right word to describe my appreciation of Roy Orbison in 1968 or the Talking Heads in 1979.

I was probably at that same Talking Head concert in 79 if it was in Brisbane ! loved that band and the album “more songs about buildings and food”

Musicians are people who’s work I appreciate in much the same way as I appreciate the work of scientific colleagues. Some however are outstanding in what they produce. My partners teenage boyfriend among others invented punk rock and is still very good music. A work colleague did groundbreaking work and received a Nobel Prize and is also still doing good work.

I’m married to a music teacher as it happens.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

You talk of ” the faith” that I “have become part of”. I am not part of any faith. Where is your evidence that I am? Are you basing this assertion on your belief rather than evidence?

Like a lot of atheists I have always been fascinated by religion and belief and as such you start to notice the religiosity of believers in lots of things. I have been following the climate issue for a very long time and its not hard to see the religiosity of many of the arguments from your side of the issue.

“Any thread here at the Guardian is usually full of its” (Iain’s religion’s) “true believers.”

How do you know these posts are from true believers in your religion if you don’t attend their church?

I have never been inside a mosque but I none the less know a fair bit about Islam and likewise I have never been a member of any church but I have learned a great deal about Christianity. What irt boils down to is if you engage with the believers in a faith for long enough you do learn a lot about the tenets of that faith over time.

My church going in the last year has unfortunately been restricted to funerals.

Yeah I can dig that a family friend of mine dies unexpectedly yesterday and its very sobering to see how fragile life is.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

My partner grew up in a Rugby League mad family. My daughter goes to matches and socialises with some of the players

My immediate family think that I have caught a dread disease because I have taken an interest in league very recently after spending years describing it as “the unspeakable chasing the uneatable” But I do have two brothers who are mad Keen about the game and its nice to share that with them.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

If as you claim the carbon footprint of your family is lower than the per-capita average why do you discourage your family? I encourage my large family in their many endevours.

I don’t discourage any of them, in fact I bore the pants off then talking about how to be energy efficient and enthusing about good design and engineering. I just don’t rate many of the things done “to address climate change” very highly when it comes to their effectiveness.

View discussion

In response to BlueThird

Blue third

So here you are, an obvious political extremist,

No that is not correct at all did one of those political compass things only last week and I come out slightly to the left of the political center

claiming that you can accurately represent not just your own thoughts on the subject of the UN, but the prior hopes and expectations of two former leaders of the ALP, one of whom was previously the youngest-ever Federal Court judge, went on to become the President of the UN General Assembly, and helped to draft the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights.

Its hardly that much of a stretch to suggest that those who created the UN had expectations of it that are different to the current reality. Especially if you have some understanding of the the historical period. Heck all you need to appreciate is that the UN was created in the hope that it would stop war and help resolve international conflicts and compare that to what has happened to see 6taht the expectation has not been realized.

To do that you provide not even a single skerrick of evidence, either of what their expectations were or how the UN has failed them, but let that whole astonishing argument rest on your own authority.

Just read some post WW2 history or go to Doctor Google

So far as I can tell, despite your occasional attempts to claim that it’s just ‘little old me’ behind all of these posts, you genuinely think your authority is enough for an argument of that gravity.

You really are desperate to vilify me at every opportunity aren’t you? I am here in a place were we ordinary folk can discuss the issues de jour in a very casual way and everyone, with you a notable exception, seems to get that its a place for laid back argument more a kin to the back bar of the pub than the hallowed halls of our parliaments or a court of law. As such I am not the one being arrogant here, you are.

The exact same arrogance was on display right at the start of this thread, with your woeful and completely unsupported misrepresentation of government’s primary purpose.

Its simply my opinion and as a conversation starter, given that mine was the first comment its served well enough.

And yet – although you repeatedly pull stunts like these,

What stunt would that be? getting out of bed early enough to be first commenter in a thread?

demonstrate time and again that you’re incapable of presenting or even following a reasoned argument, and clearly have no commitment at all to intellectual honesty

The opinion I started this thread with may be right or wrong but how is it “intellectually dishonest”?

– you have a problem when people wonder if you’re essentially delusional?

I think that YOU are the one who has lost touch with reality here as you obsess with my tiny involvement with a thread that has nearly 1400 comment by other people in it

To remind you of what you should already know: the heart of delusion lies in maintaining an idiosyncratic belief or impression, despite that belief or impression being contradicted by reality or rational argument.

You are clearly projecting your own issues here, But then this is nothing new for you is it? You can change the name, as you have so many times but you can’t change your style or your obsessions.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

You say that “in terms of the global whole we are responsible for less than two percent of the whole” (world’s net carbon emissions) so how can we believe that what we do matters when the rest of the world is not really going to dance to the hymn to Gaia?”

The human population of the “global whole” world is 7.4 billion or 296 groups of roughly 25 million people. Almost every one of these groups of 25 million people is responsible for less than 2 % of the total net global carbon emissions. But together in conjunction with our outstanding contribution they make quite an impact. We all contribute. We’re all responsible.

Yes but you miss my point here because getting that whole population to all sing form the same song sheet and to be in tune is like trying to heard cats and about as melodious (how is that for mixed metaphors!)

This is not a matter of belief but a matter of simple mathematics. What every one of those 296 groups of 25 million people do matters. What Australia does matters. What you do matters. We must face up to our responsibilities particularly as a country with one of the highest per capita carbon emissions.

So how precisely are we going to get them singing in tune Wal? My wife is a music teacher so I have seen how hard it is to get one person to sing on key getting 7 billion in tune is nigh on impossible

The the vast majority of those other 295 groups of 25 million people have carbon emissions less than those of Australia and are making efforts to reduce their emissions.

You are kidding yourself on that one, a few are trying a greater number are paying lip-service and the rest think that climate change is a lower priority than waging war or Jihad on their traditional foes.

I’m not familiar with the hymn to Gaia of which you speak. I hope it has a good beat and is fun to dance to. But at least you are being realistic in realising that your funny little religion and its dance rituals will not catch on in the big world outside the appropriately named Mount Mee.

I am not the one trying to propagate that hymn Wall that would be the band you are a bog fan off. My tune is more the hum of the mig welder and the roar of an angle grinder as I work on my current eco friendly project.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

I am anonymous for family and political reasons, but am honest about my most enjoyable career in biological and geological science. Will provide a synopsis of my career if you require it.

Does that mean that you family are embarrassed by your political opinions?
As for your CV, thanks for the offer and I’ll take a rain check on that if its OK with you. As I’m sure that you will appreciate anonymous people can make any sort of claim that they please about their qualifications and it is simply impossible to know how truthful they are, Others also use anonymity maliciously to harass and defame people and I am rather sure that the internet would be a far more civil place if everyone was required to post under their own names.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

I don’t bother with books on religion particularly those from North America.

maybe you shoukld because then you may understand the faith that you have become part of better.

Do you have any experience with this religion.

Any thread here at the Guardian about climate change is usually full of its true believers and thaey are equally evident on twitter as well

I note that you live on the far outskirts of town where the more fundamentalist and right wing religions often pop up. Haven’t seen any of it here in the city.

If that is so then I have not seen it in the more than thirty years that I have lived in this part of the world, but then I’m an atheist so church going is not part of my life (apart from the occasional wedding or funeral)

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

Unfortunately the Broncos more experienced players are away at State of Origin camp. It’s hard to relax with my partner screaming at the TV.

Some common ground!
I totally agree that the absentee of star players makes the Broncos weaker however the State of Origin Games make up for it even for the most diehard Bronco fans.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Another day and back into the fray.
Morning Walsunda.

As for those of us who carbon emissions are well below our country’s per capita value, such a virtue should be celebrated as it’s far from an empty gesture. Don’t be so disparaging of those who are doing something practical.

Believe it or not but the carbon footprint of my whole family is lower than the per-capita average too.

View discussion

In response to Wheelspinner

Wheelspinner

The commenting lark is not a quest to impress anyone, its a game I play for my own amusement.

In that case, I’m not interested. Like I said; childish.

So are you claiming that your commenting here serves some higher purpose other than your own amusement?

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

“Coral reefs that have high rates of coral death following bleaching can take many years or decades to recover.”

If you read the report you will see that coral bleaching does not necessary equal coral death as you are suggesting here

I’m afraid Iain that “many years or decades” does not qualify as “a very short period of time”. Who’s sprouting bullshit now?

In terms of climate events it is a short period of time but the report also points out that bleaching does not equal coral death and that only about 5% of the bleached coral will not recover from the bleaching events

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Wal

There is no absence of global level action as countries around the world, including our own, undertake to reduce their carbon emissions.

Two things about that , is it enough of an effort to have a measurable effect?
Secondly is there any actual empirical evidence that shows reducing Carbon emissions will make a difference to the climate?

The warming of our climate is a response to net carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels increasing our atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280 to 400 ppm in just over a century. Reducing those net emissions literally reduce the degree of further warming and in time lead to a decline in warming.

Can you cite some empirical evidence that this assertion is verifiably true?

Reduction in our country’s emissions can be achieved without shutting down entire economy as shown by the reductions achieved in 2012/13 and 2013/14 during a period of economic growth. Unfortunately the current governments efforts to reduce carbon emissions have been more expensive, less effective and less practical.

You are missing the point of me mentioning shutting down our entire economy, in terms of the global whole we are responsible for less than two percent of the whole so how can you believe that what we do matters when the rest of the world is not really going to dance to this hymn to Gaia?

View discussion

In response to Marleyman

Marleyman

So, based on your practicality the way to address what are becoming alarming and very serious environment issues is to ignore (and even airbrush) the truth and do nothing until someone else bothers.

No my approach is to avoid the urge to “just do something, anything” if that “something, anything” makes no difference.
What do you think can be done? Come on you chide me for may cynicism but do you have any bright ideas about how we can even try to address this problem?

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

The reports of government and intergovernmental agencies of the physical realities uncovered by science are but one step to finding the truth of what’s happening.

Possibly

In this respect the reports of UN bodies such as UNESCO are no more unreliable in regard to their summaries of the scientific literature than are the reports of government bodies such as GRRMPA.

I would trust an Australian entity far more than one under the control of the UN everyday of the week.

Australia through its Government representatives, Frank Forde and Herbert Evatt, played a key role in the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 in San Francisco following the Second World War.

And sadly it has not really lived up to their expectations and hopes

The many and various UN bodies such as UNESCO, UNICEF, the Human Rights Commission, the WHO, the FAO and thew IMF all play an important role all over the world.

They try too but they are all rather deeply flawed and subject to political agendas of those who run them, for instance the Human rights commission is chaired bay the bloody Saudis at present and you think that fine and dandy???

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

Then what was I doing in a lifetime of working in science?

Who knows because you are anonymous no one can check on your background now can they?

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Wal

I’m not familiar with the “Green Religion” and its rites that you are talking about.

Get the book

In this innovative and deeply felt work, Bron Taylor examines the evolution of “green religions” in North America and beyond: spiritual practices that hold nature as sacred and have in many cases replaced traditional religions. Tracing a wide range of groups—radical environmental activists, lifestyle-focused bioregionalists, surfers, new-agers involved in “ecopsychology,” and groups that hold scientific narratives as sacred—Taylor addresses a central theoretical question: How can environmentally oriented, spiritually motivated individuals and movements be understood as religious when many of them reject religious and supernatural worldviews? The “dark” of the title further expands this idea by emphasizing the depth of believers’ passion and also suggesting a potential shadow side: besides uplifting and inspiring, such religion might mislead, deceive, or in some cases precipitate violence. This book provides a fascinating global tour of the green religious phenomenon, enabling readers to evaluate its worldwide emergence and to assess its role in a critically important religious revolution.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

GBRMPA (the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority), whose “Coral Bleaching Risk and Impact Assessment Plan”, has the task of managing the impact of coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef.

Yes and I have cited them several time sin this thread

They do not have the task of addressing the underlying cause of bleaching events on that reef and others becoming more severe and more frequent.

Well just tell me what it is that we can do that will make any difference to said events. And No doing something which “may” help in a century or more does not count.

This is the task of other sections of the Australian government and of the governments of other countries concerned with the reduction of net carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

Well my point is that such action is simply not going to happen, in fact global emissions are going to keep increasing no matter what we say or do in this country.

In recent years the Australian government has not been doing everything it practically could to address the cause of the global bleaching events we have seen since 1997/98.

what more do you think we can do that will give us tangible results?

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

The truth is the point.

Sadly if you care about “truth” the very last place you will find it in any instrument of the UN which is why its a good thing that our government has as little to do with it as possible.

View discussion

In response to Marleyman

Marleyman

A pathetic reply, practically no where on earth is enough being done to combat environment issues and in any case you are simply being obtuse and you know it.

Which is sort of my point. You see first and foremost I am a completely practical man so when someone argues that we need to do something my very first question is always “will that thing do any good?” which is why I don’t buy into there being any advantage in things like ETS or carbon tax regimes. For them to work at all they would have to be operating at a global level with every person on the planet involved. That is simply impossible for political reasons

Your lame attempt to praise the government for censorship on this issue is transparent and clearly demonstrates your real purpose as a right wing apologist.

Besides the fact that wanting to opt out of a Unesco enterprise not being “censorship” I am apologizing for no one here.

The right wing have yet (if ever ) been able to get up to speed on environment issues mainly because greed is more important than actually looking after the world we live in. So much for credibility on the economic future.

No we just like to see effort and treasure expended on things that will actually work where as your side of the polity seems to be really big on making gestures that have one one result which is to signal your “climate virtue”

View discussion

In response to Stereophonic

Stereophonic

P.S. my avatar and moniker are Stereophonic, it doesn’t make me a sound system.

No it must make you into an Ipod ! ;o)

View discussion

In response to Stereophonic

Stereophonic

Hook, line, sinker, rod and boat.

On a mobile phone, avatars area hard to discern.

Kept you busy.

Thought you might have been on a phone, I stick to my PC which has clear advantages namely a proper keyboard and no predictive text even so I am sadly not immune to typos.

View discussion

In response to Wheelspinner

Wheelspinner

You did not even try to answer my question, you just give a vacuous response that I’d expect from a schoolchild, and then whinged about being asked difficult questions to do with the law and stuff.

OK I’ll try to give you what you want, all government needs revenue to function and in this country that revenue is raised by levying taxation on the economic activities of our residents and citizens. Naturally enough it is more a more sustainable revenue stream if the administration runs its affairs in a way that facilitates the creation of prosperity. Thus, as I said earlier, the entire Constitution implicitly prioritizes protecting our economic activity above the needs of other countries or non citizen individuals.

You don’t impress anybody by posting screeds of responses all of the same low quality “argument”.

The commenting lark is not a quest to impress anyone, its a game I play for my own amusement.

View discussion

In response to Sasha Rieger

Sasha Rieger

So why do you condone government lying, if you are confident all is being done ?

In what way is the government being untruthful here?

Or is striking evidence from the record not lying, including lying to your paying customers, the tourists?

No one has struck anything “from the record” the department simply did not want to have anything to do with a corrupt and worthless UN instrumentality.

View discussion

In response to HexagonNipples

HexagonNipples

Your reply post to me is as fatuous and as superficial as all of your posts.

Just took the time to check out exactly how I last responded too you and I think that I gave reasonable responses to each of your err “arguments” so as you wnat serious lets consider just how well you practice wht you preach shall we?

You possess little in the way of knowledge and you can not engage in mature argument at all and the infantile rubbish you post is worthless.

Empty assertion and insult is all we have in this sentence

As for being old well you certainly seem to have wasted your life because judging by your posts you do not possess either the academic back ground or anything more than a rudimentary education.

I have a degree from Queensland University as it happens and there is no way that you are in any sort of position to judge my life as wasted. Essentailly this sentence is like the one before it just more ad hominem fallacy.

You will never change anyone’s opinion on here or any other sight(sic) if any of these post(sic) are your usual effort quite simply because you can not put aside the stupidity and form a cohesive argument that makes any sense.

Essentailly this sentence is like the one before it just more ad hominem fallacy.You see its like this, if you always play the commenting game on “easy”, as you do, by seeking out a place where you know that will be accompanied by many ideological fellow travelers its easy to get up votes for your comments an to therefore have a false sense of your own self worth. But what you are really doing is kidding yourself. On the other hand I know that I have to work more to be appreciated here. I am playing the game here on “hard” and therefore each up-vote I receive is actually worth more to me because it takes more effort to earn it.

As for humour do not fool yourself any further you just come across as ignorant, stupid and infantile.

I pointed out that you have no sense of humour and you respond in an utterly humourless way with more insults

As for proving anything to you about my public or private life forget it as for referencing my comments get off your lazy butt and do it yourself age does not give you the right to be an ass nor does it prove you are knowledgeable.

It is simply good manners and good form to provide links to any thing that you quote in a comments thread, clearly you have neither.

If you wrote posts that produced a cohesive argument and respect for the argument and the people who give their time to engage with you then the tone of the replies to you would begin to show some respect instead of the derision shown here.

No one is holding a gun to you head and forcing you to respond to my comments, as for tone I simply respond in kind to my interlocutors, often with sarcasm but that is what we grown ups do.

As I said before grow up.

Right back at you because I sense a great deal of emotional in your arguments where you would be better served reason.

I will leave you to your trolling.

LOL you should try using less of the ad hominem fallacy.

View discussion

In response to Sasha Rieger

Sasha Rieger

Well there we have it, the bones of it.

Is coral beaching happening, Ian?

And if it is – what should Australian Govt. response be?

looking at what they are doing it seems to me that they are doing all that can be done

View discussion

In response to DeunanKnute

DeunanKnute

On the contrary it shows that we won’t waste time and effort on empty gestures to signal our climate virtue

You’ve just spent four hours pretending that Australia’s economy is more important than the future of the entire planet.

No that is not my argument at all, and I have not spent that much time on this site either

You’ll probably be shocked when no one heeds your cry for help when a tsunami fails to quell the relentless forest fires in the outback.

We call them “bushfires” here so I guess that you are not an Aussie are you?

You might want to heed Adam Hills’ advice about being a dick.

If I wanted advice about being a Dick I would certainly look to one as experienced as Adam Hills.

View discussion

In response to Stereophonic

Stereophonic

It would be trolling except Lain Hall believes she is right and everyone else is wrong.

FYI I am a bloke as even the most cursory inspection of my avatar should make clear and the name is Iain with an “I”

View discussion

In response to Stereophonic

Stereophonic

You might have been correct except the fact that our unique environment, (what our tourism is based on) will be destroyed and therefore any tourism with it. You aired against yourself which is a unique achievement.

You are working on an erroneous assumption that “addressing climate change” is going to be at all effective in solving the bleaching issues of the Barrier reef Frankly if you read what the government is actually doing you will see that they ARE doing everything humanly possible to deal with the issue.

View discussion

In response to number7westiepiehead

number7westiepiehead

Get yourself well and truly Iain…

Get myself well and truly what precisely?

View discussion

In response to climbertrev1

climbertrev1

In the very short term perspective, here that means tomorrow and the next few weeks, the Australian government may be taking the right course of action.
In the long term it is taking the worst possible course of action.

What more do you think we can do?

The Australian government needs to take it’s head out of the sands of denial and start implementing some positive actions to combat climate change.

you do understand that we can only have any effect on about 2% of global emissions don’t you? Even if the AGW proposition is absolutely correct how do you think that we could do anything more than we are doing now?

View discussion

In response to Storm00

Storm00

You are a sad, sad person

Not at all I’m feeling pretty good today as it happens

View discussion

In response to BlueThird


BlueThird

Back to the old superhero of the intellectual right, stuff, eh?

You need to lighten up a great deal, its Friday, kick of your shoes crack a cold one and chill out a bit, if it takes your fancy there is Friday night football and its Broncos v Wests Tigers playing so it should be a good game

I am here because I love a good argument…
And that old lie as well! Bingo!

What other reason would I be here for? and why would I lie about it anyway?

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

That’s not a given. What immunity to testing by the scientific method? The proposition or hypothesis that the global warming of the last century is due to net carbon dioxide emissions from humans burning fossil fuels has been well tested by the scientific method and is now an established theory to explain observations.

You really don’t seem to understand the scientific method Wal

View discussion

In response to KaranFyrn

Its nice to be appreciated KaranFyrn
Thanks

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

As what is being told about is reality there is no need for personal belief. Hence your thoughts are based on an error that you have made.

I’m not trying to be a smart-arse here but is English your first language? because what you have given me above simply makes no sense.

View discussion

In response to DiDi64

DiDi64

Unfortunately you are right, it is their primary purpose, which is why we need a new government.

The problem you have is that it is the primary purpose for all governments even ones led by the ALP

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

except that what is being discussed above is reality and I doubt that anyone whatever their politics are in love with that reality. It says much about your state of mind that reality is toxic to you.

I think after reading your comment here my grasp of reality must be a great deal firmer than yours is.

View discussion

In response to Marleyman

Marleyman

What would be better ? To protect the economy by actually taking real action on orotecting the environment and thereby protecting it in to the future or to protect economic enterprises by airbrushing the truth that the environment is under real threat, the barrier reef ( as an example ) is under severe and irreversible threat and the more people that know that will mean more people will seek to protect it. Censorship and head in the sand thinking is promoting short term ignorance at the cost of long term economic viability.

If you go to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority website and check out what they are actually doing about the problem then you may see that they are doing everything that is humanly possible and unless you have any better practical suggestion of how they can better address the issue then please share it.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

The “lies and half truths of you panic merchants” is Iain’s term for the reality of 50% coral bleaching on the northern Great Barrier Reef.

Actually what I am trying to point out here is that the government through the GBRMPA is doing everything that it practically can to address this problem (see the PDF here) but typically those of you who have got the Green religion all seem to think that what is really needed is some sort of expensive but futile genuflection to Gaia even though those particular actions will make no practical difference to the climate in the foreseeable future

View discussion

In response to scsfoxrabbit

scsfoxrabbit

With your present attitude towards environmental issues the elimination of the Australian people would seem to be a priority.

You certainly deserve the Eichmann prize for silly justifications for genocide! Please enlighten me as to why the attitude of this humble scribe to the environment would justify the the murder of 20 million of my fellow Aussies?

View discussion

In response to Robyn Chapman

Robyn Chapman

You are breathtakingly ignorant and your replies are all a load of crap.

How so?

View discussion

In response to Wheelspinner

Wheelspinner

Pathetic and sad. All that proves is that you’re incapable of discussing issues at an adult level.

really you have the gall to say that here? Have you not noticed that a goodly proportion of those who comment here just want to vent their hatred of the government? On the other hand I do try to answer all of those I engage with politiely and in affable manner and you can’t be more adult than that.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

We can’t have the rest of the world finding out the truth can we Iain?

No that is not the point here, rather we don’t want the truth skewed by an unaccountable and corrupt UN entity.

View discussion

In response to Hippaferalkus

Hippaferalkus

Aww Iain you’re so transparent. Go on admit it, you’re really Barnaby Joyce aren’t you?

I will take that as a complement because I quite like Barnaby.

View discussion

In response to PeaBea

PeaBea

If the Australian government wanted to protect the interests of our economic enterprises they would not only support accurate reporting on the risks climate change poses to our natural assets and the knock on impacts on tourism, they would be taking serious action to address climate change.

In the absence of any coordinated global level “action” nothing that our government can do (up to and including shutting down our entire economy) will make the slightest bit of difference to the climate.
So what precisely do you think that we can actually do?

That they are doing neither shows they don’t give a shit.

On the coronary it shows that we won’t waste time and effort on empty gestures to signal our climate virtue

View discussion

In response to HexagonNipples

HexagonNipples

You make assumption after unsubstantiated assumption not unusual for someone who can not support argument.

When your interlocutors are hiding behind a pseudonym as you do one is forced to use deduction to determine their bonafides

My private history is none of your business but I have been an extremely successful farmer who never needed or required government assistance unlike some of my lazy and stupid brethren who spend too much money on cars, equipment and holidays when they don’t have the money and can never seem to save in case of problems with the weather or pests (including moronic LNP politicians).

I’ll take that on face value

Instead of posting something as childish and idiotic as –

“Those Karl Marx underpants of yours must be awfully uncomfortable becase they are obviously TOO tight.”

Your sense of humor has obviously had a by-pass. In my experience an excess of dour sanctimony is a sure sign of the regressive left’s pernicious influence.

Do something original like stick to the subject or perhaps ask a question or writing something less infantile than a 10 year old.

Lighten up and try being more generous in debate, you may both enjoy the process more and have a better chance of convincing other that you are correct.

Actually Australia has become one of the worst countries in managing its environmental assets and now ranks as the 12th most polluting country per capita in the world.

When ever we see something with a “per capita” caveat we should know that some one is feeding us bullshit, especially when they provide no citation for their claim

Try reading, try researching try to assimilate some knowledge before making and absolute twat of yourself online or answering my posts.

What make your posts so special? you are just another anonymous AGW blowhard

Finally it is more than obvious that your knowledge on the subject of farming is not even rudimentary it could not even pass as superficial and I’m more than confident in saying that if you have ever farmed then your endeavour would not have been successful.

Simple question for you given you claim to be a successful farmer, when using any fertilizer were you always mindful of using it frugally because you were aware of the downstream effects and the need to reduce the cost of production?

Laziness is the bane of many people and your superficial one answers lack even a hint of intelligence and instead are reliant on poorly written innuendo and stupid insults.

I see that you don’t get sarcasm and banter

Grow up!

I wish I was still young enough that I could “grow up” However as I’m actually an old codger I will just continue as I am thank you very much

View discussion

In response to chillilime

chillilime

When the reef is gone, what will you say to all the tourism operators?

The reef will not be gone any time soon, what may happen though is that there could be some changes at its northern limits if the seas remain too warm on a consistent basis, I expect also that we may see it extend further south into waters that are currently too cool. The bottom line though is that there will remain a tourist attraction of great beauty long after you and I are gone from this world .

View discussion

In response to Faranelli

Faranelli

Iain, you can paint a shit chrome but you can’t turn it into silver.

Clearly metallurgy is not your strong-point. Firstly one does not apply chrome as a paint its usually applied by way of electroplating and on top of that Chromium is an entirely different element to silver

Keep trying though buddy, it’s fun to read

I aim to have fun commenting here so I am glad to have fans of any sort, even those with an unusually high pitched singing voice thanks to the surgeon’s knife like yourself.

View discussion

In response to ID7745510

ID7745510

Obviously neither do you Ian.

No I do understand the limits of their Jurisdiction and I am certain that they do not in any way dance to any tune I may whistle

View discussion

In response to ID7745510

ID7745510

If it’s a religious movement Ian then you will burn in hell, the hell created by wilfully blind zealous bigots like you and other science-denying idiots.

As a life long atheist I have long been immune to threats of eternal damnation

It’s not a matter of left and right Ian, it’s a matter of right and wrong. And you are manifestly wrong.

Given the immunity of the AGW proposition to testing by the scientific method I don’t think that you can be so sure that I am wrong.

View discussion

In response to Wheelspinner

Wheelspinner

Pathetic and sad. All that proves is that you’re incapable of discussing issues at an adult level.

The first step towards winning any debate is to get your opponents to argue on your terms and I won’t fall for your attempt to get the debate focused on the minutiae of our constitution.
Try something other than pedantry and leagalese

View discussion

In response to Helicalgroove

Helicalgroove

Its is the lies and half truths of you panic merchants that I object to on this occasion which is why I think the government has done the right thing here.

See here’s the thing Iain, I don’t agree that I tell lies on the subject of climate change

.Telling a “lie” does by definition require an intent to deceive.

You think I do and you object, which is fair enough.

I think that you personally believe that you are telling the truth, but that belief is erroneous.

But you tacitly admit that the Government tells lies and you approve of it.

If that was what I wanted to say I would just say it, that said I recognize that in the game of politics all players dance around the dichotomy between discretion and open veracity

One side can lie, the other side cannot.
That makes you a hypocrite, Iain.

The thing is I reject your claim here, Both sides are adept at the dance of truth and how well they each manage to impress with their moves is the point of the game.

View discussion

In response to PossumBilly

PossumBilly

Your comments provide a compelling argument that elements of the LNP and their apologists should not be trusted with governing a progressive modern democracy.

Well thankfully ours is a “modern democracy” rather than ” progressive modern democracy”

You make statements that beggar belief with the use of false premise (primary purpose) , straw man tactics (usual suspects) and simplistic and Imprecise assumptions.

How is my premise false?
How does my turn of phrase constitute “straw man tactics”?

‘Usual suspects’? Suspected of what?, ‘self flagellation’ another attempt to insert demeaning and emotive terms to support a weak and trite argument.

Sigh you are obviously unfamiliar with my allusion to the classic film Casablanca which would see the corrupt police chief (played by Claude Raines) order his flunkies to “round up the usual suspects” Its a light hearted way of describing your fellow activists. As for Self-flagellation well its a most apt allusion to the pennants of the middle ages who thought that by the infliction of self punishment they could buy their way out of Purgatory.

I think it is a good thing that you post here because you set a benchmark that we can all use as a reminder that our concern for the future is justified. Could it be that you are actually planted to cement those concerns?

I am here because I love a good argument and because I think that so many ideas that the Regressive left are in love with are actual toxic and should be challenged here as much as anywhere else.

View discussion

In response to turnbullterrorizes

turnbullterrorizes

I know you love facts, text, credible sources, cut and paste and slabs of information and have tried to get me removed in your previous posts and report button hits, whining that information I present doesn’t conform to community standards!

Oh you are the same person who has had three different identities over the last few months alone, by way of contrast I have been posting here under my own name since 4 Jun 2013 so what does that say about who can play the game here properly?

View discussion

In response to turnbullterrorizes

It would seem to me that your citations are arguing that Unesco is corrupt therefore we should have nothing to do with anything it does, which is another good reason that any efforts to have Australia removed form its pronouncements is a good thing on that basis alone. That siad I have just heard on the ABC that the minster is saying theta he knew nothing of the report at all anyway.

View discussion

In response to Viennaroo64

Viennaroo64

Iain, you are so wrong mate. Get your head outta your asre and realise that there will be zero interest from abroad once the word gets out on social media…..and tell that to your pollies mate..fukcing idiots.

You must be young because what so many of the twitterati fail to realize is that social media is utterly ephemeral and its a left wing bubble that is largely disconnected from the greater realities of our polity.

View discussion

In response to digitalspacey

digitalspacey

I wonder how much tourism dollars will flow in once all the coral is bleached and there’s no marine life to see cos it’s moved on elsewhere….

Coral reefs are actually very resilient and in a very short period of time those areas that have experienced bleaching will recover, just as they have many times in the past.

View discussion

In response to Canadiman

Canadiman

Iain, perhaps you need to educate yourself about the economic impact of climate change on Australia.

The climate has NEVER been static and what we need to be and therefore do is flexible so that we can exploit the opportunities that a tinge in the climate may bring and survive the challenges that it also delivers

Pretending it isn’t happening won’t make it go away.

Likewise panicking about the things that may never happen is a great waste of effort and emotional energy. Being able to adapt if and when we have to is a far better thing to aspire to than just jumping up and down screaming “the sky is falling!!!! “

View discussion

In response to turnbullterrorizes

turnbullterrorizes

Your usual support for Coalition lies, deceit, disinformation, secrecy, lack of transparency, censorship….a faithful factotum of the Coalition, couldn’t give a damn about the corruption as long as his Coalition is in power.

Breathe, man, breathe….

Sick stuff mate, an enemy of the state those that adhere to such a prescription for ‘democracy’.

You need to work on your sentence structure; because this one makes no sense at all

View discussion

In response to turnbullterrorizes

turnbullterrorizes

The truth impacts tourism! Better get your AFP to raid UNESCO and stop the facts and truth.

You don’t understand the AFP jurisdiction or who they answer to do you?

View discussion

In response to Jimbopolous

Jimbopolous

Iain, the truth may set us free.

We are not in bondage

View discussion

In response to Bearmuchly

Bearmuchly

Iain , you are absolutely correct BUT with one slight edit, it should read………

“It is the “CURRENT Australian governments……………………….”

No my original claim need no edit

and there in lies the problem and why the Govt. must change at the next election

The Labor party should be kept as far away from the treasury benches as long as is humanly possible until they learn to have greater fiscal responsibility, most especially we need to see them embrace the idea that they should promise less but deliver more.

View discussion

In response to Hippaferalkus

Hippaferalkus

Yes Iain, climate change is all a left wing plot invented just to annoy you.

No its a religious movement exploiting our secular age and the misanthropic tendency of you minions of the left… Any annoyance that it may give me is incidental rather than being a core intention.

View discussion

In response to HexagonNipples

HexagonNipples

They’ve done the right thing?

They have

Yes, of course they have if your one of there mates and you’re running off with pockets full of tax payers money!

We are not talking about Labor and the Greens

The neoliberal LNP have covered up extensive abuse of the Australian environment that the Australian tax payers will in the long term have to pay for.

We are one of the better countries in the world when it comes to managing our environmental assets as it happens

And they done it for what and who?

The Australian People that’s who

A bunch of neoliberal hangers on who have ripped the guts out of the environment for dodgy developments and farming practises for nothing more than unsustainable short term gain. Short term gain that only these few dishonest farmers and developers will get any benefit from.

I bet that you have never been closer to any sort of agriculture than the produce section of the supermarket, because if you had any experience then you would understand how hard our farmers try to control the use of fertilizers simply because they are not cheap and more importantly because these men and women of the land do think about the future far more than you give them credit for.

This sort of behaviour is nothing new from neoliberal LNP governments and is just the same as little Johnny Howard wasting over a decade’s worth of profits from irreplaceable natural resources that were shipped overseas and the forgone tax used to pad out the profits of despicably dishonest companies that headquartered themselves oversea to avoid even more tax.

Those Karl Marx underpants of yours must be awfully uncomfortable becase they are obviously TOO tight.

The LNP have a long record of funnelling wealth up the ladder to corporations and wealthy individuals and that money mostly ends off overseas in the pockets of non Australians leaving us the tax payer to clean up useless developments and polluted, toxic mine sights(sic). With just a nudge and wink to the companies to get out before they are caught.

Your should try reading something other than Das Kapital

View discussion

In response to Wheelspinner

Wheelspinner

Which section of the Constitution is that in?

All of it

View discussion

In response to craigsambell

craigsambell

What a load of crap you postulate.

Another erudite interlocutor who provides me with responses that show just how imaginative they aren’t.

View discussion

In response to Marika Whitfield

Marika Whitfield

What a load of crap.

Its so good to have such erudite interlocutors who provide me with responses that show just how imaginative they aren’t.

View discussion

In response to benluk

benluk

The Australian government’s primary purpose was to hide it’s gross dereliction in addressing climate change in any meaningful way.

You may not have noticed that the Labor party is not currently in office (thankfully!) and the current scheme, for all of its shortcomings has met all of its targets at a rather modest cost.

View discussion

In response to simulacra27

simulacra27

Bullshit, the Australian government has multiple responsibilities to its citizens

Sure but I suspect that you failed to notice that I cited the PRIMARY responsibility not the ONLY one.

and it is irresponsible to reduce everything to crude market economics that always gets prices wrong because it does not factor in the social and environmental costs of production.

And I wads not doing that either

Unfortunately we are all stuck on the same planet together where a capitalist creed of self interested parasites operate at the great expense of the Australian people and it flora and fauna.

Capitalism may be imperfect but it actually works better than any of the socialist alternatives that failed so badly during the latter part of the last century .

View discussion

In response to Helicalgroove

Helicalgroove

Well who’d have thought it – Iain approves of telling lies.

Its is the lies and half truths of you panic merchants that I object to on this occasion which is why I think the government has done the right thing here.

View discussion

The Australian government’s primary purpose is to protect the interests of our economic enterprises and they have therefore done the right thing here. Of course the usual suspects here will argue that instead we should engage in endless self flagellation and have no regard to the one species that minions of the left fervently wish would become extict, namely the Australian people.

View discussion

In response to turnbullterrorizes

Gee you sound just like two other “people” who thought that pasting big slabs of far left text from elsewhere constitutes a proper comment. It doesn’t actually and in fact its against the community guidelines.

That said had the Labor party’s NBN conception been commercially viable then it would not have been necessary for the government to create a more affordable option. Interestingly I had a conversation with a group of people at may local library yesterday and while we all had our beefs about the quality of the broadband that we can get the conclusion that we came to was this, what we need is reliable internet, rather than the Ferrari that Labor promised we all agreed that a Ford would be adequate, especially if it meant that those of us in more rural circumstances would have a chance to get improved services sooner.

View discussion

In response to wordinedgeways

wordinedgeways

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance and admitting your selfishness.

How so?

View discussion

In response to Janeee

Janeee

Iain, c’mon, if you can’t do better than this, give it up. Of course, lowered carbon emissions for a few years didn’t impact on the climate.

So how long will it take before we can see any results then Jane? You clearly believe that emission reductions will be a big part of the “cure” so how long will it take before we can see a result?

Do you know anything at all about climate science?

Clearly more than you do

Maybe you should learn more about this and less about merely asserting free market ideology.

Never been a big fan of “free market ideology” as it happens in fact quite teh opposite on this issue because I think that all dreivitives trading (of which the carbon market is an example) is either/or a giant Ponzi scheme or a form of gambling wearing a sort of false cloak of respectability.

View discussion

In response to NickThiwerspoon

NickThiwerspoon

Still not the point, Iain. Are you by any chance a lawyer?

It is precisely the point.
Look imagine that you have a slow degenerative disease, like say MS now we know very well that this disease is untreatble and then a man comes along and offers a cure that will make regular withdraws from your wallet with the vague nation that the payments will eventually make some small chnage to your condition and some vague time into the future. how long would you keep paying for the “cure” without seeing any tangible result? One year five years Of fifty years?
Its the same with all of those ETS and Carbon tax schemes; Vague promises of an effect that are not due to be met within our lifetimes, Yet you are absolutely certain that they will work because some white coated priest has insisted that they will.

View discussion

In response to RalphFilthy

RalphFilthy

Basically you’re saying that Australians are too lazy to foster a basic level of science literacy.

ERR… No that is not what I am saying at all

You don’t get to “buy the claims”, no more than you get to tell a surgeon how to remove a tumour.

Its a figure of speech that you obviously don’t understand, as for surgery, as much as I respect and admire the skills involved (and I have watched a fair bit of it online because I am interested in such things) the principles are actually quite simple its like anything else that humans do with tools and in many ways rather akin plumbing.

This is the greatest challenge – How to educate people who are so arrogant in their (complete lack of) knowledge that they refuse to “believe”? (emphasis on “believe”, as if you get a choice to “believe” in science or not).

My point which obviously needs reiteration to you is extremely simple we are told repeatedly that if we reduce emissions of CO2 it will mitigate the prophesied climate change I just want to know how will we even know of things like the European ETS scheme (which has been running for more than a decade ) has made the slightest bit of difference?
You clearly believe in this Green religion but I want to see some empirical data that shows all of these efforts worth it.

View discussion

In response to Janeee

Janeee

2) carbon emissions went down when the ETS was operating, so it did have some effect.

The issue is not that carbon emissions may have decreased but did that decrease make the slightest bit of difference to the climate. I say it made NO measurable difference.

View discussion

In response to NickThiwerspoon

NickThiwerspoon

Not the point, Iain. You said that we simply don’t buy the claims that these measures will make the tiniest bit of difference to the climate Just you and a few other denizens of the deniosphere believe that. We do not accept your and your fellow-travellers’ claims.

If that were the case then you would have no trouble at all demonstrating just how the climate has been positively improved by any one of the existing schemes, like the long standing ETS in Europe. Can you show any difference to the climate as a consequence of that scheme having existed? ANY Difference?
The facts are simply this, if there has been a difference because of the existing schemes then we simply can not measure it they are precisely like this

View discussion

In response to Janeee

Just look at the ALP primary vote figure is still well below 40% and as such Labor can not win on that.

The ALP is not proposing a tax; they advocate an ETS, which is different.

Call it what you like Janeee in the eyes of teh public is still an unnecessary impost that has the same fouls smell as Gillard’s unloved Carbon tax

Face it, you only have to imagine you hear the word tax and you need a sedative and a lie down.

On the contrary I fine with taxes in general its Taxes imposed on a bullshit pretext that I detest.

View discussion

In response to NickThiwerspoon

NickThiwerspoon

No, Iain, that’s your reason.

Well give me one GOOD reason why we should have ANY scheme that will make no difference to the climate even though its will be an impost on the whole economy.

View discussion

In response to Janeee

Janeee

Bill Shorten has put an ETS squarely on the agenda and it isn’t hurting him in the polls, despite the less favourable economic climate post GFC. You focus on the individual cost of addressing climate change, but don’t consider the costs of NOT addressing it. People will work it out if the case is made properly.

The coalition have not even really began to eviscerate Shorten on his attempt to revive the carbon tax but you can be certain that their advertising closer to the poll will make sure the electorate has a comparison with Labor’s now abolished tax and this new iteration. The only reason that he released this policy so early was in the hope that it will fall off the people’s radar by polling day. He is going to be sadly disappointed barbecue people do not forget how Labor has form for lying about energy taxes and they will down vote them as a consequence.

View discussion

In response to 12660870

You are correct to say that consumers don’t want to pay more for our energy but the reason is not that we don’t care about the environment, its because we simply don’t buy the claims that these measures will make the tiniest bit of difference to the climate.

View discussion

Surely the biggest impediment to any development in indigenous areas is the absence of a tradition of good governance and sound management practices of both communities and projects. Get that right and there will be lots of progress but if you can’t achieve these things then we will still be reading about the “promise” of development in a decade from now.

View discussion

In response to turnbullterrorizes

Well it seems to me that you are counting chickens that are very far from being hatched here. I don’t usually think much of NM because its is so far too the left but I do agree that with such a long campaign this election is going to all be about attrition and to that end the government is taking the right approach of chipping away steadily at the ALP’s credibility and no where are Labor weaker than they are on their accounting and costings.

View discussion

In response to Changa

Changa

Any of the LNP MP’s that Iain Hall loves could be tried and convicted of a serious criminal offence and Hall would tell us that there is nothing to see here and it was a political beat-up.

Utter rubbish

View discussion

In response to turnbullterrorizes

What is the problem here?
Joyce is entitled to have different spending priorities for his electorate to Windsor its up to each candidate to work out their own priorities and argue for them within the electorate

View discussion

In response to austmel

Do you have any idea what that cost producers?
I thought not.

View discussion

In response to ligaff

ligaff

What loses. They would of slaughtered and sold the meat here.

You clearly don’t understand anything about how the meat business works.

View discussion

In response to Scryboy

Scryboy

Actually he’s trying to conflate live exports and drownings at sea as an unsubstantiated attack on Labor. Pretty obvious.

No its more of a suggestion that Indonesia facilitated more boats as payback for the Gillard’s ban and its not an unreasonable suggestion that does fit the historical facts. Gillard like most Labor leaders was shit scared of anything that would further antagonize the inner city luvvies who would desert Labor for the Greens so instead of using a more delicate and considered mechanism to address those cruelty issues she chose the blunt instrument of a export ban. Indonesia has never been afraid to use the “asylum seekers” as a foreign policy tool and all that Barnaby has done is suggest that the increase in numbers at the time could well have been deliberate rather than a coincidence.

View discussion

In response to Joey Rocca

None, because there is nothing that needs fixing here.

View discussion

In response to Longerenong

Rather typically you seem to think that we should be Kowtowing to Indonesia all of the time, but I don’t think they would respect us if we did so. Barnaby is very clearly talking to his own rural constituency when he talks about the disastrous suspension of the Live cattle trade done to placate the inner city trendies because it was they who suffered real loses because the Gillard government were too stupid to address the bad optics in a way that did not harm our own interests in the process.

View discussion

In response to Timmojohn

Timmojohn

I think your suggestion for swags is good for that small percentage who are homeless by nature, by that I mean those who refuse to seek help and somehow can’t stay in a job/ house.

Glad we agree on this

But the greater proportion of homeless people can be helped, and do seek it. Mostly this is people with children. For those, money is the only solution. Receiving their first month rent, and help with other services and advocacy, is the difference between getting a step up and being left to sleep rough/ kids being taken into care.

Sure I appreciate that, most people in this category are clearly “savable” with intervention but for many its just a short step down into the first category of permanent inability to maintain a place to live.

As for the ‘inherently homeless’, I just think we need to change our view of them. Homeless can be a way of life. Understanding them and treating them as a non threatening element of society, would be refreshing.

I agree with that too which is why I endorse the services that help mitigate the worst aspects of their situation, the ability to be clean and to have a decent meal and a warm and dry billet does wonders for the well being of the destitute

I have personally been through various situations. I realised a house isn’t a home necessarily, and for many people, home was something that was destroyed very early on…

Yes I can appreciate that I have not ever been destitute but then I had parents who lived through WW2 in England and they inculcated all of their offspring with the importance of first paying your rent, then your tucker, then any luxuries. The easy credit culture that we now have often leads people into terrible debt and an inability to manage their lives in a sustainable way. Once you have debts you can’t pay its easy to end up homeless and as I expect you clearly understand once you have gone over that cliff its bloody hard to get on your feet again. But for that economic resurrection to “take” you have to chnage your habits and THAT is more of an impediment to solving the homelessness problem than a lack of money.

View discussion

The point that so many who opine about the homeless ignore is that there will always a small percentage of our population who can’t manage their lives well enough to maintain a roof over their heads and short of running their lives in a very paternalistic manner no amount of money is going to “save” them from their own vices. I long ago concluded the best solution to the homelessness problem was two fold firstly for those who need it give them a “street swag” so they can sleep warm and dry and secondly arrange for them to have a locker of sorts where they can store their possessions during the day. Services like the mobile laundry and grooming services have value too but anyone who claims that the problem can be solved by just more throwing money at it is simply kidding themselves.

View discussion

In response to alertbutcalm

alertbutcalm

Julie Bishop glowing – think you need to adjust the brightness on your set.

I was speaking metaphorically as you must know.

The only thing glowing about Bishop was her fake tan running into the crevasses of the bitter black holes she calls eyes.

That ideological underwear is a few sizes too small

Angry is the word I’d use.

If your read of her emotion is that far off you have a problem with your perceptions

All the fascists are angry when they have a fight on their hands as it confuses their born to rule mentality.

Read less Karl Marx its rotting your brain…

6 weeks to go…the LNP will self implode the further it goes,

No they won’t, they are a very disciplined crew

forever attempting raids,

The AFP does not dance to the LNP tune

vilifying displaced people,

N
punishing those telling the truth by law. and trying one desperate measure after another in their now familiar race to the bottom politics (thanks Johnny).

View discussion

In response to ozjosh

ozjosh

The applause was for Pyne’s gifts as a rather arch and camp panto villain. I’m always reminded of Kenneth Williams in Carry On mode. He could be hilarious, but you were never in any doubt that there was a deeply troubled and unpleasant individual underneath.

You are amazing;y wrong on both counts, Christopher Pyne is a good minister and a very erudite man to boot and for the most part there was never much real malice in any of Williams Carry on characters, and the man himself was, like Pyne, a real gentleman.

View discussion

In response to atalanta44

atalanta44

Iain, Newspoll says Coalition majorly on the nose.

If you read more that Guardian headline you will see that Labor have not made much of an improvement in their primary vote at all, and Turnbull is still much preferred over Shorten as PM. At best you could say its even money

If you are relying on a fucking TV audience to get your electoral poll results you are in serious trouble.

Qanda audiences are almost always left leaning which is why I noted Pyne’s good reception there

Newspoll is the one poll even more accurate than the bookies.

No, the only poll that is ever truly accurate is the one counted on the night of the election

View discussion

In response to Beekeeper49

Beekeeper49

I watched the Bishop interview, but with the sound turned off. The effect was startling, because her face was so mobile, smiling, eyes dancing, radiating and glowing as though she had not a care in the world, she was almost flirting with the camera, and the sum effect was that she was trying too hard to project a message that “everything is fine here”.

You may not like it but what you have just said confirms what I posited earlier namely that the government are traveling well and not in despair as joey Rocca was claiming( I don’t think she was actually “trying too hard BTW)

View discussion

In response to Joey Rocca

Joey Rocca

It has nothing to do with like or dislike, she had an easy ride on 7.30 last night.

Why do you think that such interviews should be confrontational?

I get out plenty, the scare and lie campaigns are not working this time.

Yes, I don’t think much of Labor’s campaign either.

The LNP are blasting all sorts of Ads and nonsense, I tune out very quickly nothing of substance in them.

frankly most of teh Colalition ads I have seen have been quite positive so far (and I am a subscriber to their youtube feed.

Labor more than deserve to govern, these last 3 years of destruction and inaction from the Coalition have been a disgrace.

What do you mean by that in bold?

View discussion

In response to GeoInOz

GeoInOz

You must have your mind closed wide shut if you can not see the damage this government has done over the last 3 years.

Pray tell us precisely what you think the problems have been, Bet you nominate asylum seekers, Gay marriage and Climate change

How does a doubling of the deficit and the imminent loss of the triple A rating strike you?

Not a big deal actually but if the senate had not been so obstructive that would not have happened as you well know

View discussion

In response to ExSquadie

ExSquadie

Pyne, ? Australia’s answer to Donald Duck, but slightly less intelligent.
Bishop, ? Bring my helicopter round James, we don’t want to be driving as much as 50 miles to-day do we. After all $5k is peanuts for a “Politician” when it’s only taxpayers money we are blowing

i think that your Che Guevara underpants are too tight matey, they are cutting off the circulation to your brain….

View discussion

In response to Joey Rocca

Joey Rocca

Come off it, she is pathetic.

we get that you don’t like her but you prejudice probably means that you did not even watch the interview that I was alluding to.

Labor has come a long way and all the dirt and muck the Coalition tries on is failing.

Of course labor have come a long way but I simply don’t think they have come far enough to deserve government, they need quite a bit more of time in opposition.
As for the effectiveness of the government campaigns, well if you get outside of the Guardian left wing bubble you will probably find a very different picture of how effective they are.

View discussion

In response to Plemons

Plemons

If you don’t want to be identified as an LNP shill, I recommend losing the “Rudd/Gillard/Rudd” bit . . . it’s a bit of a giveaway.

I have been using that term for longer than the LNP have and I will continue to do so because its a great way to remind people of just how dysfunctional the ALP were when they were last in government.

View discussion

In response to benluk

benluk

Inane: Take a pill and lie down.

Why should I do that? I’m feeling fine

View discussion

In response to ligaff

ligaff

Your a dill mate.

No just a conservative

Nobody has worshiped Gaia since well before the Council of Nicea made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire when the worship of the Greek Dark Age mother goddess was pretty much extinct.

Who said anything about worshiping an ancient deity?

Confusing a dead religion with the scientific Gaia Hypothesis, which turns out to now to be an accepted theory, as taught in Earth Systems Science modules in Universities around the world just shows was a bigoted uniformed closed minded petty individual you really are.

I am not at all confused but you are right that I am alluding to Lovelock’s hypothesis but you are confused yourself if you think that my metaphor is meant to be read literally. Its a simple descriptor for the the way that the Greens seem to think that Humanity is an antagonist to the biosphere rather than being as much a p[art of it as any other animal is part of it.

View discussion

In response to Michael_GPF

That is easy for you to claim but others will see it differently, especially if they ever get their wish to close down all of our mines and all of our industry

View discussion

In response to gaiusbaltar25

gaiusbaltar25

You’re in for a rude shock when the ALP win the election.

Labor certainly can win, however I don’t expect that they will win. They may pick up a few more seats BUT I don’t think that they have enough in the tank to overcome the sins of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years.

View discussion

In response to Michael_GPF

Michael_GPF

Meh. Check the polls. So much for savior Turnbull.

The only poll that matter is still weeks away and I expect that Shorten will crash and burn before then.

View discussion

In response to Joey Rocca

Joey Rocca

Julie Bishop glowing? Now that’s a stretch, sourpuss wouldn’t know how to.

Clearly you did not see the show in question.

Labor are moving along nicely, releasing policies and Bill is doing a great job interacting with the community, a natural leader.

Yet their primary vote remains at an unwinnable low level

View discussion

In response to SlenderTheCat

No Slender If you hate Australia vote Green, the party who would simply give it away to people smugglers AND utterly impoverish us in an effrot to placate Gaia

View discussion

In response to Joey Rocca

You are projecting you deepest desires here but it is totally at odds with reality. I saw Christopher Pyne on QandA last night and he did well enough to get the strongest applause at the end (over Albo) and I also saw Julie Bishop on the 730repoet and she was positively glowing. If there is any desperation out there its from Labor and the Greens who are trying to propagate the same sort of nonsense that you are delivering here. There are still six weeks to go until the election and until the votes are all cast its anyone’s to win or loose.

View discussion

In response to Gazebo

I see that sort of thing too

View discussion

In response to Phredd

Phredd

The more it discourages the better, we could do better with less of these Lycra’d Loonies,

Try living on my mountain they are a total menace most weekends

although your comment re helmets is lunacy at it’s greatest. Head trauma is the most serious of injuries and any protection is not enough

No it recognizes a very simple truth that many people would use bicycles for short trips around their home but they don’t because of the stupid looking helmets.

View discussion

for too long Cyclists have been able to get away with some quite bad behavior on the roads, ignoring red lights, and other road rules with impunity. A crackdown on that sort fo thing is a good thing. However the compulsory use of helmets is an affront to our civil liberties and it discourages a lot more casual use of bicycles within our cities and towns.

View discussion

In response to NucMed

NucMed

Australia isn’t broken?

not in nay fundamental way it isn’t. We have a functional economy, a divers polity and a working democracy/ While we are not perfect there is a lot more that is good than bad here

If that’s your best standup line son, then you’re better orf sticking to your day job shouting the odds for the IPA/LNP/News ltd Partei and their appalling handmaidens …

Sharing my wisdom here is not my day job, its just my vocation.

View discussion

In response to Carlos Jorgen

Carlos Jorgen

Iain Hall,

I’m curious as to who you are voting for.

Why?

View discussion

In response to Halimede

Halimede

On the contrary, this is exactly what is happening. They are not being prevented from enrolling, they are being dissuaded. The end result is the same.

How so, when its well known that the very day that a young person turns 18 they are expected to enroll to vote, at every election the electoral commission runs advertising campaigns to get them to enroll, In fact none of this would happen at all if anyone was trying to dissuade young people from voting

View discussion

In response to SlenderTheCat

SlenderTheCat

I apologise for my first post that you hate democracy.

I was incorrect.

I should have written,

you don’t understand democracy.

How so?

View discussion

In response to nath2099

nath2099

Wow. Luckily we don’t all have that attitude. We’d still be living in caves bashing women over the head with big sticks.

We as a society long ago gave up using blunt instruments as a courtship tool because there ARE better ways to find and keep a mate. The point is we changed to something that definitely is a better way. Too often You minions of the left just want to change just for teh sake of change with a vague hope that the change will be positive, sometimes it might be but more often it is a step backwards that could have been avoided with just a tiny bit more caution in the first place

View discussion

In response to SlenderTheCat

SlenderTheCat

That is not what you implied in your first post.

You see democracy is a very liberal club in this country which is very easy to join, you fill in one very simple application form, prove you are a real person and you are in for life. In my opening comment I was actually alluding to the old adage that goes something like this ” if you don’t vote for the left when you are young then you have no heart, but if you continue to vote for the left as you mature then you have no brain” and trying to imply that young people being lured into leftism is a waste of time for our polity.

View discussion

In response to Halimede

Halimede

Systemic disenfranchising of young voters is not democratic.

No one is disenfranchising young people here, to enroll to vote is SO simple that any idiot can do it and that means that if they fail to do so there is no one to blame but themselves.

View discussion

In response to nath2099

nath2099

Uhuh. Sure thing buddy. You go on living in your little mind cave. The rest of humanity will progress without you.

One thing you learn when you graduate into long trousers is that change for its own sake is seldom a good idea and instead you appreciate the adage that if it isn’t broken then don’t try to fix it.

View discussion

In response to Alpo88

If you don’t enroll to vote as soon as you are legally entitled to do so then you have no right to complain about the results of the election, its as simple as that.

View discussion

In response to nath2099

nath2099

Society is leaving you behind.

Not at all

Don’t be scared of change.

I’m not scared of change, but I do loathe the “all chnage is good” mindset of the left because I have seen too many examples where your fellow minions of teh left have changed things for the worse and as a consequence I would rather see change only when we have a very high confidence that it would actually be a good thing.

You might find empathy rewarding.

How does empathy matter in this context?

View discussion

In response to SlenderTheCat

I love democracy Slender, but part of democracy is letting the politically unengaged waste their votes if they fail to register to vote or if they are too stupid to cast a formal vote. Both registering to vote and casting a formal ballot ain’t that hard so do you really want the result of an election to hang on the stupidity of those who can’t learn to vote properly?

View discussion

And the problem here is what precisely?
The young people in question would probably be wasting their vote on the Greens or the ALP so its no great loss if they neuter their own suffrage

View discussion

In response to Alcibiades2016

I am not talking about far left ideologues like yourself, but those swing voters who were seduced by the Kevin Rudd snake oil show

View discussion

In response to ManoSand

ManoSand

Throwing the Captain overboard to install the Messiah — who turned out to be just a very haughty boy — was ‘playing the long game’?

One thing that is certain is that Abbott is not doing a Rudd and whiteanting his own party so I think That the sadly necessary leadership change will be a benefit. That said I was of course talking about the long game of the campaign itself and on that score I don’t see Shorten going the distance with out a major stuff up, its the Labor way

But be patient, Iain: Games of Tones will resume soon after 2 July.

The game that interests me is what will the Labor party do when it works out that its lurch to the left has not payed off for them

View discussion

In response to ManoSand

ManoSand

In your guts you know they’re stuffed.

I think that the ALP may marginally improve their seat count but not win government.

View discussion

In response to ManoSand

ManoSand

“the Carbon Tax card

still stings the ALP and is hated by most voters, a good card actually

the Asylum seekers Card,

Once you get away from this place and out into the real world that one trumps the ALP every-time.

and The union thuggery card”

If the remaining unions were not either irrelevant or hot beds of thuggery you might have a point…. What are they down too now? 17% of workers?

Your house of cards is about to come crashing down.

On the contrary its a good hand for this current game

View discussion

In response to possumpete

possumpete

Well I think that the Coalition are playing the long game better than the ALP who seem to be a greater risk of running out of steam before the big day.

That remains to be seen. The tranche timing of the ALP policy will have been carefully measured.

As will the Coalition’s campaign

Don’t forget that the LNP were caught on the hop with the timing and depth of the ALP on corporate tax concession and the negative gearing policies.

I don’t agree with that assessment

This indicates a considered strategy which if well orchestrated will see the campaign through.

Both sides clearly have a plan but I think that the ALP still carry more unsavory baggage that has yet to be exploited by the government

What I would like to see is the financial details of both parties.

To what end?

View discussion

In response to HassleHoff

HassleHoff

Maybe by right wing gronks.

No by most sensible people

Well received means a bounce in the polls however small.

Not necessarily,

I’m not sure what rock you live under but since that budget the Coalition’s and Mr Harbourside’s popularity has continued to slide.

Well from under my rock I can see that we are in an election campaign whcih makes Polling less trustworthy that usual

Why are the tories so opposed to honesty?

We’re not, that is a leftist failing

View discussion

In response to GoTeamAustralia

GoTeamAustralia

And the L.N.P. is in bed with the Mafia, once the stench of defeat is the air it is hard to get rid of that smell

.Really? I can taste YOUR desperation here.

View discussion

In response to TheotherClaw

TheotherClaw

I certainly don’t know how conservatives work, you all seem very broken to me….however I do understand middle Australia as I “are” one.

Middle???? pull the other one!

Agreed. My judgement is that you are simply wrong…but this is a sport to you and you’ve chosen a side who you will support regardless.

No I have chosem the lesser evil of the two choices

SSM is a good thing

You may think it a good thing but very few in the center or among conservatives will change their vote because of it and in fact many RW labor voters may well go the other way because of it so not a vote winner fro Shorten.

an emission’s trading scheme is a good thing

Apart from the Greens Fringe who won’t vote ALP this is not a positive

I’ll see your Union scare and raise you one Mafia

I don’t know where you get the Mafia thing from (though there is a new game due out October7) but the Unions have been a liability rather than an asset fro the Labor party for sometime

Not even worth rebuffing as its just so fatuous.

Fatuous or not its true

View discussion

In response to ManoSand

Having a great acuity for something does not mean that have a monopoly on making big political mistakes, Labor have simply been more often defeated when they were expected to win.

View discussion

In response to TimofAltona

Yes Tim and their confirmation bias here is staggering

View discussion

In response to TimofAltona

You are quite correct there Tim, but its not only the boats that a Shorten/Greens win would revive there is also the Carbon tax, more license for Union shenanigans and the usual labor infighting that worries the voters.
Turnbull may not be perfect but his are a far safer pair of hands that Shorten’s every day of the week.

View discussion

In response to nonliebabel

The thing is, now with the benefit of hindsight a great proportion of those who voted against Howard now regret doing so and wish that they had stuck with his government. their wish for stability may well work in favor of Turnbull this time around.

View discussion

In response to Hotspringer

Hotspringer

The numbers are close, the count may take a while, so I pray and hope for the guillotine on the 14th for the RWNJs.

You dark dreams of a Pogrom against conservatives is unlikely to be manifested then or at any other time.

View discussion

In response to thefinnigans1

thefinnigans1

its over for Turnbull Coalition Team

Its part of the labor party DNA to have a great acuity for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

shorten/Labor have more than enough policies to talk about

Yet they have no way of paying for them OR fixing the deficit problem without killing our economy stone dead

What has the Turnbull coalition Team , lies about jobs and growth which coalition supporters do not believe

No they have the potential to give us stability and that is a very attractive possibility.

View discussion

In response to JeremiahBullfrog

JeremiahBullfrog

Problem is, it’s May and the Coalition have been empty since the 2014 budget …

Not at all, the latest budget has been rather well received as it happens and its the ALP cup full of a toxic Koolaid (carbon tax revived , disunity on boats, and the possibility of them getting ion bed with the loopy Greens) that will be more significant.

View discussion

In response to TheotherClaw

TheotherClaw

Ah I well remember the Newman invincibility claim as well and the polling numbers supporting Newman…but on the day, with pencil in hand, QLD kicked him out with one huge swing.

That was then this is now and We have a crappy Labor administration in the state Parliament so the voters can see that choosing Labor was bad idea then and now its even worse with Shorten & the Greens as the option other than Turnbull.

Lets face it Iain…Turnbull has been a massive disappointment to middle Australia and he still have a du front bench filled to the brim with an assortment of weirdos and throwbacks.

As a card carrying lefty I don’t think that you have any idea how conservatives or middle Australians weigh up the options and how in the end most of us choose the lesser of the evils. Shorten is by far a worse option that Turnbull and with his endorsement of Gay marriage , and the possibility of him reviving the Carbon tax, his debt to the union movement and almost Zero charisma he simply can’t be trusted.

View discussion

In response to Penfisher

Penfisher

58:42 in Queensland!
Hahahahaha! Hallucinations must be set aside when one tries to think as an adult.

No the figures came from the ABC radio so they must be right.

View discussion

In response to Helicalgroove

Helicalgroove

Yes Iain, I’m sure they’d much prefer ‘believable’ promises such as those made with regard to education, health , pensions, the ABC and so on.

No matter what the ALP promise in any of those categories they always have great difficulty explain how they are going to pay for their grand schemes, Financial management is always Labor’s weakness and the voters will undoubtedly be reminded of their tendency to over promise and under deliver on those promises.

View discussion

In response to PossumBilly

PossumBilly

Yes, of course there is a way to go. However the current trends do not bode well for the Coalition.

The ALP primary vote has hardly moved and all of the preference assumptions in the polling is based on the last election when Clive Palmer was in the mix, his political and financial implosion alone should make you skeptical of the results of that polling. Turnbull still leads Shorten by a big margin in the preferred PM question.

Your personal observation or ‘sense’ is, unless you have statistically significant data to support that opinion, at odds with the current analysis.

Some times Gut feelings are just as good as polling

I personally don’t trust polls per se as they, as in the example of the UK election, were spectacularly wrong. I also believe they include a proportion of tactical ‘votes’.

Agree with you there

Nevertheless, Australia has an entirely different voting system, not dependent on turn out and smoothed through the transferable vote.

Sure I understand that

What is more interesting is the consistent and significant slide in Turnbull’s personal ratings. To me this is a better barometer of the country’s emotions.

Well I think that the Coalition are playing the long game better than the ALP who seem to be a greater risk of running out of steam before the big day.

View discussion

In response to Stereophonic

Stereophonic

Can’t identify a 100 year long term temperature trend, what hope have to got with a 30 month poll trend?

Shorten is actually rather like CO2, insofar as the true believers like yourself vastly over rate his influence on our political climate when in reality he has about as much charisma as a used franger.

View discussion

In response to Penfisher

Penfisher

Counter your Ace with my Joker:
Landslide win to Shorten on 2 July.

You are right about one thing and that Shorten is a Joke in the political pack, but in this game Jokers are not wild they are worthless, especially when they are in the same hand as the Carbon Tax card , the Asylum seekers Card, and The union thuggery card…

View discussion

In response to Penfisher

Not here in the make or break state of Queensland where is 58 to 42 in favor of the government. frankly I expect that in the end people will value stability over some unbelievable “promise” from the ever unreliable ALP. They will also remember the ALP’s greatest hits to the economy like the Carbon tax and the endless boats

View discussion

I meant to say the second of July but as it happens the second of June is probably when Shorten will have blown is load anyway…

View discussion

There is many a slip twixt cup and lip, so the minions of the left who are already celebrating should take a chill pill. There are many days to go until the people decide and then we will see what people actually do. Personally I am not sensing the ALP being attractive enough to do it. If anything I am seeing a party that is going to be running on empty by the second day in June.

View discussion

In response to NeverMindTheBollocks

Your comment highlights the real issue in so much of the third world, namely the almost total lack of any sort of consistent or(by our standards) good governance which will of course be more of a threat to the people of those countries than any chnage in the climate.

View discussion

Same old hypocrisy about fossil fuels from the followers of the new Green Religion

AFL round 6 (2013) ‘expert’ tips

(Yeah – you idiots – its me and Im back!)

(No I do not meen you are an idiot Iain)

(They know who I mean)

…………………………..The story starts here (below the dots line)……………………….

The AFL meets to discuss the drugs-in-sport issue

The AFL meets to discuss the drugs-in-sport issue

I know it is already gone 5 games into the season so why am I upstarting this weekly session now you ask? Well I suggest you stop asking stupid questions and just listen. I am starting this weekly expert insides into the game of AFL football (real football not soccer) for good reasons.

For fairness … and anger.

Just ask yourself this set of intelligent questions (insted of asking me):

1. Who is sitting on top of the AFL ladder undefeated?

2. Who is belting the begeezus out of the opposition week in and week out?

3. Who was it who belted poor old Melbourne footy club almost into oblivean forcing them to sack there CEO?

4. And who is it that is still all mussled up from last years, um, training regime?

I will tell you who it is.

Its the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM Essen – fu**ing – don …. the drug cheats:

ESSENDON would still be enjoying the benefits of performance-enhancing drugs if players did take illegal supplements last season, according to a leading athletics expert.

Nic Bideau, who managed Olympian Cathy Freeman and coached Craig Mottram, says he has no doubt there would be residual benefits.

… Bideau told the Herald Sun any use of illegal drugs would improve muscle strength, which could stay with players.

“If you have a really good training year, it helps you forever or until you start to decline,” Bideau said.

“It is building a base layer upon layer upon layer. It’s like pages in a phone book.

“It is foundation you are trying to build. It takes people two or three years to become a fit league footballer, and if you add another layer on, it has to help.”

(and) … one AFL sports science expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, said any illegal substance used at any time had to have future benefits.

“If anyone is taking performance-enhancing drugs, the benefits of that are cumulative. You have been able to train at a higher level and the drug might be out of your system, but the training effect is still there,” he said.

“It increases muscle bulk and muscle strength and muscle endurance, and you push on from there.

It would be naive to think it wouldn’t have a performance benefit a year on.

So there you have it. Essendon are (still) cheating and should be stripped. Of points not clothes.

Andrew Demetriou AFL boss – from now on you will have to answer to me. I will not stop my campain to have these cheats kicked out of the comp for the rest of the year.

Welcome to the world of the Sock, Bombers.

Oh yeah my tips are (you can put your centrelink payment on these) as follows:

Collingwood Scum v St Kilda Saints: Because Ray told me. Actually @ $5.10 the Saints are a good bet in this one – you could buy a lot of Backyardi Breezers with the winnings.

Essendrugs v Great West Sydney Gnomes: Its the Essendon players that are the real Giants (giant cheats that is).

North Melbourne Headkickers v Port Adelaide Beer Drinkers: I hear the Port coach is in hospital dying from something. That won’t help them.

Adelaide Mullets v Hawthorn Uglies: No Tex? eat Crow Adelaide.

Richmond Rabble v Geelong Girls: You do not have to be Norman Einstein to work this one out.

Gold Coast WETS v Fremantle FlopsGold Coast is not a real team. They are surfer boys. Apart from the one with the shaved head job – he can play.

Sydney Gays v Brisbane Broncos: I think Adam Goodes is about 45 years old by now.

Carlton Cheats v Melbourne In Administration: I am surprised that Melbourne is still going. Didnt they fold?

West Coast Wimps v Western Bullshit: Battle of the bogans.

Put money on it – see ya next week.

%d bloggers like this: