Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Search results for 'mining tax'

Search Results for: mining tax

The reviled Mining Tax, gone at a price we can live with


No matter how often you watch this Gif you will never get beyond its promise to the fulfilment that you desire, which sums up the ill-conceived and now abolished MRRT

The mining tax has been abolished after a deal with the Palmer United party (PUP) in which the government delayed the abolition of the schoolkids bonus and other savings and deferred already-legislated increases to workers’ compulsory superannuation for seven years.

The prime minister was jubilant after the shock deal was revealed, claiming it rendered the Labor party irrelevant and proved the government – approaching the first anniversary of its election – was “getting on with the job.”

After secret negotiations with PUP, the government revealed a deal with the crossbench senators to finally abolish the mining tax – as it had so often promised – if it retained three programs until after the next election, instead of abolishing them straight away.

In changes that will cost the budget bottom line $6.5bn over the next four years but leave it no worse off in the long term, the government has agreed to keep the schoolkids bonus, the low income superannuation contribution and the income support bonus until 2016 or 2017.

But it will also freeze the amount employers are compelled to put into all workers superannuation accounts. It is currently legislated to increase to 10% in 2015-16 and then by 0.5% each year to reach 12% in 2019-20. After this deal goes through it will be frozen at 9.5% and won’t reach 10% until 2021, rising by 0.5% a year after that.


Well by my reckoning that is another victory for the Coalition government in their campaign to undo the follies of Labor, which means that we will no longer have a tax that costs more to administer than it collects which  makes us a laughing stock to the world. Further the suspension of increases in superannuation will be greeted with great joy but those in our economy who provide the employment, it will mean that the cost of hiring someone will be less over time which should help business to employ more people.  Personally as I have two children in school the continuation of the school kids bonus will come in handy but I very much doubt that it has ever been a game changer to parents in this age of voter cynicism.  As Tony Abbott said yesterday in the Parliament this is not everything the government wanted but it will do.

What this means is that the government has actually achieved the three planks of its election campaign, the Carbon Tax has gone, the Mining Tax has gone and the Boats have been stopped, more importantly though this demonstrates that for all of his bluff and bluster in the media Palmer can be dealt with and the government can bring about the reforms that it was elected to do.

Cheers Comrades


Jeremy Sear wrong on RSPT mining tax

Jeremy Sear does not understand the mining tax he so strongly supported last year

I’m afraid my not so learned colleague has made a fundamental error on his latest post on the mining tax. According to Jeremy, the RSPT would only result in an effective tax rate of less than 40% on their ‘super-profits’:

If you look at their enormous profits and then subtract 40% of the part of those profits over a particular absurd amount, then they’d only have their full profits plus 60% of the unprecedented extra. Only 60% of a huge amount of money? What would be the point of going on? What kind of investor would participate in such an industry?


Jeremy is of course completely wrong: when you factor in the fact that the mining companies would continue to pay company tax, their real rate of profit tax would be up to 56.8% after the mining ‘super profits’ (profits of more than 7%) tax kicked in, as confirmed by Treasury Secretary Ken Henry.

So it appears that Jeremy has completely misunderstood the entire effect of the mining tax. (I assume that he was not being deliberately misleading) In line with his preferred political party The Greens, Jeremy has previously strongly supported the mining tax.

Perhaps Jeremy may now admit that the original mining tax was a bit much, and that the adverse effect on investment for future mining projects was likely inevitable with such a massive tax grab. Such a view was expressed by Access Economics director Chris Richardson, someone who knows a lot more about the effect of taxation on companies, industries and investment than would Jeremy and his cadre of Greens supporters.

If Jeremy still supports the RSPT mining tax, then to be consistent, perhaps he should also support a barrister’s super profits tax. Let’s say, a super profits tax which applies once barristers earn over a certain amount. Unfortunately, Jeremy appears to be opposed to any such notion. It’s easy to advocate that others should be taxed more when it’s not you. 

A little less recently, Jeremy Sear published an article along the lines of “I support free speech BUT not those which are opposed to gay marriage:

I’d argue that publishing an argument from someone like Muehlenberg which amounts to little more than an ad-hominem attack on gay people via insulting some prominent gay political figures is an editorial choice which is not required just because you’re trying to give reasonable space to both sides

That’s a nice way to de-legitimise an article which exposes some of the radical voices behind the move towards gay marriage, and which is a valid contribution to the gay marriage debate.

Jeremy Sear wants to be considered a serious commentator, as his mission to debunk “intellectual dishonesty” on Pure Poison shows. But in order for Jeremy to be respected as a commentator, he will have to gain a superior command of the facts and a more intellectually rigorous approach than his current lazy efforts.

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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.”

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


View discussion

In response to 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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 14 May 2016

I go to school but it doesn’t have four walls. My school is the world

In response to Filipio


That you feel able to blithely dismiss content in Scientific American as ‘typical left-wing’ gives you no credibility whatsoever to contribute to a discussion concerning education.

Strangely enough no matter how hard I try I can’t find any dismissal of any source in my comment in this thread. lets check , here is what I said again :

One persons shoestring is actually a bloody big anchor rope to another person of lesser means.

Yep that’s right no mention of a citation at all…

Good luck sniffing out those ‘cultural marxists’…

Thankfully the sort of willful blindness you exhibit is not contagious.

View discussion

In response to Filipio


Did you miss the bit about ‘shoestring budget’? Depending on her parent’s skills etc there is potentially plenty of work available which, while not at all well-paid (e.g. ESL teaching, service sector) provides enough for a very modest life of living abroad. Being wealthy is not required.

One persons shoestring is actually a bloody big anchor rope to another person of lesser means.

View discussion

In response to Mike Imelfort

Mike Imelfort

I would suggest that there are doctors in the area of womens health who are well and truly aware of the existance of terrorists in the christian community. I would also suggest utilising google before making such bold assertions.

You could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of christian anti abortionists willing to kill for their beliefs which is utterly infinitesimally small compared to the number of Muslims willing to kill in the name of Allah. There fore yours is a totally false comparison, And I don’t need to use google to make my argument thank you very much.

View discussion

In response to pbendall


Why is a reformation such a good idea? The Reformation in Europe led to the Thirty Years’ War.

But after that war the result was a a christian faith that was more able to cope with social and technological change. Islam needs reform so that it can accept the concept that women are fully human beings and that the individual has an inalienable right to believe or not according to their conscience and most importantly it needs reform because it is totally unacceptable to kill in the name of its god.

View discussion

In response to RalphFilthy


That is an uneasy truth you have there…

nice to find common ground with you Ralph

View discussion

In response to barcaboy


Rubbish! Absolute rubbish.

How so?

View discussion

The problem here is that Islam is a religion in desperate need of a reformation and until it has one there will always be a great deal of dislike and suspicion of its adherents.

View discussion

In response to Filipio


‘most pointedly’? Are you serious?

completely serious. as I always am here

How is my exposure to your ‘citations’ more germane than the material I offered to you concerning the cultish misnomer of ‘cultural marxism’?

Your citations are both typical left-wing pieces asserting the same argument that Wilson makes and like you they are big on the ad hominem argument. Taht said I realize now that the Sargon vid I linked you too was just a short promo for a ,much longer one were he interviewed a young journalist involved with the infamous behavior of Melissa Glick.This one gives a better picture of the point I was trying to enunciate

Of course I watched the pieces. That’s precisely why I said I felt dirty. It’s hard to sit through such a garbled mish-mash of half-truth, speculation, partly-understood, context-less, at times barely coherent, self-aggrandizing which, as the Scientific American source I provided to you notes, clearly are inclined to ‘reject all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seek only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth’. There are thinkers on the right I disagree with who are nonetheless worth listening to for a range of reasons. I am a regular reader of The Economist, for instance, which adopts a generally conservative line (particularly on international finance). But those guys? They are utterly remote from any notion of serious sources of credible information or analysis. I hope I never cross their paths again.

I simply don’t believe you actually watched either vid which is why you launch into more character assassination rather than addressing any of the content

I don’t like to accuse anyone I hardly know as being deceitful, but it is difficult to credit your claim that you read ‘far more writers of the left than I do of the right’ if you are willing to describe CB as ‘center left’.

I have been watching his vids for quite some time and its VERY clear that he is what he claims to be , namely an old fashioned small l liberal.

The man is a near-irrational opponent of feminism, just to begin with.

I bet that you think that any one who questions any aspect of contemporary feminism is ” near-irrational” would that be a fair understanding of your position? Because Feminism like any ideology needs to be properly critiqued and questioned rather than just cringingly accepted the way so many men of the left accept it

But perhaps, as with your embrace of the notion that ‘cultural marxism’ is an illuminating concept (did you read the Southern Poverty Law Center piece?) your idea of a ‘left writer’ is somewhat removed from reality.

You see i don’t think that Cultural Marxism explains the entireity of the modern far left, its clearly part of it but much of it stems form the fact that the habit of activism is sadly as addictive as heroin or Crystal meth and that once some cause has been achieved its proponents seek some new social woe to conquer and there in lays the problem because those former radicals now cozily tucked up inside our universities teaching want to relive their glory days of student activism even though their current causes are well, self indulgent bullshit. Its the reason that we on the right are so dismissive of the modern SJWs (like yourself?) they simply don’t seem to realize that they are trampling on the hard fought basic rights of our citizens and trying to institute some truly regressive social changes that diminish us all.

View discussion

In response to Filipio


Most pointedly you ignore my question about what exposure you have had to the gentlemen I offered as citations so does that mean I am right that you’ve not watched any of their stuff? I suspect that you are variate like Wilson who bases his opinions on the usual far left critics of Their output rather than listening to what they say and responding to it. As it happens Sargon (real name Carl Benjamin , which is no secret) is one of you classical small l liberals and is a more to the center left and frankly he just has a soft left sort of political output not that you would think so from the way you reacted in horror and the mention of his pseudonym.
I have read widely and I continue to do so and in fact I read far more writers of the left than I do of the right.
So once again I ask you did you watch the pieces I cited or not?

View discussion

In response to Filipio


Oh my lord – sargon of akkad and Rocking MrE are your social and political analysts of choice? This is how you think the world works? This is your idea of “well-argued”!?

Yes both gents do a good job at putting a calm and reasoned argument, far better than Jason Wilson any day of the week

My god. Iain.

Iam just a man not a deity

I feel kinda dirty being dragged into the murky nether-realms of patreon-milking internet reaction, but at the same time it’s so illuminating. Such terrifying evidence of the potential echo-chamber effect of the internet, narrowing rather than expanding the range of ideas people are open to considering, slowly swirling so many into an abyss of partisanship and ignorance. Seriously unnerving stuff.

So all you can say in response is an ad hominiem?

Congrats to you for still having a look at the Guardian from time to time; I hope not simply to feed your dismay at all the ‘cultural marxists’ everywhere eroding the foundations of western civilization.

I have always been a political omnivore in my reading, you should try it

Here’s a small thing to consider sometime, if you will — a tiny thread of rationality. Pull it whenever; you may find certain assumptions slowly unravel. Here it is, look:

some of the most trenchant critics of postmodernism are Marxists.

Which is relevant how precisely?

The commentators you seem to favour routinely include postmodernity (and philosophical relativism, not quite the same thing) in the ‘cultural marxist’ rubric.

Says who? because that is not what I hear from either gent.but somehow I doubt that you have even watched their stuff and taht instead taht you are relying on secondhand criticisms.

In reality, Marxism is an expression of the Enlightenment tradition (not the only one of course). Postmodernists seek a radical break with this tradition.
Postmodernity and Marxism is at odds, not part of the same project. See e.g. the writings of Jurgen Habermas or Fredric Jameson.

And how precisely does that counter the concept of cultural marxism?

You need to be real about this Iain. Read. Think. Reason. Don’t just absorb rants.

For example, Herbert Marcuse (of Frankfurt School fame) was teaching at Colombia and Harvard in the 1950s my friend. And you’re suggesting that students ‘indoctrinated’ by cultural marxism are yet to come of age? In academic terms we are talking about some three generations of scholars between then and now. What’s been happening in the meantime?

It takes time for any ideology to reach critical mass and that is precisely what has happened with cultural Marxism its only now since the collapse of Communism that we have seen the rise of cultural Marxism and it began with indoctrinating the educators and now we are seeing it at a retail level.

Turn your attention to the history of the New Left in 60s – so much more was going on than Marxism, whether Orthodox or Cultural. Then look at the rise of the New Right and Neo-Liberalism. Get beyond the lazy distortions and misunderstanding.

View discussion

In response to yeoldcynic


O.K. Iain_Hall, I’ll take the bait and reply on one point only.

Ah, I must have used the correct bait says he as he caresses the online fishing rod…

If you found Rudd objectionable enough to stop voting for the ALP, how can you presently vote for the Coalition after Abbott (whom you have previously defended) and Turnbull (who has completely abandoned his previous convictions)?

You make a number of mistaken assumptions here because I have not enunciated why found Rudd so offensive that I gave up a life time of voting for the ALP. There were two issues in play here. Firstly Climate change and secondly Asylum seekers/uninvited immigrants. The former was simply oversold and over hyped and as a skeptic I simply found Rudd’s posturing ridiculousness incarnate. And the second just showed what a detached from reality political player Rudd was. I predicted the flood of boats that followed Rudd’s ill fated decision to ease border security and when it was clear I knew that abandoning Labor as a voting option was the right thing to do. For all of their faults the LNP is very much a lesser evil.

Like you, I have changed my vote over the years, but in the coming election I will place the Coalition last, because it has been a shambolic government, worse than Rudd’s, and it doesn’t deserve a second term.

they certainly have made a few minor mistakes but on the big things they have been pretty good and that is why I will vote for them despite personally preferring Abbott. A labor government would simply not be good for the country.

View discussion

In response to Filipio


Wilson’s not defending it — he’s suggesting it’s a chimera, a conspiratorial fantasy; right wing blather.

Well he would say that because he is as I pointed out one of those involved in propagating it. I have known Jason since before he began writing for the Guardian BTW.

If you think he’s ‘totally wrong’ you could at least suggest where and why.

You only have to look at recent activists own goals and protest activities Like this one and their hierarchies of victim hood, safe spaces, trigger warnings and other such nonsense.

The whole story is transparently barmy. If humanities faculties are really geared to brainwashing students into accepting the postulates of far-left ideology, the composition of western parliaments and presidencies and the roaring success of corporate capitalism suggests they’re doing an astoundingly bad job. Anyone who takes a cool look at the last three decades of politics will think it bizarre that anyone could interpret what’s happened as the triumph of an all-powerful left.

This is Jason being rather disingenuous here because the generation of students thus indoctrinated are only now getting to an age when they might be getting into positions of power, The notable example of one getting into a significant office that comes to my mind is Justin Trudeau, who seems to have made a big deal about deciding who would be in his cabinet based on the contents of their underpants rather than because of any ability they may have

Indeed , witness the monotonous lock-step of government policy and neo-liberal economics over decades. So lighten up my friend, remove the tinfoil hat and look about you — even if such a thing (whatever it would actually look like) did exist, its patently failed.

No its only just now that cultural Marxism is on the rise and that is why you can’t see it’s effect

View discussion

In response to yeoldcynic


The present system is workable only for the elite, in that it transfers wealth from the “Commonwealth” to corporations and wealthy individuals.

No I don’t agree at all because it is the motivated individuals and corporations who create wealth that is then a benefit to all.

It is bad for the “Duncans” (re. Q&A last night) in our society and the inequality is growing by the day.

I missed QandA so I’ll take that on advisement

And no, I don’t advocate communism or socialism, but a more equitable system such as exists in some countries (e.g. Norway and Switzerland); I just don’t think that today’s economic neoliberalism, as practised in Australia by the two main political parties, is good for the vast majority of its citizens.

Yet the majority of bour citizens are living good and productive lives, we have low unemployment and a high level of personal consumption. Heck even the unemployed can live well enough on the dole if they are frugal

The ALP at least does try to give the battlers an education, a health system and some social welfare, whereas the Coalition, influenced by the likes of the IPA, intends to take everything away from them and give it to the affluent.

The ALP make a pretense of caring but they really have the same tendency to try to contain the costs of their apparent compassion as the LNP does.

As for the Greens, they seem to care for the unfortunate in theory, but they don’t always follow that in practice.


You, Iain_Hall, from your general comments, seem to be a Coalition man through and through (or a shill, but I give you the benefit of the doubt), so it is pointless to discuss anything further.

i have actually voted Labor more often than I have voted LNP and it was not until the rise of Rudd that I decided that I could no longer follow my family tradition of voting for the ALP

View discussion

In response to Filipio

Jason Wilson is totally wrong about that and his defense of Cultural Marxism was written because he is one of its proponents

View discussion

In response to rattis


Oh now you’re speaking on behalf of mankind? The arrogance is astounding.

I’m actually a humble bloke who values humility. None the less I do have some understanding about our shared human nature

Significant global concerns (that actually impact us all) may not be in ‘your nature’ Hall.

Contemporary news media certainly allows us to see what is happening all around the world but that does not oblige us to care about what happens in communities other than our own and frankly trying to do so can be very bad for your mental health.

But many of us actually give a damn about the state of the earth, future generations, and about those less fortunate than ourselves.

We each only have a certain amount of care and compassion to give my friend, that is the way we are made.

Yet again Hall exposes the ugly side of the White, middle aged, Australian, heterosexual male (someone who has never had to question his slot in society) and his broad apathy for the plight of others. Shameless.

Its pointless having much care or compassion about things we can not change and people we can not save which is not “apathy” its realism and we think like that not because we are in any sense bad but because we are human.

View discussion

In response to TheIPAResistance


Benny Hill once said if you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME.

I am making predictions not sharing assumptions

You’d do well to heed his advice. Nowhere did I suggest the Greens. More myopia from the infamous Iain Hall.

You were denouncing both the ALP and the LNP which leave s the Loony Greens as the next cab on the rank. But if I’m wrong to think you meant the Greens then please tell who else do you imagine in power if you have eliminated both the LNP and the ALP?

View discussion

In response to jclucas

Marr like so many lefties think that social media which his left wing political pals dominate is more real than the life lived in the Burbs, that is why he is so loathed by ordinary people who can’t stand his pretentious sanctimony.

View discussion

In response to nosteril

You seem to have the mistaken belief that we should have global level concerns when its simply not in our nature to do so. naturally enough we humans care more out our more local issues and we should not be disparaged for doing so.

View discussion

In response to ozcitizen

What is wrong with wanting a peaceful life?

View discussion

In response to TheIPAResistance

The Greens would be an utter disaster if they got into power in their own right, we would have open borders for a start and the sort of people flows they have seen in Germany, we would have open slather on narcotic drugs, constant blackouts because they would close down coal fired power. Petrol would be $10 per litre and we would all be forced to become vegetarians.

View discussion

In response to RedfordScott

We dislike change for a very simple reason , so much of it has not been, as promised , beneficial to the majority of us. Remember when Rudd changed the border protection policies? He promised us that this would have no negative consequences, well 50k uninvited “asylum seekers” later and billions of dollars to support them and we still have a residue on Manus and Nauru. Nah give us some “steady as she goes”for a couple of terms at least before we change anything else thank you very much.

View discussion

In response to austmel

Labor policies that are always unfunded/underfunded which means that no matter how good the idea may be the results will be a disaster

View discussion

In response to gazzar

Your Karl Max underpants seem to be too tight matey

View discussion

In response to supersixisdown

Actually the Australian people crave predictability and rest form the constant change that seems to be pursued by the politicla class all of the time. We don’t need teh wheel reinvented every three years what we need is stability, which we won’t get under Shorten

View discussion

In response to Kieran Butler

They are uninvited economic immigrants who can leave detention and go home any time they please

View discussion

In response to yeoldcynic

issed a point

The present system is inequitable, wasteful and tends to favour the elite. It is not a true democratic system, despite being touted as such.

No its not perfect but it is workable

View discussion

In response to yeoldcynic


1. Replace all territory, state and federal governments with a single national government, preferably with an elected head of state. This would result in savings and eliminate the excuse of who is responsible for what service.

No it would cost a motza to do and result in no real savings (they tried it with council; amalgamations up here and it was a disaster. If there was to any change you have to realize that you need at least two levels of government, local and national.

2. Replace the existing electoral system with one of proportional representation. This would eliminate the two-party system and give all parties who elect representatives a voice in parliament.

NO NO NO !!!!!! just look at the countries that have PR and see how unstable they are. You would end up with an eternal hung Parliament situation where factional deals benefit those with a balance of power

3. Any important issues should be put directly to the people to decide by referendum, rather than be left at the hands of politicians, a lot of whom often represent vested interests.

As much as I support the proposed plebiscite putting too many things to referendum can be a disaster as we have seen in some places that do this kind of thing

The present system is inequitable, wasteful and tends to favour the elite. It is not a true democratic system, despite being touted as such.

View discussion

In response to wordinedgeways



ou mean those “pointless” changes like no-fault divorce,

Being able to divorce as easily as we can marry does have virtue but to imply that the whole family court edifice is perfect when its very deeply flawed is silly

anti-discrimination legislation,

Likewise a far from perfect system open to abuse form activists

rights for Indigenous peoples and,

if those rights exceed the rights of all other Australians is it really such an improvement?

later, the floating of the Australian dollar.

I’ll give you that one

Yeah, pointless if you’re a white, privileged male.

You were doing so well until you decided to take up the line of the cultural Marxists

View discussion

In response to RInglis


Every 20 something I know cares and most are more aware and care more about the future than the middle aged people I know.

Maybe they just know that you are a politics junkie and respond accordingly

Maybe it’s the circles you & I move in that gives us our different views. Or, maybe its your personal bias that gives you the dismissive view of youth that you posted.

I think that you will find its only a small percentile of that demographic that care about politics at all.

View discussion

In response to jekel3


What an imbecilic statement. Thousands of young people are actively involved in politics across the country.

Many more are utterly indifferent

View discussion

In response to ExSquadie


The ones NOW, who have done their best at school, now in the workforce, never had a pay rise in 5 years, AND WHO WILL NEVER.EVER. be able to afford a home of their own, because of a tax system, designed to make the rich richer, with negative gearing that enables those with 5-10-20 houses, to buy even more, and THEIR taxes help them to do just this. These people make bank robbers look

I don’t believe that a young person won’t ever be able to buy a house, however they will have to actually work hard, save their money and aspire to a modest house just like by nephew who has just taken possession of a smart town house. He worked two jobs and made it happen, just like anyone else can. But so many instead dive right into the consumerist treadmill and very expensive debt to do so.

View discussion

In response to Hotspringer


What’s the world coming to, the slackers don’t like slavery? Get Dutton to send in Roaming Quadbike and his blackshirts!

That makes no sense

View discussion

In response to Mikey70


Tell me what Gen Y of sound mind would vote for a PM on $500,000 p.a base pay, who wants to pay them $4 an hour whilst removing their job opportunities and skills base offshore.

Most would just dream of emulating Turnbulls income

(Holden, Ford, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Telstra, IT, defence contracts, climate science industries, and thats before we even look at the TPA provisions of moving jobs and skills off shore.

And its you socialists who are to blame for that because you have driven up our pay rates to a level that makes our manufacturing noncompetitive

That sounds to me like a politician who doesn’t have any faith in Australia’s economy, the economy their “team” is responsible for managing. We know this because his own immense wealth, reportedly hundreds of millions, is invested off-shore to avoid local tax laws.

I sense great envy in you that someone else can be a success in their life

Actions speak louder than words even when those words carry as little weight as a politicians promise.

Hmm…. have you looked at Shorten lately????

View discussion

In response to wardadkiwi


My kids ,all 7 of ’em .

May Gaia forgive you for the sin of excessive fecundity

View discussion

In response to uptherecrazies


The ones the COALition wants to turn into non-waged slaves to keep an economy descending to hell ticking over.

Keep sipping the socialist kool-aid maybe one day you will see the error of your ways

View discussion

In response to Alpo88


Young Australians care about the Future and there is No Future in the Coalition.

That is utterly wrong, its just that the Coalition encourages people to make their own future while Labor wants to spoon feed everyone a sort of rehashed ersatz socialist future.

View discussion

In response to Rubyssister


The ones that have access to social media.

Kindest regards

Social media is greatly overrated

View discussion

In response to tiggerhigh


The one’s who have parents that teach and educate them to be politically engaged because it effects their lives.

You don’t have children do you? because if you did have you might realize that its not so easy to make them into copies of yourself politically.

View discussion

In response to JimViewer


The ones who vote, of course And they all do, because voting is compulsory in Australia.

So most see it as a chore or an inconvenience, assuming that they have actually bothered to register to vote

Besides they are more intelligent than you realise and don’t see the value in getting paid $4 an hour

But its not “$4 per hour” in reality bis it? its money on top of their dole which has to be a step up if you have been trying to get by on that pittance

And they wonder why their uni fees are going to triple, locking them into exorbitant loans and out of the housing market for decades to come.

The smart ones will probably avoid going to uni altogether and get into building themselves a career or business, instead of doing a useless “social justice” course.

View discussion

In response to cookedgoose


the ones who are over 18 and vote – grow up.

You are kidding yourself, they might pay lip-service to some of the environmental issues but they are generally more interested in their phones, games and music

View discussion

What young person ever cares that much about the importance of a budget no matter who brings it down?

View discussion

In response to Joey Rocca

If Shorten’s lips are moving he is lying

View discussion

In response to Schlomo

The reality on education that you will never see labor admit is that its not more money that we need in our schools its a change in the teaching culture to eschew the cultural Marxism with all of its “politically correct” baggage and to focus on actually teaching our children the core skills with a far greater thoroughness than we see now.

View discussion

In response to EponymousDuck


No. They did it by cutting taxes and increasing spending. See your own post on this.

Had they not cut the taxes (on Carbon and mining )that they campaigned on abolishing would you be complaining that they failed to keep their promises?

It’s simple. Otherwise they use it to pay down existing debt or keep it in the form of improved profits.

Much to the chagrin of business ordinary consumers do that too

Making sure people have money to spend is the best way to promote business growth and the coalition’s wage policies are exactly not that. Hence this is a reason for my opinion on the coalition’s lack of economic nous.

Less profits that have to go in tax means that businesses can employ more Labour

Actually, the Reserve Bank just agreed with me. Did you see the report? They said that any policy to reduce leverage (i.e. negative gearing, capital gains) would be a good idea. Our economy is too tied up in housing and not in productive growth. Even ScoMo said this last week.Not sure where marxism comes into this.

Growth is not where our economic future lays because nothing can grow forever

That will have a massive negative effect on growth – you are aware of that? Much more than removing negative gearing.

We have enough people here already and NOTHING will deflate the houseing bubble more than reducing population growth.

Actually, the cost of producing alternative energy is now well below the replacement cost of a conventional coal-fired or nuclear powered generator, particularly when you factor in the forward estimates and environmental costs/hidden subsidies.

Which totally ignores my point about not being able to store/export energy

Yup. The national security implications of our loss of production capacity were not even a factor, were they?

No of course not because logistics tells us we don’t have to worry about being invaded

Well I don’t think think religious instruction belongs in schools.

Nor does cultural Marxism but its utterly entrenched and arguably more pernicious than any iteration Christianity

You want your kids to be indoctrinated?

All education is to a greater or lesser extent indoctrination

The state shouldn’t be paying for it. Nor should it be paying for a separate referendum on marriage equality – if it needed to be done as you say (and I don’t agree), then it could have been added to the existing election for a fraction of the cost.

Maybe it would have saved a few quid BUT it would have made that what the election would have been about.

A tiller is a steering device for a boat. A tiler is someone who fixes roofs.

Eyeroll plus…..

View discussion

In response to EponymousDuck


“doubled the deficit,

Due to the residue of Labor policies

have no clear economic policy direction,

that is just your opinion

not understanding that cutting taxes doesn’t result in economic and employment growth,

To be frank I disagree with you here and I also think that the effect of said tax cuts has such a strongly positive effect either. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

sending money to the rich where they will waste it in property speculation over jobs-related investment,

That is just marxist nonsense

failing to understand that the housing bubble is currently the biggest threat to our economy and that the heat needs to be taken out of the market,

My solution to housing problem is simple slash immigration and encourage people to live outside of the big three cities.

failed to adequately invest in alternative energy and undermining research just as the rest of the world was putting its foot on the pedal,

Lets be real without costly subsides there would be no “alternative energy” and frankly I don’t see how we can exploit such tech anyway, we have no ability to make the tech and no ability to store and market collected energy. Maybe in a hydrogen economy that might be possible but hydrogen is hard to store/export

only having one policy (dropping the fringe benefits tax) to save the car industry despite its massive flow on benefits to the economy and importance for national security but letting it all fall apart anyway,

The unit cost of cars has fallen so much and the expectations of sophistication has gone up so much that we simply can not compete as a manufacturer with our high wages. The fall of car manufacturing has been coming for decades and it sadly has happened now but it was unavoidable

wasting massive amounts of taxpayer cash on school chaplains

I disagree that this is a waste of money

, marriage equality referendums,

Its the only way to solve this issue

early elections, and pork projects…” um… anything else?*

An election in June when its due in September is hardly that early

Apart from those few things, they have a fairly firm hand on the tiller (not sure who the ’tiler’ was).

Its a steering device for a boat

View discussion

In response to irenka_irina


But at what cost to suffering individuals.

Who precisely are you refereeing to here?

..the environment..

No party in this country is anti the environment

…and their economic record?….really????

Given the mess that they inhered from Labor they are doing OK

View discussion

In response to mrhodes

despite my unabashed favoring of the current team I do recognize that its all really a game and that no matter what the fanbois here for the other side may say to the contrary the current team have done more that is right than they have done wrong, their fumbles have not been on big things like Rudd’s monumental error in his dismantlement of the pacific solution in 08 or Gillard’s disastrous Carbon tax in 2011. The basic plot of the current soapie just works better for most of the viewers

View discussion

In response to EponymousDuck


Iain, thanks. I know you just come here to troll, but you have provided so many people with an opportunity to lost up all the reasons why the LNP doesn’t deserve reelection. So, credit where credit is due, I say.

Yes so many here are lost…
As you must appreciate its the journey as much as the destination and for every one on your team who mouths off against the current incumbents I get a chance to give a good comeback ;o)

View discussion

In response to margeofwarringah


So which Lieberal do you work for mate ?

We have no party called that in this country

View discussion

In response to irenka_irina


Ian, explain how the LNP have not been a disaster in this term….government has been moribound.

They stopped the boats
they abolished the carbon tax
they abolished the mining tax
reduced the numbers in immigration detention
they have been a steady hand on the economic tiler

View discussion

In response to Philkin99


Ian if your claim is that the LNP are awful because they can not convince the senate to agree with them it only proves the point. They are trying to bring home policies they can’t sell because they are awful! This DD is proof of just that. There is no honour in being a lousy salesman and if you seriously don’t think the last 3 years has been a full on soap opera for the LNP then you aren’t watching!

Totally disagree with all you say here

View discussion

In response to ozlander


There is an easy comparison between Libs and Labor for this election.

Libs took office and in less than 3 years have had 2 leaders. Shorten commenced as leader of Labor just after the last election and is still the leader.

That means nothing once you consider how Rudd changed the rules in the ALP

Abbott is still in the wings, hopeful. Turnbull is hanging on by a thread to hold his leadership. And Morrison is waiting in the background ready to make his move.

Wrong, Abbott accepts that his time has come and gone, Morriosn may well be a future PM but he is more than happy where he is now

Even if Libs get into office again, who will lead the party for the 3 year term???

Turnbull, obviously

View discussion

In response to laclem


Although if you think that at every election, why would anyone be interested in what you think.

In my life time i have more often voted Labor than LNP

View discussion

In response to cherishthethought


Damned by faint praise Iain. Is that really the best your sorry mob can do? ” vote for us because the others are too risky” sounds pathetic because it is pathetic. The LNP have shown they are divided, out of touch, bereft of policy ideas and increasingly talking like parrots JOBS N GROWTH JOBS N GROWTH JOBS N GROWTH PIECES OF EIGHT

The Labor party are a party who are tron between the far left and its unrepentant cultural Marxism (hence their embrace of the gay marriage issue) and the troglodytes in the union movement its not a good place for any party to be and it shows in their rather pathetic invocation of “class warfare”

View discussion

In response to Helicalgroove


The election campaign will inevitably remind the voters just how bad the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd experience was and the part the Bill Shorten played in that soap opera and that will turn around the doubters

Which doesn’t come close to explaining your claim that ” most of us are so over Labor ineptitude.”

I wasn’t trying to explain that claim I was countering your point about recent polling is a good predictor of the result

Present tense v future tense. What you claimed as fact you have now admitted was a prediction.

You are not even close to being right

View discussion

In response to uptherecrazies

and you appear to be a rusted on delusional conservative!
I have voted Labor most of my life as it happens

View discussion

In response to EponymousDuck


Iain, Direct action. How many billions wasted paying big polluters to undertake projects they were doing anyway? How many billions channeled to ineffective projects by LNP party donors?This is just ONE coalition policy where they have wasted taxpayer money on a massive scale. Doing nothing would have been better.

I’m pretty sure that I have pointed out that I’m no fan of the direct action policies frankly I say we should spend zero dollars on mitigating climate change because then we will have more resources to spend on adaptation if and when we need to adapt to a changed climate.

The current LNP government is the most shameless, deceitful and inept government in my lifetime. They need to spend ten years in the political wilderness rediscovering their own principles.

That is just your confirmation bias in overdrive They are a steady hand on the tiler, who are hardheaded enough to do what was necessary on border control and they are simply better economic managers than Labor can ever be because Labor just won’t stop over-promising and then under-delivering.

View discussion

In response to PeaBea


Gillard got a hell of a lot more legislation passed in a hung parliament than either Abbott or Turnbull have managed with a majority in both houses. So who is inept?

Yeah sure she managed to pass some bills by selling her sould to those with the balance of power and the current government had to repeal her big ticket items as the first order of business because they were so crappy

View discussion

In response to Paull01



People earning less than $80K, the majority, work just as hard as people earning over $80K. The LNP only ensures that the disparity in wage growth continues to grow ever wider.

Those earning less than 80k don’t actually pay that much tax, and they are still enjoying the very large benefit of the rise of the tax free threshold to 18k as well as a host of other benefits. No one’s wages are going up at present unless you can prove that you are worth it.

View discussion

In response to Col Stokes

Even on the “choose the lesser of two evils” principle the current incumbents are a better choice.
Labor are simply too much in the thrawl of the union movement and too keen to court those who attracted to the loopy far left.

View discussion

In response to orejano


It appears to me that you are happy with the extreme right opera in the coalition.

The coalition are not in any sense taht matters “extreme right” they are at best center right

Perhaps you are happy to support Andrews, Abetz etc which are really dangerous for Australia.

They are not at the helm of the party or the government

Give me any time the ALP (which it is not my first preference ) before the coalition.

Ok you are clearly a rusted on Green aren’t you? then your vote will not decide the election because that will be those who swing who make the difference over those attached with iron oxide.

View discussion

In response to Helicalgroove


You were clearly a big fan of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd soap opera but most of us are so over Labor ineptitude.

Given the polls of late, your statement is just wrong. Labor is slightly ahead and at least line ball.

The election campaign will inevitably remind the voters just how bad the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd experience was and the part the Bill Shorten played in that soap opera and that will turn around the doubters

View discussion

In response to Hotspringer


A big risk is better than proven disaster, don’t you think?

I do agree but the proven disaster was the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd experience.

View discussion

In response to SlenderTheCat


Rudd or Gillard are not running for government, nor are they involved in Australian politics at the federal level so your point is moot.

No almost all of the current Labor luminaries are from the alumni of the last disastrous Rudd/Gillard/Rudd experience. Its not the stars of teh soapie who are significanbt here its the showrunners and they are the same people who bought us serries one, two and two point two.

The shambolic IPA led Liberal party has presented enough evidence of ineptitude to last a life time.

On the contrary although the LNP have not been perfect their missteps have been very minor and nothing like the whoppers Labor gave us like the carbon tax and endless boats.

View discussion

In response to NickThiwerspoon


Bit the Libbies are so staggeringly inept. And they lie. And lie. And lie.


The Libbies are only interested in the wealthy and large companies.

No they are simply more interested people having the opportunities to thrive than the state trying to mandate an outcome

They don’t care about ordinary people.

They do actually but they also want to stay out of their lives as much as possible

The want to eviscerate Medicare,

Making it sustainable in the longer term is not eviscerating Medicare

they want to increase subsidies to private schools,

There was none of that in the budget.

they want to cut the minimum wage,

There was none of that in the budget.

they want to up GST.

There was none of that in the budget.

Under their rule, the deficit and the debt have exploded.

Thanks to an intransigent senate

They most definitely do not deserve to win.

According to you, but I expect that the voters will think otherwise.

View discussion

In response to SlenderTheCat

You were clearly a big fan of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd soap opera but most of us are so over Labor ineptitude.

View discussion

The LNP deserve to win this election because the ALP under shorten are simply too big a risk for the country

View discussion

In response to AnthonyFlack


It’s very difficult to see what point you are trying to make. Climate change due to CO2 emissions is an extremely serious problem. Nobody who isn’t an idiot or a liar would argue otherwise at this point.

Its not that hard to appreciate that as the AGW proposition claims to be a global level problem that NOTHING done here, up to and including shutting down our entire economy will make the slightest bit of difference, except to utterly impoverish our entire nation

Are you saying we should do nothing?

Pretty well if all of the “somethings” will make no difference

Just sit there and dismiss everybody who ever used fossil fuels for anything as a hypocrite?

If they are protesting against “climate change” then expecting them to walk the walk is not unreasonable.

What’s the point of that?

True believers should live what they preach or admit their hypocrisy

What does it achieve?

Moral consistency

Nobody doubts that the transition would be difficult.

No its politically and technically impossible

This is essentially the same pathetic distracting tactic as the argument that dismissed Occupy protesters because they bought coffee and owned tents.

Its was valid then and its valid now.

View discussion

In response to glacier


It is strange how little inventive people are. Burning rocks seems to be the only way they can think of as a way to make electricity. It feels like some prefer electricity made from the burning of rocks, as if that electricity somehow taste(sic) better.

On the contrary I fully understand that electricity has no taste

We have a perfectly fine fusion reactor in the sky. We can harvest it in so many ways, as that fusion reactor power the water-cycle, the winds and the currents of this entire planet, in addition to blessing us with a filtered source of short-wave radiation. It provides the energy for basically all kinds of life on the planet. It is a great wonderful thing.

You see if you were a maker of anything then your thinking would tell you that harvesting the energy of the sun is not the real problem with renewables, the problem is storing energy when it is available so that we can use it when its not. At present we do not have a cost effective way of doing that and until we do have viable storage we will continue to need to burn coal.

It will provide perfect amounts of energy for another billion years. After that it may become a bit too effective. In a billion years calculations suggest that the temperatures here may reach the boiling temperature of water. And then we or…something do not want to hang out here any longer.

So what you and I will be long dead by then

The upside is of course that the time is close to twice that of events having happened since the first animals crawled on shore.

So what?

So I think we can have faith in our very own thermo-nuclear reactor in the sky. As for burning rocks….so 19th century.

Of course you have faith what else would one expect from the true believer in the Green religion ?
Oh and how many frequent flyer points have you accumulated on your overseas holidays recently?

View discussion

In response to Adam Claringbull

Adam Claringbull

Oils is fine, oil is great. Just don’t burn it. Are you really this thick? It’s not the plastics themselves that cause CO2 emissions, is it?

You don’t understand the way such plastics are made do you? Nor do you understand how much energy is required to mold those plastics either.

But then you are Iain-Hall, the deeply intransigent disbeliever of all and any form of science that doesn’t fit your small-minded belief system. And cherry picker extraordinaire, whilst I’m at it.

You are right that I am me however I would back my understanding of science against your religious convictions about climate change any day of the week.

View discussion

In response to BeautifulDays


The kayaks are being used for the highest good – to make more humans aware and the SAVE planet from further coal emissions.

That is sanctimonious claptrap for a misanthropic religious agenda

Your argument against the protestors is pathetic as is your pro-fossil fuel attitude.

There is nothing pathetic in pointing out the hypocrisy of you millennials when it comes to protests, In my day the boats would have been made by hand and out of wood.

View discussion

In response to HumbugHill

Just how do you think that we can make a quid out of this? We can’t make solar panels at a competitive price, we can’t turn nay collected energy into a storable commodity that we can export. Heck we can’t even supply our own needs 24/7 from renewables, in other words what you advocate can’t work.

View discussion

In response to JasonDaniels

No, deluded fools is a better descripotion

View discussion

In response to totaram

don’t you realize that the Kayaks are mainly made out of plastics derived from oil? as are the live preservers the activists are wearing? Their hypocrisy is astounding.

View discussion

In response to 12660870

If the very worst predictions about the Reef come to pass what will happen is that the reef will effectively migrate south where the seawater will be cooler in the hotter north there will be different species of coral that are better suited to the different to the warmer water.

View discussion

In response to Davidjwalsh

The thing that this article ignores is that even if they were to get everything that the Tourism operators are asking for it would simply make zero difference to the climate because this is claimed to be a global level issue not something that can be addressed by any national level government.

View discussion

In response to daveinbalmain

The essence of my comment was to point out that this current government have finally achieved an effective zero number of children in immigration detention. The fact of the matter is that no government enjoys detaining people, but the cohort in question are clearly playing the odds and they have been more than happy to use their children as bargaining chips in their quest for an immigration outcome. None the less we have gone from more than a thousand children in detention when Labor were in power to now when there are effectively none . Of course you don’t like this turn of events because it makes it a great deal harder for you to denounce the government for “imprisoning children”.

I am a realist and if a child commits a crime heinous enough then I have no trouble seeing them imprisoned, Likewise if someone is nominally a child (IE an adolescent) and they try to circumvent our immigration controls by claiming to be an asylum seeker then I have no trouble with treating them as an adult either.

View discussion

In response to daveinbalmain

David, as the article points out and as I noted in my last comment having just two juveniles in immigration detention is not actually any kind of big deal, especially when you realize that we will also have some “children” detained because they have been charged with criminal offenses, The child refereed to in the article is NOT described as an asylum seeker. As you must appreciate there are individuals who are detained by the immigration department because they have either committed a crime here or otherwise invalidated their visa, frankly its more likely that not that these two children HAVE committed a crime which is why they have been detained.
You say with great certainty We shouldn’t gaol children. End of however your sanctimonious statement ignores the fact that children do sometimes commit some rather horrible crimes do you expect that such children should just be sent to the naughty corner?

View discussion

In response to daveinbalmain


Oh dear. If you’re just going to do the lying thing it’s a bit pointless, isn’t it? There are children in detention, as you know perfectly well. It speaks volumes about the merits of your argument that you show no hesitation in stooping to this. Truly pathetic.
I stand corrected its seems that according to this article on April 6 that there were just two and it would seem that neither are “asylum seekers”
Frankly that is such a tiny number that my error is insignificant because my substantive point remains that you can’t claim some sort of moral high ground because the thanks to the LNP government we no longer have thousands of children in detention as we did under the ALP

View discussion

In response to daveinbalmain

There are no children in detention

View discussion

In response to Paddy_Irish_Grl


So I should go back where I came from then?

What about my kids? They’re dual citizens but they’re white so so presume you’ll allow them to stay?

I presume that you came here legally so your hyperbole is a silly thing indeed

View discussion

In response to daveinbalmain


Except of course well north of 90% ARE found to be refugees. But hey, let’s not let the facts get in the way! Mate you’re entitled to hold whatever warped view you like, but it has to be based on something OBJECTIVE, not simply what you reckon – contrary to all the evidence.

Of the latest cohort on Manus less than half have been found to be “refugees” David so you are wrong and the high numbers in the past was an artifact of a far from rigorous process that gave then too much of the benefit of the doubt.

View discussion

In response to Alkay1

You forget that the more people try to do as you have the more demand there will be for lithium and that will mean an inevitable price rise in the cost of batteries…

View discussion

Getting overly excited about things that probably won’t happen


Proposed the idea of collecting HECS debts from the dead as a way to boost the budget bottom line: Education Minister Christopher Pyne. Photo: Andrew Meares Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/christopher-pyne-suggests-collecting-hecs-debts-from-dead-students-as-way-to-help-budget-20140528-394rx.html#ixzz3337GAkED

Proposed the idea of collecting HECS debts from the dead as a way to boost the budget bottom line: Education Minister Christopher Pyne. Photo: Andrew Meares 

Federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne has floated the idea of collecting student debts from the dead as a way of boosting the budget bottom line.

Mr Pyne told Fairfax Media on Wednesday he had no “ideological opposition” to collecting debts from the estates of former students who died owing money to the government.

[If] an elderly person passes away with a HECS debt, they wouldn’t be able to say to the bank, we’re not paying back our mortgage, yet they are at the moment entitled to not pay back their HECS debt,” Mr Pyne said.Mr Pyne said safeguards would be needed to ensure the families of young deceased students would not be affected.

“For example you might want to have an age limit,” Mr Pyne told The Australian Financial Review. ”This would ensure that families of people who died young owing a HECS debt would not be penalised.”

Labor, the Greens and the Palmer United Party are opposed to the government’s plans to deregulate university fees and increase the interest rate on HECS debts. If these measures are blocked in the Senate it would hit the government’s bid to return to surplus – making the politically-sensitive idea of collecting money from the dead more attractive.

The Grattan Institute estimates the policy, which was not part of the budget, could save up to $800 million a year.

Labor higher education spokesman Kim Carr branded the idea a death tax.



Hang on a minute this is merely  a suggestion its not any kind of settled policy  Heck it hasn’t even been discussed by the coalition parties yet the usual suspects are going on as if its done and dusted policy.

Personally I think that it would be an extremely unpopular thing to do that would cost a motza to administrate and would in all likelihood raise far less revenue than many are suggesting here.
In other words all of those panic merchants who are frothing at the mouth here should just take a chill pill  and save their rancor  until this idea is more than just a thought bubble. After all we are not talking about the party that gave us the laughable mining tax we are talking about the coalition who take a much more considered view to any changes to the tax regime.

Cheers Comrades

whats that smell 1

Its burning Leftards!

Electricity Bill’s polling blues

Who would have thunk it?

click for source

click for source


The Abbott government has regained the lead in the latest Fairfax-Nielsen opinion poll for the first time in two months, helped by a sharp drop in support for Bill Shorten’s performance and a Labor primary vote lurching back into the low 30s.
The result has all but restored the balance that saw the Coalition easily elected last September.

There has been something rather sad and desperate about the way that the luvvies were taking great comfort in the short lived downturn in the polling for the coalition but this poll reversal must come as a very bitter blow to those who have been clinging to the vain hope that the Labor party can come back into contention without the reformation that it so dearly needs if it is ever to be credible enough to return to office.

I also think that their parliamentary tactics are backfiring badly. Simply put they are being obstructionist to the government legislative agenda in a rather shallow attempt to demonstrate that they still have parliamentary  teeth. A sensible party would have waved through the repeal of the Carbon and Mining taxes but in an expression of political machismo Electricity Bill Shorten has just succeeded in shooting himself and keeping the very reasons that his party was thrown out front and centre in the minds of the voters.

The utter brilliance of the coalition’s proposed Royal commission into the Unions  can not be underestimated every new revelation of thuggery or other nastiness will stain the reputation of the party that is the creature of the union movement and that means that things can only get worse for the ALP under the current leadership and the truly sad thing is that none of the alternatives are likely to do much better. Shorten had a chance to draw a line under the follies of the last government and move on to rebuilding the party’s fortunes but he chose (or was instructed by his union masters) to carry on in the usual Labor style. Frankly If he is still leader by Christmas I will be very surprised indeed.

Cheers Comrades

The bitter brew

The bitter brew

Chasing the GST dollar

There is a a hoary old chest nut that is dragged out on a regular basis from our domestic retailers . Its the exemption  for online purchases of less than $1000 dollars from the GST. The retailers dream that lowering that threshold will make an improvement in their ability to compete.

click for source

click for source

I can’t see Abbott going anywhere near this to be honest, firstly the GST is workable only because retailers are forced to act as tax collectors for the government but the Australian government does not have the jurisdiction to force overseas suppliers to do the same for them. It just can’t happen. So how would such a tax be collected? from the shippers or via Customs? The reason for the $1000 threshold is to make the administrative burden of collecting the tax commensurate with the revenue gathered. Lowering the threshold would not lower the burden per transaction so it could very easily mean that the cost to collect the tax could exceed the revenue collected which is the Labor way of doing things (see the mining tax as an example) its unworkable and the government knows this.

The simple fact is that retailing is moving more and more online simply because we the consumers like to shop that way and personally I would be more than happy to buy from Australian based online traders and I do so when ever I can because domestic online stores have one very big advantage over those based overseas and that is reduced shipping times. In my experience any item purchased  from China  will take about a month to arrive items shipped from within Australia can be on your doorstep within days if not the next day. In this age of instant gratification that short of difference in shipping times is a deal maker/breaker for most people.

So I predict that this whine about GST on online sales will amount to nothing just as similar whining in the past has done. If domestic retailers want to retain their market share then they are going to have to try to play to their strengths more, namely work on their service, their ability to instantly supply the goods to a customer and being available to attend to any warranty claim that may arise finally they have to realise that the price for their products is a big determining factor in buying decisions and they can no longer just hope that we consumers don’t notice that the product they sell can be bought cheaper elsewhere.

Cheers Comrades


Why Ray is wrong


This post is in response to Ray’s post today. Now Ray is a nice bloke, but I think he’s wrong for the reasons that follow.

Firstly, Ray contradicts himself. On the one hand he writes that:

And that – the economy, stupid – is why I say: Labor deserves another term.

Yet, later in his post he declares that:

If Labor loses (and I can’t see how they won’t) then in my opinion they deserve to lose … due to their failure to come across as a stable and united party.

Well which is it? Does Labor deserve to win or not? To be fair, I think what Ray was trying to say that based on Labor’s policy achievements it deserved to win but based on its infighting it does not. I disagree with this position as well because the record shows that Labor’s performance has been absolutely dismal. Consider the following massive policy disasters:

– Labor has wasted billions of dollars on pink batts, overpriced school halls, massive subsidies to the highly unionised car industry, overpriced set top boxes, carbon tax compensation, a larger public service, the climate change department, green schemes, foreign aid directed at getting us on the security council, and so on.

– Labor put the people smugglers back in business, causing 50,000 boat arrivals, over 1,000 drownings, billions wasted on having detention facilities packed with new arrivals and more billions on welfare bills in the future.

– Labor has achieved six consecutive budget deficits. The reason why is because Labor has greatly increased government spending. Now that the mining boom is fading, we are finding we are deeply in structural deficit. The only reason we don’t have a massive debt problem yet is because the government inherited a very strong position when it took office in 2007.

– Labor gave us a carbon tax even though it promised that it wouldn’t at the last election. This tax has increased inefficiency in the Australian economy, leading to slower growth and higher unemployment.

– Labor has introduced massive new regulation in many sectors, including the labour market, childcare, and the bank sector. Naturally, businesses pass these regulatory costs onto the hapless consumer. Moreover, such excessive regulation creates economic inefficiencies that end up costing jobs.

– Labor bungled the mining tax. The tax has damaged Australia’s reputation internationally as a place to do business, has reduced business confidence here and in the end raised virtually no revenue.

I could go on but you get the picture. This government has been a disaster for the nation. They have done so much to harm Australia it is little wonder that people have no faith in them and are going to chuck them out tomorrow.

Naturally, Ray’s post ignores the above disasters. Anyone saying that Labor deserves re-election would have to. The more you list the facts, the more it becomes obvious that Labor deserves to lose.

In support of his argument, Ray claims Labor has managed the economy well. How laughable. The reality is of course the opposite. Macroeconomically, Labor has failed because all six of its budgets have been big deficits, and now spending in the budget is completely out of control. When it comes to microeconomics, this government’s carbon tax, excessive regulation of the economy and favours for its union mates means that it has made the economy more inefficient than when it took office. Labor’s economic record is a complete fail. The reasons why we are doing better than more of the rest of the world have nothing to do with this government.

Make no mistake: Labor deserves to lose. The Coalition may not be perfect, but they have done enough to show that they deserve a chance to make things better.

%d bloggers like this: