Chat Forum
It is currently Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:20 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23900 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596 ... 598  Next

Whos Going to Lead the Labor Rabble
Albo 44%  44%  [ 4 ]
Plibbers 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Bowen 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Chalmers 33%  33%  [ 3 ]
Uncle Tony 11%  11%  [ 1 ]
Clive Palmer 11%  11%  [ 1 ]
George Smith 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 9
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 3:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1573
Farva wrote:
merlin the happy pig wrote:
Farva wrote:
Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
Admirable for Farva to stick up for his line of work. Much like the Turnbull's supported Alex's renewables business. I find it very hard to believe that there is a place that has 100% sustainable renewables efficiency over tradition power sources to supply energy to their people. Moving to renewables cost money particularly with having to own a property to put a solar panel on and having to rely on base. Australia has the resources internally to support nuclear energy. The French went nuclear in the 70s and are still doing well off that. They export the power that they don't use and make coin out of it.

Im not advocating for rooftop.
Nuclear is not economically viable. This is a fact.
Renewables at 100% are fine when supported by storage such as pumped storage. This creates that baseload.


Nuclear IS expensive.
Sadly it seems the main reason it is expensive is an unbelievable amount of over-regulation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ts_Forgone

Sadly I don't think there is any likelihood of politics changing to the degree where people will hold nuclear to the same safety standards as other more dangerous forms of generation (i.e all the others).

Pumped hydro is great, way better than batteries, but it requires the right geology, and availability of water.


Nuclear's cost is down to decommissioning and commissioning, and you are right, the costs there are due to regulation. It has tough regulation for a reason, without that regulation, the safety standards that it now achieves wouldn't be there. And the cost of a failure of a nuclear plant is exponentially larger than the cost of failure of say a wind farm. A wind turbine might catch fire, and then that needs to be replaced. A meltdown in a nuclear facility can render a large area uninhabitable for millennia.

ANU did a study and found around 25,000 suitable sites in Australia from a geological perspective. Also dont get caught up with the water issue, a pumped hydro system is a closed system, it doesnt require a river, it requires a basin (and this is one that can be filled) to create the storage at the top of a hill and one at the bottom. It is incredibly well suited to Australia as the geology is not seismic and there is ample land available.


Agreed about the closed system, there are some good elevated basins in NZ's south Island as well.

Batshit crazy idea follows:
Dam the Gibraltar straights.
lower the water level in the Mediterranean by a couple of meters using solar power from the Sahara desert.

The Sahara Desert is your renewable power source.
The Atlantic Ocean is your base load battery.

A couple of minor issues with shipping, and environmentalists, but what the hey?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 3:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5423
Location: Vandean Coast
if you're going to that extent, you may as well leave Gibraltar open and infill some of the dried up inland seas in the Sahara via canals, and generate power and lower sea level at the same time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 3:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 12:24 am
Posts: 751
Location: Sydney (for now)
guy smiley wrote:
kiap wrote:
Green is right, calling landlines in specific electorates was very handy.

However ...

_fatprop wrote:
So I would be highly sceptical in the future of any polling being anymore than a guess


This is a sweeping statement.

There are other ways to skin the cat


this is illuminating...

Quote:
The above graph shows that the 20% of the polling booths with the fewest people with a graduate degree saw a swing of nearly 7% to the Coalition. On the other end of the spectrum, the most educated fifth of polling booths- actually swung 0.5% towards Labor (two party preferred).

How I did it: first I got this morning’s results for each polling booth in the country from the electoral commission and looked at the population in the Microburb directly surrounding it, making the assumption that if you live within a few blocks of a polling booth, that will be the one you vote at.

Then I gave it over to the machine to find the drivers of the swing. Out of the many tens of thousands of potential predictors I’ve collected over the years, university education came up #1. It has a correlation of -0.4 with a negligible P value (6061 polling booths could be matched and had enough data).

A pattern of bias among experts

The core problem is that when humans ask specific questions in surveys or of databases, they are starting with bias. Whereas the “big data” approach to throw in as much data as possible and let the machine find the patterns.

In this case, survey targets no longer reliably answer land line calls and even when called on their mobiles, most don’t agree to be surveyed. So it was left to the experts to try and make the surveys representative. Chances are they weren’t entirely empirical about this and relied on their intuition.

My work analysing the data of big Australian consumer brands has routinely uncovered this systematic bias: market researchers and analysts make sense of numbers using a mix of stats and intuition. That intuition is always informed by their own life and experiences. They are mostly cosmopolitan, don’t encounter uneducated people so their voice is not properly extracted or smoothed over as noise.

There are many factors at play of course and I’m certainly not saying that all the Left has to do is send people to university. In the corporate world, I encounter lots of assumptions about them like that they are simply poorer versions of us and all they want to do is be like us. But these forgotten people have their own values, and don’t understand the world in the same way.

Nor am I saying intuition is worth nothing. It’s very valuable in coming up with hypotheses. But eventually these assumptions are tested in the marketplace and the polling booth.

The two Australias

In predicting behaviour these days, my models end up dividing Australia into two classes: a university educated, affluent, multicultural, cosmopolitan one on one side and on the other have to be very delicately described – the people who go against the brand’s values. But every mainstream brand should strive to understand the latter, not least ones that are supposed to champion the working class.


That is exactly why newspapers or 'blogs' should be banned from interpreting statistics.

There appears to be no controls for the very obvious factors that would influence 'education' level (in inverted commas because it's usually defined as obtaining a tertiary degree) such as age. The proportion of people over the age 50 have far less tertiary education as only about 5% of people went to university, each subsequent cohort would most likely have a higher proportion with a tertiary qualification. It is totally unclear what this guy has controlled for. Other reasons it appears to be nonsense, he utilizes a correlation between variables which doesn't tell you anything about how the variable points are related (and indeed assumes a linearity). There can be an extremely strong correlation which implies nothing more than chance covariance. Further, he does not specify if has any statistical significance, there is mention of a p-value but what's the t-stat, AIC, BIC etc. There is also no mention of the multitude of sins committed by crude analysts: heteroscedasticity, excessive collinearity, controls for non-linearities, out of sample testing etc.

Bad statistics is at the core of lots of misunderstanding, scientists (and I'm talking about top journal publications) are often riddled with errors meaning their conclusions are complete nonsense. Journals with (relatively) low numeracy authors and peer reviewers such as sociological, psychological and anthropological contain the most egregious errors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 4:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15935
Location: STRAYA PLUM
merlin the happy pig wrote:
Farva wrote:
merlin the happy pig wrote:
Farva wrote:
Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
Admirable for Farva to stick up for his line of work. Much like the Turnbull's supported Alex's renewables business. I find it very hard to believe that there is a place that has 100% sustainable renewables efficiency over tradition power sources to supply energy to their people. Moving to renewables cost money particularly with having to own a property to put a solar panel on and having to rely on base. Australia has the resources internally to support nuclear energy. The French went nuclear in the 70s and are still doing well off that. They export the power that they don't use and make coin out of it.

Im not advocating for rooftop.
Nuclear is not economically viable. This is a fact.
Renewables at 100% are fine when supported by storage such as pumped storage. This creates that baseload.


Nuclear IS expensive.
Sadly it seems the main reason it is expensive is an unbelievable amount of over-regulation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ts_Forgone

Sadly I don't think there is any likelihood of politics changing to the degree where people will hold nuclear to the same safety standards as other more dangerous forms of generation (i.e all the others).

Pumped hydro is great, way better than batteries, but it requires the right geology, and availability of water.


Nuclear's cost is down to decommissioning and commissioning, and you are right, the costs there are due to regulation. It has tough regulation for a reason, without that regulation, the safety standards that it now achieves wouldn't be there. And the cost of a failure of a nuclear plant is exponentially larger than the cost of failure of say a wind farm. A wind turbine might catch fire, and then that needs to be replaced. A meltdown in a nuclear facility can render a large area uninhabitable for millennia.

ANU did a study and found around 25,000 suitable sites in Australia from a geological perspective. Also dont get caught up with the water issue, a pumped hydro system is a closed system, it doesnt require a river, it requires a basin (and this is one that can be filled) to create the storage at the top of a hill and one at the bottom. It is incredibly well suited to Australia as the geology is not seismic and there is ample land available.


Agreed about the closed system, there are some good elevated basins in NZ's south Island as well.

Batshit crazy idea follows:
Dam the Gibraltar straights.
lower the water level in the Mediterranean by a couple of meters using solar power from the Sahara desert.

The Sahara Desert is your renewable power source.
The Atlantic Ocean is your base load battery.

A couple of minor issues with shipping, and environmentalists, but what the hey?


Obviously that is unfeasible at the moment, but I really like the thinking! Its the sort of thing that we need to get us over the line from an energy point of view.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 8:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 138
Location: Straya, cnuts!
wamberal99 wrote:
The Bob Brown "Caravan of Righteousness" could have been a good thing, if all those activists had travelled north to engage with the locals and have a reasoned and respectful debate about the issues.


Not while my ar$e points down. I grew up in Queensland country, yet after most of my lifetime living in Brisbane but working all over the state I have become a "big city shiny arse" whose opinion is suspect since I blow in, stir things up, and sod off. I've been in the same position as the convoy.

Country people don't especially like to be lectured at, hectored even, by people who have done nothing whatever directly to earn their respect, and they're smart enough to recognise the hypocrisy of a caravan of CO2 belching vehicles travelling all that way to "enlighten" them about their culpability. They know the issues all right. It's just that they're honest about their response to them. The convoy will have done nothing positive whatever (except make the participants feel good about themseves)

Actually, I heard similar sentiments in Brisbane, but about "Brown and those Mexican wankers". Maybe country Queenslanders aren't the only ones unwilling to be lectured at by their self appointed intellectual betters

insane


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 3796
It's fine if they don't want to listen - but why should we subsidise their unsustainable mining and farming practices if we are going to use that line if argument?

I don't doubt all of these stoic Qlders have no problems accepting farming grants and Cyclone assistance when they need it?

If you live in the, Expanding, Cyclone zone, tough - you won't be lectured..... :uhoh:

That is the language of Scomo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 9:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1336
ScoMo didn't just give the ALP a hiding:

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/sports-bett ... 28031.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 2156
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
It's fine if they don't want to listen - but why should we subsidise their unsustainable mining and farming practices if we are going to use that line if argument?

I don't doubt all of these stoic Qlders have no problems accepting farming grants and Cyclone assistance when they need it?

If you live in the, Expanding, Cyclone zone, tough - you won't be lectured..... :uhoh:

That is the language of Scomo


Nah, regardless of what is right, if a bunch of people from 1000s of km away, with no idea of the local issues, are going to turn up and tell people how to live their lives, its not going to go well. No matter what the issue actually is.

Its like all the vegan protesters charging into restaurants or blocking up the CBD. Are they really helping their cause, or hindering it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21263
guy smiley wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Sure you can say the woke bit wasn't an australian issue but is the rest of my point not understanding the situation here?


I just don't like you.


That much is obvious.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21263
Sensible Stephen wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
It's fine if they don't want to listen - but why should we subsidise their unsustainable mining and farming practices if we are going to use that line if argument?

I don't doubt all of these stoic Qlders have no problems accepting farming grants and Cyclone assistance when they need it?

If you live in the, Expanding, Cyclone zone, tough - you won't be lectured..... :uhoh:

That is the language of Scomo


Nah, regardless of what is right, if a bunch of people from 1000s of km away, with no idea of the local issues, are going to turn up and tell people how to live their lives, its not going to go well. No matter what the issue actually is.

Its like all the vegan protesters charging into restaurants or blocking up the CBD. Are they really helping their cause, or hindering it.



:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 10:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:54 am
Posts: 174
Location: wheelabarrowback
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
It's fine if they don't want to listen - but why should we subsidise their unsustainable mining and farming practices if we are going to use that line if argument?


You could use the same argument on People on welfare that take drugs and refuse to accept testing.
Long term unemployed that refuse work for the dole.
The proposed welfare card that limits discretionary spend to foodstuffs

You’re opening Pandora’s box when you make these sorts of arguments


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 225
guy smiley wrote:
whezmabeer wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Well, you've always been an advertisement for rational, reasoned posts in here :thumbup:

Yeah, but you post that to everyone who doesn't agree with you. :nod:
Besides that, I'm surprised you can remember what i post, as it is usually only around test time or RWC.


Your version of rational and reasonable is easy to remember.

So quote these so called versions gs or have you confused me with someone else that you disagree with?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 20752
You might pardon the intrusion gents for a quick question.

Is three years not very short for a fixed term parliament?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15613
Three years isn’t too short. In the scenario that you have a shíte Government you can turf them out in an election before they can cause more damage.

In regards to Thomas’ referring to inner city latte sets deciding what is best for rural Queenslanders and having a pop at that on Twitter, agreed 100%. I was shot down on here for posting that argument particularly from those on here stating that changing the weather was the key issue not local employment which mining jobs provide. The poll that mattered backed that up particularly in Queensland and northern NSW.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 20752
Just seems to me that would it would lead to Governments be very focused on the short term.

But each to his own.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15613
Farva wrote:
wamberal99 wrote:
Farva,

What is the Greens policy on transitioning workers in coal mining regions, and their assets (the family home, for example) to the places where there will be new, green, jobs?


What about people who do not want to go? What about the communities that exist now?


These are complex and difficult problems. Not amenable to simple, easy to remember, solutions.


Wambers, the Greens will not be forming government and so have not developed in depth policy to address these. Frankly, given many of their members, I think a Greens led government would be scary.
However, the point was made that they were fringe and lunatic with their policy and I dont actually think they are. Their policy aims are reasonable IMO. They arent far left, they are centre left.


Of course they won’t be forming Government but they give their preferences to the ALP and have Senate seats where the Government doesn’t have the balance of power.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15613
Mullet 2 wrote:
Just seems to me that would it would lead to Governments be very focused on the short term.

But each to his own.


Strong Governments will focus on both. Short term is vital as it is in the moment and long term they will set themselves up for re-election with strong budgets/policies.

Shorter terms discourage Governments from becoming too comfortable.


Last edited by Brumby_in_Vic on Mon May 20, 2019 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31511
Location: in transit
Mullet 2 wrote:
Just seems to me that would it would lead to Governments be very focused on the short term.

But each to his own.


There has been some talk of changing to a 4 year term for exactly that reason.

Australia is essentially a conservative country and change is difficult to sell. Any move to change the electoral term would be a big ask.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 3796
Lucius wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
It's fine if they don't want to listen - but why should we subsidise their unsustainable mining and farming practices if we are going to use that line if argument?


You could use the same argument on People on welfare that take drugs and refuse to accept testing.
Long term unemployed that refuse work for the dole.
The proposed welfare card that limits discretionary spend to foodstuffs

You’re opening Pandora’s box when you make these sorts of arguments


Of course, I am not serious but the media here is complicit in opening that box


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7170
So about this Senate of yours...

I heard on the radio that the Labor-Greens may or may not have a majority in there. If such a scenario comes to pass does this matter much? Can they block anything that moves like the republicans or are they more likely to be more constructive for fear of upsetting the electorate?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 3796
Auckman wrote:
So about this Senate of yours...

I heard on the radio that the Labor-Greens may or may not have a majority in there. If such a scenario comes to pass does this matter much? Can they block anything that moves like the republicans or are they more likely to be more constructive for fear of upsetting the electorate?


It will be interesting to see what happens.

Considering word was that the Libs had gutted everything.becaise they were convinced of losing, it will take a while for them to figure out what bills they will out up


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18080
Auckman wrote:
So about this Senate of yours...

I heard on the radio that the may or may not have a majority in there. If such a scenario comes to pass does this matter much? Can they block anything that moves like the republicans or are they more likely to be more constructive for fear of upsetting the electorate?


They can block anything they want in theory, including supply, IF they have a majority. That ultimate level of non-constructive is unlikely, though. It's playing with electoral fire. They'll still be opposing other stuff, though.

However - like the coalition -they're not predicted to have enough votes to be the boss. Labor + Greens will probably be around 3-4 seats short.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31511
Location: in transit
This is a wildcard, joint venture announcement that will see Chinese electric vehicles imported at first, then increasingly assembled through the old Holden factory in Adelaide...

https://thedriven.io/2019/05/16/austral ... -with-byd/

Interesting to see how that will fly for the new govt with their historic antipathy to both clean energy and the local car industry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 9:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10172
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
guy smiley wrote:
This is a wildcard, joint venture announcement that will see Chinese electric vehicles imported at first, then increasingly assembled through the old Holden factory in Adelaide...

https://thedriven.io/2019/05/16/austral ... -with-byd/

Interesting to see how that will fly for the new govt with their historic antipathy to both clean energy and the local car industry.


Megatrends trump politics and renewable energy is where it's slowly but surely going.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31511
Location: in transit
The Man Without Fear wrote:

Megatrends trump politics and renewable energy is where it's slowly but surely going.


Yeah, a lot of attention has been placed on the current government's love affair with coal but the market itself has been moving at a rate that will see Australia hit 50% renewables by 2025... link.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 11:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:02 am
Posts: 3532
Albo or Jim Chalmers?


If Albo gets it he will lose the next election, so they might just as well roll the dice and go for the bright shiny errr Queenslander.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 11:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 3796
Fair play to Chalmers fronting up to Q&A last night.

My only worry with him is he sounds exactly like Tonny Abbott when he speaks!

:shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 11:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31511
Location: in transit
wamberal99 wrote:
Albo or Jim Chalmers?


If Albo gets it he will lose the next election, so they might just as well roll the dice and go for the bright shiny errr Queenslander.



Rock and a hard place...

chase the centre or actually go back to the roots and address the workers' fears.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 12:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2829
guy smiley wrote:
wamberal99 wrote:
Albo or Jim Chalmers?


If Albo gets it he will lose the next election, so they might just as well roll the dice and go for the bright shiny errr Queenslander.



Rock and a hard place...

chase the centre or actually go back to the roots and address the workers' fears.



I think they have to chase the centre Guy. That is where the swing is. Most of the workers are centre. The rusted on will remain loyal, but it is the swing voter that is needed. It won't please the Greens, but they will always preference ALP. At least that way they get in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 12:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5769
guy smiley wrote:
The Man Without Fear wrote:

Megatrends trump politics and renewable energy is where it's slowly but surely going.


Yeah, a lot of attention has been placed on the current government's love affair with coal but the market itself has been moving at a rate that will see Australia hit 50% renewables by 2025... link.


I can't see another coal power station ever being built, so renewables with a load of gas turbines to fill the holes is most likely, BP & the frackers et al will be the winners


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23945
Location: Queensland
It's become clear that the ALP's policy agenda was far too big for the Australian people. Life is pretty good for most people in this country and the ALP misread the mood for change. Instead of proposing sweeping changes across a range of areas, they should have concentrated on just one or two priorities. Similar to what Rudd did in 20017. For example, if they had run just on climate change, and introducing the NEG, I think they would have won office. There was a mood for real action on climate change. But this sentiment was diluted by concerns about changes to negative gearing, franking credits, superannuation etc which played into concerns about the ALP's spending and allowed Morrison to run the mother of all scare campaigns. This meant that lots of people who want real action on climate change ended up voting against the the ALP.

I want Albanese to become leader, and with the right policy agenda he can win govt in three years. Morrison is a skilled politican and orator, but so too is Albo. This govt lacks talent, lacks a mandate to do anything significant and is still outdated and divided.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:41 am
Posts: 1142
Meanwhile, China and India continue to build coal-fired power stations. China alone has 1,000 GWs of coal power - Australia has 23 GWs, all of which is scheduled for closure within 25 years. China's will increase by 25% with completion of approved new plants. China does not give one fcuk about climate change - sure they have subsidised some solar powered companies, but this is just a pimple on their arse.

But hey, let's all get totally fcuked in the head about what Morrison's government will or won't do. Unless China or India act soon the world is over (according to some).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2829
Ali's Choice wrote:
It's become clear that the ALP's policy agenda was far too big for the Australian people. Life is pretty good for most people in this country and the ALP misread the mood for change. Instead of proposing sweeping changes across a range of areas, they should have concentrated on just one or two priorities. Similar to what Rudd did in 20017. For example, if they had run just on climate change, and introducing the NEG, I think they would have won office. There was a mood for real action on climate change. But this sentiment was diluted by concerns about changes to negative gearing, franking credits, superannuation etc which played into concerns about the ALP's spending and allowed Morrison to run the mother of all scare campaigns. This meant that lots of people who want real action on climate change ended up voting against the the ALP.

I want Albanese to become leader, and with the right policy agenda he can win govt in three years. Morrison is a skilled politican and orator, but so too is Albo. This govt lacks talent, lacks a mandate to do anything significant and is still outdated and divided.



Interesting to read your claim that this government lacks talent. Even more remarkable when the opposition lost the un-loseable election. Not just lost but got hammered. I will never forget this excerpt from a recent exchange on national television:

Shorten: By 2030 every Australian will have to have an electric car.
Audience: Sycophantic ALP crowd in the audience bursts into rapturous applause for the messiah.
Scomo: Bro, do you even know how much electric cars cost?
Shorten: Well, erm, not really too much more than erm, we really can't afford not to can we...?
Audience: Awkward silence.

Kinda like a GST on cakes moment that one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 12:24 am
Posts: 751
Location: Sydney (for now)
Ali's Choice wrote:
It's become clear that the ALP's policy agenda was far too big for the Australian people. Life is pretty good for most people in this country and the ALP misread the mood for change. Instead of proposing sweeping changes across a range of areas, they should have concentrated on just one or two priorities. Similar to what Rudd did in 20017. For example, if they had run just on climate change, and introducing the NEG, I think they would have won office. There was a mood for real action on climate change. But this sentiment was diluted by concerns about changes to negative gearing, franking credits, superannuation etc which played into concerns about the ALP's spending and allowed Morrison to run the mother of all scare campaigns. This meant that lots of people who want real action on climate change ended up voting against the the ALP.

I want Albanese to become leader, and with the right policy agenda he can win govt in three years. Morrison is a skilled politican and orator, but so too is Albo. This govt lacks talent, lacks a mandate to do anything significant and is still outdated and divided.


I find it odd that your choice of words reflects the idea that Australians were too small minded for such a 'bold and radical' vision. The words I would have used is that the policy proposal was far too disruptive, punitive and un-costed for people to trust.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2279
Mullet 2 wrote:
Just seems to me that would it would lead to Governments be very focused on the short term.

But each to his own.


It does. Essentially you never get out of election mode. But have a good look at any Australian government, then try to tell people it's a good idea to give then an extra year without an election—it doesn't go over too well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23945
Location: Queensland
Clogs wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
It's become clear that the ALP's policy agenda was far too big for the Australian people. Life is pretty good for most people in this country and the ALP misread the mood for change. Instead of proposing sweeping changes across a range of areas, they should have concentrated on just one or two priorities. Similar to what Rudd did in 20017. For example, if they had run just on climate change, and introducing the NEG, I think they would have won office. There was a mood for real action on climate change. But this sentiment was diluted by concerns about changes to negative gearing, franking credits, superannuation etc which played into concerns about the ALP's spending and allowed Morrison to run the mother of all scare campaigns. This meant that lots of people who want real action on climate change ended up voting against the the ALP.

I want Albanese to become leader, and with the right policy agenda he can win govt in three years. Morrison is a skilled politican and orator, but so too is Albo. This govt lacks talent, lacks a mandate to do anything significant and is still outdated and divided.



Interesting to read your claim that this government lacks talent. Even more remarkable when the opposition lost the un-loseable election. Not just lost but got hammered. I will never forget this excerpt from a recent exchange on national television:


Happy to create a head-to-head with the ALP and Coalition front benches to compare talent. It's obviously very subjective, and I have no doubt you personally believe that Michaela Cash and Melissa Price are more talented than Tanya Plibersek and Penny Wong.

The fact that the Coalition's entire campaign was based around one person, with no ministers bar Frydenberg featuring, suggests that they lack talent. The ALP just need to do a better job of taking advantage of this.

Moreover, talent doesn't always equate to the outcome. I think the Crusaders are more talented than the Waratahs, but we lost to them in Sydney this year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15935
Location: STRAYA PLUM
_fatprop wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
The Man Without Fear wrote:

Megatrends trump politics and renewable energy is where it's slowly but surely going.


Yeah, a lot of attention has been placed on the current government's love affair with coal but the market itself has been moving at a rate that will see Australia hit 50% renewables by 2025... link.


I can't see another coal power station ever being built, so renewables with a load of gas turbines to fill the holes is most likely, BP & the frackers et al will be the winners


Even gas will start to be an issue. The cost of gas is rising world wide as more CCGT plants are built and demand is rising.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2829
Ali's Choice wrote:
Clogs wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
It's become clear that the ALP's policy agenda was far too big for the Australian people. Life is pretty good for most people in this country and the ALP misread the mood for change. Instead of proposing sweeping changes across a range of areas, they should have concentrated on just one or two priorities. Similar to what Rudd did in 20017. For example, if they had run just on climate change, and introducing the NEG, I think they would have won office. There was a mood for real action on climate change. But this sentiment was diluted by concerns about changes to negative gearing, franking credits, superannuation etc which played into concerns about the ALP's spending and allowed Morrison to run the mother of all scare campaigns. This meant that lots of people who want real action on climate change ended up voting against the the ALP.

I want Albanese to become leader, and with the right policy agenda he can win govt in three years. Morrison is a skilled politican and orator, but so too is Albo. This govt lacks talent, lacks a mandate to do anything significant and is still outdated and divided.



Interesting to read your claim that this government lacks talent. Even more remarkable when the opposition lost the un-loseable election. Not just lost but got hammered. I will never forget this excerpt from a recent exchange on national television:


Happy to create a head-to-head with the ALP and Coalition front benches to compare talent. It's obviously very subjective, and I have no doubt you personally believe that Michaela Cash and Melissa Price are more talented than Tanya Plibersek and Penny Wong.

The fact that the Coalition's entire campaign was based around one person, with no ministers bar Frydenberg featuring, suggests that they lack talent. The ALP just need to do a better job of taking advantage of this.

Moreover, talent doesn't always equate to the outcome. I think the Crusaders are more talented than the Waratahs, but we lost to them in Sydney this year.




So the entire chock full of talent ALP could not beat Scomo on his own in the polls? An entire team of hugely talented ALP politicians could not defeat single handed Scomo? All that talent vs 1 person and they still lost the un-loseable election? You understand that is what you are saying don't you?


Also Scomo really is the Richie McCaw of Australian politics.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16251
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
just skimmed the front page of the Murdochian... :shock:
(They're going to cramp up after this orgy of masturbatory self-congratulation...)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 3796
Farva wrote:
_fatprop wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
The Man Without Fear wrote:

Megatrends trump politics and renewable energy is where it's slowly but surely going.


Yeah, a lot of attention has been placed on the current government's love affair with coal but the market itself has been moving at a rate that will see Australia hit 50% renewables by 2025... link.


I can't see another coal power station ever being built, so renewables with a load of gas turbines to fill the holes is most likely, BP & the frackers et al will be the winners


Even gas will start to be an issue. The cost of gas is rising world wide as more CCGT plants are built and demand is rising.


And like clockwork, the news has been full of idiots like Matt Canavan talking g about building scores of thermal coal powered plants....

:|


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23900 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596 ... 598  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: booji boy, Google Adsense [Bot], Jay Cee Gee, Mr Mike, rugga., ukjim, Uthikoloshe and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group