JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Books

Unfortunately Australia has a government

We knew it was going to happen sometime. Shorten has conceded defeat. Turnbull stays on as a weakened PM.

It’s a Delcon win

Sign, satire, Warning Burning Money next three years. Big government.For Defcons / Delcons this outcome was close to as good as it gets. How could an unfunded, disorganized group vote for “not Turnbull” without handing the government to a Labor-Green group? Individual voters can’t vote for a “hung weak government”. For a whole glorious week Turnbull has been tortured with calls for his resignation with his faults laid out bare. Several Turnbull supporters were targeted and removed. The antithesis of the hard left (Pauline Hanson) has gained a voice. The Nationals grew stronger and the Liberals were punished.

All this, despite the mainstream media barely mentioning Delcons, and hardly ever interviewing minor party candidates (except for Greens). This result was achieved despite GetUP running a $3m dollar campaign* in exactly the opposite direction targeting Abbott supporters.

Sinclair Davidson (and many in the pro-Turnbull camp) are declaring that Abbott would have lost, but they use polls from a year ago, or polls about a man who didn’t campaign to be PM. And we all know how reliable polls are. Turnbull nearly lost the election because he wouldn’t fight on the issues that won Abbott the landslide victory. His judgement was awful and shown to be so. Shorten was a weak opponent. Just say “Rudd-Gillard-Rudd”, mention the boats, and remind everyone Bill voted for the Carbon Tax lie and expensive electricity. A real small government leader would explain that Shorten debt would drive the nation to rack and ruin and risk Medicare. Throwing away Pink Batts- and-windmills-money means less to spend on environment and health. Waste kills.

Abbott could have outgreened the Greens, and campaigned on achieving more for the environment than Gillard did by being so much more efficient at carbon reduction ($12 a ton versus $5310). He could have skewered their fake environmental concerns by pointing out how they always choose the option of big-business and big-bankers rather than the option that achieves more of their “so called” green aims.

How to guarantee Turnbull wins government? Start with a 90 seat majority.

The Delcons want a conservative-small-government government which means getting rid of Turnbull. This election result makes that so much more likely.

In the UK — motherhood becomes another sacred taboo

One of the two women candidates (the Eurosceptic) suggested “having children made her more qualified to be prime minister.” The overreaction to this debatable but fair remark says it all.

The Sunday Times has learnt that as many as 20 Tory MPs are prepared to leave the party if Leadsom is elected leader. Nicky Morgan, the education secretary, is among those tipped to jump ship.

Leading the attack, Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, said other leaders had “never heard of” Leadsom. He called on her to sign a “clean campaign pledge” to end “the slagging match”.

The employment minister Priti Patel, a leading Brexit campaigner, predicted that Leadsom’s “narrow” appeal would not win a general election. “If we are to govern and to lead the country, you’ve got to be able to carry Britain with you. You cannot be divisive at all,” she said.

 Having kids is obviously not necessary to be PM, but the abject fear of the childless and the anti-Brexit camp is on display.

*GetUp funding: “since April, 36,155 GetUp members chipped in to fund the nationwide people powered election campaign with an average donation of $81″ That’s $2.9m.

h/t  Pat, Analitik.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (66 votes cast)
Unfortunately Australia has a government, 8.9 out of 10 based on 66 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/gu6ekn6

198 comments to Unfortunately Australia has a government

  • #
    Annie

    Oh my goodness! Here goes the campaign to blacken Andrea Leadsom’s name in order to allow Teresa May a clear run. It makes me sick.

    320

    • #

      You’s wonder why having children would make
      you *less* qualified to govern a country
      given yr personal stake in a genuine future
      for the next generation…Remember all those
      angsty climate doom-sayers’ exhortations to
      think of the kiddies and no more snow and such.

      What I would hope for in the two contenders is
      that the one selected shares some of Margaret
      Thatcher’s leadership qualities and understanding
      of what creates a nation’s productivity.

      170

      • #

        The establishment has advised Poms that Conservative Theresa May is their choice. They are still waiting to be told who the Labor Theresa May will be. It may not matter if they just accept the conservative Theresa May. That way she won’t have to be elected, which saves an awful lot of fuss and duplication.

        I have to admit, till Brexit I never knew that Yes Minister was a documentary.

        290

        • #
          Ian

          That comment was made in 1982 about Mrs Thatcher’s view of Yes Minister. Where’ve you been?

          40

      • #
        michael hart

        snow just won’t know what children look like anymore… :)

        230

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I think motherhood would be a good qualification to have – politics is mostly ego and handling petulant and rather dim man-babies, so it can only help…..how many times have we had tantrums, throwing “teddy” out of the pram, people not speaking to each otehr and party “siblings’ ganging up on each other?

        What was the old school solution? Snap them into line and get on with it…..

        111

    • #
      Mikky

      Politicians will be politicians, but the media love division and have amplified a few casual remarks into the lead news item. Since we the people are the consumers of media it is ultimately us that deserve the blame, we should demand proper news, and not consume the junk variety.

      250

    • #
      Steve of Cornubia

      I think those who criticise Leadsom for her remarks are bang on the money. You see, we all know what skunks politicians are, and the lengths to they will go to win office or advancement, and in the two-party, all-must-follow-the-script system we have these days, we have to gauge character when vision and principles are hard to pin down with any confidence. Consequently, my instinct is to see Leadsom’s mention of motherhood, not as a genuine attempt to prove higher capability, but as a hurtful, personal attack on May’s choice (or misfortune) to be childless.

      Call me cynical if you wish.

      719

      • #
        Ross

        You’re not a cynic, Steve. The same nasty allusions were made toward Gillard. Ugly.

        319

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        The issue is, Steve, is that May has admitted that she and her husband have not been able to have children. Leadsom knew that, it was no secret, that is why the remark she made was out of place. It was the same issue, with Peta Credlin; she was criticised for being childless, but it was not her choice, and she tried therapy for years to no avail.

        135

      • #
        J Martin

        The fuller length audio track of the interview shows that the interviewer raised the question of children perhaps looking for a reply that could be used against her. I think Tallbloke tweeted a link to it.

        160

        • #
          Ursus Augustus

          Not relevent except to underscore the vile, cowardly, dirtbag ‘gotcha’ attitude of the media where anything goes. The some giggling idiocy that has given the US Donald Trump as a Republican candidate. As someone aspiring to be Prime Minister, she should have brushed it aside for the cheapshot segue it was. She is obviously not up to the job. Sadly I thought she might be.

          11

        • #
          Ian

          If as you claim the remarks Leadsom made were in response to a comment from the reporter then Leadsom isn’t PM material. She should know by now to keep her mouth shut on contentious issues. May is strengthened by Leadsom’s stupidity

          03

      • #

        This is what is wrong with so many of the electorate. You have two candidates, one of which you know will be bad (fundamentally so, if you want Brexit to succeed), and the other makes a statement, innocuous under most circumstances, that has to be extrapolated to its worst possible “hidden” meaning in order to demonize it…and you choose to demonize it.

        Utterly stupid, unless you have already identified a hateful pattern in Leadsom, concerning which your interpretation of this one comment constitutes a decided confirmation (“the straw that broke the camel’s back” sort of thing). If you can’t identify this comment as confirming of her “hateful” or “hurtful” nature, then you have to go by that infamous phrase from the O.J. Simpson trial over 20 years ago: “If it doesn’t fit [the recognizable pattern of her character], you must acquit.”

        A person must be divided in his/her own mind, in order to be misdirected from the greater goal by one “insult”, even if it was indeed an insult, and not just a remark “loaded with hurtful meaning” in your own mind.

        70

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          One would hope the party leader would give the offending party a proper dressing down….otherwise it only encourages poor character….

          20

    • #
      Graham Richards

      Theresa May will do her best to stealthily subvert the Brexit process. There is an election , in which 150,000 Tory members vote, to come.

      One can only hope that sanity prevails & that Ms T May is put into 2nd place without any doubt.
      And there will not be a second vote either.

      If she becomes PM Brexit will be history!

      192

    • #
      Peter C

      Well Andrea Leadsom did say what she said Annie. The bad part is that she lied, claiming that she had not said those things. That just undermines public trust which is already at rock bottom. It would have been better if she had defended her comments or at least tried to put them in some sort of context. Then she would have had a constituency.

      310

      • #
        Annie

        That depends on how you ‘hear’ it. Frankly, I can’t trust Theresa May and I think she would undermine our Brexit vote. She hasn’t exactly been noted for reducing the ridiculously high level of immigration to a country that can no longer provide the infrastructure to cope with it.

        270

        • #
          Peter C

          A green thumb for defending your view.

          92

        • #
          ivan

          How true Annie. Theresa May is the one trying to turn the UK into a police state with her pushing the ‘snoopers charter’ and other laws to keep the people in their place. In some circles she is known a Stasi May because of her wanting to know about everyone. Not the sort of person to be PM.

          190

        • #
          delcon2

          Annie,Theresa May was against Brexit,so why would they vote for her to look after an orderly Brexit from the EU?Andrea Leadsom would be the one to make sure that the UK does what the people voted for.I have found,of late that what the “Newspapers”tell you isn’t always correct and the shootings in the USA,over the last couple of days,have shown that.

          120

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Based on that evidence, it seems she may be a gloablist…..

          60

        • #
          ianl8888

          I can’t trust Theresa May and I think she would undermine our Brexit vote

          Yes, she will. But no politician will take the consequences of Brexit on. This stalemate will bumble on for a few years without real progress, then a new arliament will claim it is not constrained by an earlier unbinding plebiscite.

          The point to power is that one is essentially unaccountable and there is almost nothing the plebs can do about that.

          40

        • #
          Ian

          Well Annie it may come as a shock to find that Andrea Leadsom has withdrawn from the contest for the Conservative leadership leaving Theresa May as the only candidate.

          12

          • #
            Ian

            To add to that. Theresa May may well be PM this week and possibly into No 10 on Wednesday as David Cameron has said he is out Isn’t that just the best news?

            02

      • #
        ivan

        @Peter C,

        It might help if you have the full story and not blindly believe what was published in the Times especially when the ‘reporter’ contradicts herself.
        http://order-order.com/2016/07/09/rachel-sylvester-corrects-story/

        140

        • #
          Ian

          I think you’ll find it doesn’t matter anymore as Leadsom has withdrawn. With any luck Theresa May will become PM and will be able to resist activating Article 50

          02

          • #
            AndyG55

            I see you are advocating over-throwing a DEMOCRATIC decision.

            Truly disgusting. !

            50

            • #
              Ian

              Yes you’re exactly right that’s what I am advocating. Well not really not exactly right as what I’d like to see is May just ignoring Article 50. I don’t live in Britain and was very fed up when the UK went into the EEC in 1974 and ditched export agreements with Australia (where I do live), NZ, South Africa and Canada without a backward glance. That said Britain is better off in the EU than not as I think you will discover in the fullness of time. Too many people, you included it seems, failed to weigh up the pros and cons.

              05

              • #
                AndyG55

                So what you “think” outweighs a democratic vote.

                I’m sure you have weight just the pros that interest you.

                Britain voted for BREXIT…

                That should be the start of the story,

                and BREXIT should be the final outcome,

                regardless of what some anti-democracy, totalitarian prat on the other side of the world, thinks is best for the Brits.

                20

              • #
                clive

                Ian,I think that since 1976,they have been trying to get this”EU thingy”to work.It hasn’t and is past it’s “Use By Date”The only one who got anything out of it was”Germany”It’s time for the rest of the EU to “Brexit”

                30

              • #
                Geoffrey Williams

                Ian, for me it is all about self determination for the British people. The EU might have worked for many, but certainly not for all!
                GeoffW

                10

            • #
              Ian

              Britain voted for Brexit did it? The English and the Welsh did but the Scots and Northern Irish didn’t so only half of the countries forming the UK voted Brexit. Interestingly the major factor associated with voting remain was a university education whereas the major factor associated with voting leave was not having a passport. Says it all really.

              04

              • #
                AndyG55

                YES Britain voted for BREXIT.

                Get over it !!!

                Its called DEMOCRACY.

                One day you may grow up enough to understand it.

                30

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                What an appallingly transparent comment.

                Don’t you have anything of use to contribute?

                20

    • #
      doug.shield@tesco.net

      It’s ‘Leadbangers’ versus ‘Mayniacs’- I’m a ‘Leadbanger’! Mother Theresa’s establishment friends are stitching Leadsom up nice and tight. She was led on to the ‘motherhood’ question by a journo with an agenda. Project fear has turned into project smear, hopefully it will backfire just as ‘fear’ did during the Brexit debate. If we get Mother Theresa I’m not sure that we’ll get full exit from the anti-democratic troughers of the EU!
      Leadsom was not well known until the EU referendum debate but she performed brilliantly – logical, tough and brave.

      70

      • #
        Ian

        Hard luck sport. Just watching BBC 6pm news. Theresa May will be PM this week and into No10 on Wednesday. Woo-Hoo!! But I don’t think she’ll reverse Brexit.

        04

    • #

      I think one aspect that hasn’t been discussed is her background, an investment banker. I just have this feeling that investment bankers don’t make very good prime ministers.

      30

    • #
      Ian

      It also makes me sick to see a site that I had thought to be one of the better sites discussing climate change expressing political views held by delusional conservatives and deluded Brexiteers. Jo Nova says”Skeptics are those that elected the Liberals”. Climate change has been and is, politicised by far too many scientists who are seduced by government’s cash. That Jo Nova now descends into that squalid political quagmire is deeply disappointing. In Australia Tony Abbott showed appalling political judgement by making promises not to change pensions, health or superannuation the night before the 2013 election and even worse political judgement by breaking those promises in the 2014 budget. That cost him the trust of Australian voters just as Gillard’s comment on the carbon tax fatally damaged her. Abbott never recovered as 30 consecutive poor polls showed. David Cameron in the UK, in trying to force the EU to give Britain preferential treatment set up the referendum which he expected to show the UK would remain. Unfortunately Cameron underestimated the xenophobia and sheer stupidity of the average British voter.

      It will be a significant loss to the climate change debate if this site loses its focus on the science in attempts to destabilise a democratically elected government because it is lead by someone with liberal rather than Liberal views

      213

      • #
        Analitik

        Sorry but Malcolm Turnbull isn’t even liberal – just look at how “progressive” his views are on climate change, “renewable” energy, carbon trading, gay “marriage”, political correctness… it just goes on.

        100

        • #
          Ian

          I don’t think the government’s policy on direct action or renewables has changed and nor is there a carbon tax. As for gay marriage good on Turnbull for supporting it. I think you’ll find many are like me who has no interest in same sex marriage but sees no reason why should not be made legal Political correctness? Abbott squibbed revoking 18c.

          15

          • #
            clive

            What-ever rock you crawled out from under,please go back.You are wrong on all accounts,such as 18c which the Senate wouldn’t pass and “Renewables”which Abbott hated and Turnbull snuck in an ETS in December,which came into effect on July 1 this year.

            30

            • #
              Ian

              Rather sad that you resort to ad homs Clive. Unusual on this blog but quite common on the warmist blogs. Are you in the right place? This is what was written in the Sydney Morning Herald on August 5 2014:

              “Prime Minister Tony Abbott said it was a ‘‘leadership call’’ to bin the proposed changes to Section 18C of the act, which had been roundly criticised by ethnic community leaders and was unpopular with the wider public.”

              As you can see it was Abbott’s decision and not the Senate’s. Perhaps you could check facts before writing your ad hom comments

              01

      • #

        Careful who you call delusional, that has come back to bite many in the derriere.

        When our once esteemed scientific organisations became political and sold their souls to group think, to leave out politics in any ‘reasoned’ discussion plays into the hands of the Left.

        60

      • #
        AndyG55

        “the xenophobia and sheer stupidity of the average British voter. “

        You mean all the little children who complained afterwards.

        Are you one of them?

        NO it was NOT anything to do with your contemptible xenophobe sliming, it was the British people wishing to be themselves again, rather than lauded over by an un-elected totalitarian rabble in Brussels. A very wise decision.

        The whole small-l liberal crap is one of the main reasons Turnbull did so extraordinarily badly at this election. That includes not taking proper Liberal stands on many issues,

        and generally being a wishy-washy smarmy git..

        101

        • #

          Malcolm Turnbull – Small L liberal – I bet Malcolm Fraser is smiling right about now as he looks down on all this, thinking to himself, “Well done Malcolm T. I taught you well.”

          Tony.

          41

          • #
            Ross

            Tony from Oz: I believe it was John Howard who convinced Turnbull to stay in the game. Closet wishy washy smeary git that he is.

            20

        • #
          Ian

          No I’m not one of the children that complained afterwards as I live in Australia but was in the UK the day after the June 23 vote. The Cornish who voted 56 to 44 to leave, seemed suddenly to realise Cornwall would forfeit the yearly £60 million handout from the EU and were asking it not be lost. Uh?? Were the one million plus who voted for a second referendum or those that voted Leave but thought the UK would stay in the UK, complaining children?. Were those angry with Nigel Farage for saying his claim that the NHS would get millions every week was a mistake, complaining children? As for xenophobia, Nigel Farage was castigated by all parties for his poster portraying Syrian and Slovenian refugees flooding into Europe; Leave.EU was slammed for xenophobia for their video featuring Donald Trump.

          05

          • #
            AndyG55

            “would forfeit the yearly £60 million handout”

            Ahhh… so its all about the “handouts”..

            Well done Ian..

            Now where was that money coming from?

            Britain now has $350 million a week of its own money, it can choose to spend where it likes.

            Howe many Syrian and other refugees do you have living in your house.. or are you a xenophode as well. You really think that Europe will be better by taking in that many refugees? Seriously ?????

            Btw.. spent the morning celebrating with about 20 of my Iranian friends.

            The million plus are just SORE LOSERS.

            Democracy wins. !!

            61

            • #
              AndyG55

              ps.. and how many of those SORE LOSERS were from anywhere but Britain..

              10,000 or so from the Vatican, wasn’t it !!

              (has Vatican yet taken in one solitary refugee?)

              51

            • #
              Ross

              What were you and your 20 Iranian friends celebrating? Brexit??

              21

            • #
              Ian

              Perhaps you missed my pointing out that I live in Australia where we haven’t got Syrian refugees. As for “so its all about the handouts” the Cornish seem to think so as do those living in Hull and the Scots. And as for the £350 million per week that is just plain wrong. Ms Thatcher in 1982 negotiated with the EU for Britain to get a rebate and the true figure is £250 million per week not £350 million (another mistake by Brexit?). Additionally his does not take into account the money the UK gets from the EU which reduces Britain’s contribution to about £135 million a week, almost half what the Leave campaigners stated. As for “Iranian friends” I only have two but I do have lots of Vietnamese, Chinese, Malay, Samoan, Fijian, Indigenous Australian and Indian friends which reflects the differences between the UK and Australian populations. Do you have Syrian friends?

              14

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                “I have lots and lots and more ethnic friends than you”.

                Transparent.

                Grabbing at every one of the current “non_xenophobic” idioms used by the elites, who of course know better than everyone just what the world needs.

                Sad.

                20

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        KLIMATE SCIENCE is totally about politics.

        It is therefore important for Jo’s site to examine the political climate represented in such events as the BREXIT.

        Just where did the money Cornwall is losing, was it 60 million?, actually originate?

        Did it come from Britain or Germany. It certainly didn’t come from Spain, Italy or Greece.

        As for Tony Abbott; yes, another flawed politician.

        It’s just that he is the least flawed of the lot.

        You forgot didn’t you, or maybe you never even knew it,,,,,,

        BRITONS NEVER EVER EVER SHALL BE SLAVES.

        KK

        40

        • #
          Ian

          Kinky Keith with regard to your comment “You forgot didn’t you, or maybe you never even knew it,,,,,,BRITONS NEVER EVER EVER SHALL BE SLAVES.” here is part of a comment a comment I sent to Skeptical Science on July 2.

          “Although deplorably jingoistic, the words in Rule Britannia “Britons never, ever, ever shall be slaves” resonate even today with many Britons particularly the elderly. Many Britons consider the EU has taken away the right of Britons to govern themselves and in so doing has trespassed on the independence so dear to many Britons.”

          So yes not only do I know the words but I am also to construct a comment that places those words in context

          04

  • #

    What a coincidence. I just sent an email to my member, congratulating him on his win (he supported Abbott) and suggesting that action now needs to be taken regarding the Lord of Wentworth. We don’t want a Rudd/Gillard/Rudd repeat, but the conservative side of the LNP now needs to take a stance and curtail the ambitions of the Lord of Wentworth and ensure that he voluntarily abdicates. It will take some backbone, but with the disposition of the new Parliament, it may not be so difficult. As I said in my email, the Lord of Wentworth is a hollow vessel and it won’t take all that much to have him implode.

    430

    • #
      Annie

      The dreaded smirk is back so I hope the Lord of W is challenged before long.

      280

      • #

        The irony is that over a year ago I sent an email to the same member about Turnbull and the growing suspicion of an Abbott assassination, and the potential repercussions, which all turned out to be true, including the election results.

        I included that email in my latest one and put forth a few more suggestions and predictions. But when I know what’s right, I know that I’m right. And in this case, when it comes to the Lord of Wentworth, I definitely know what’s right.

        130

      • #
        Another Ian

        Annie

        I’ve seen that too – same sentiment

        70

    • #
      James Murphy

      Perhaps this is where our poorly educated “journalists” went wrong, mistaking Turnbull for a hallowed vassal, rather than a hollow vessel?

      300

    • #
      Ian

      Your “pen name” says it all

      04

  • #
    Annie

    Sorry, I’ve been so fed up with all the shenanigans going on in the wake of the very welcome, to me, Leave vote that I feel sick at heart at the proof that politics stinks.

    221

    • #
      Annie

      And that’s before considering what’s been going on here in Australia. We ended up with Cathy McGowan. I was glad to see that Marty Corboy did reasonably well…here’s to the next time Marty!

      81

  • #
    Global Cooling

    This is a systemic problem. Proportional voting results in coalition governments. The largest party needs support from the small parties to win the 2nd largest. Special interest groups of the minor parties gets their agenda in by promising their support. Lobbying power and media support are important when the largest party decides whether to join left or right extremists.

    81

    • #
      Sean

      With the proliferation of parties we see that most of these parties are all just splinter from the larger left wing.

      Proportional voting is a scam created by the left to ensure the left wing agenda always wins no matter how their voters are fragmented.

      First past the post is the only way to go. If forces people to pick and stick with their choice.

      61

  • #
    Ross

    Interesting figure from Getup Jo ($3mill).

    When you see what the Delcons achieved with effectively no organisation and no money spent, when you look at what Trump is achieving with relatively little money spent and I believe Pauline Hanson ran on “the smell of an oily rag”, we have to question whether big spending guarantees anything or is the money spent the wrong way.
    I saw some figures the other day for the last week of June –Clinton spent $8.5 mill on 10,000 ads –Trump spent zero. Result no movement in the polls. Yes , one week is a short time frame and results change say in 2-3 weeks. But the difference in approach is interesting.

    351

    • #
      James Murphy

      It also probably depends who the money is spent with – I wonder just how many large political advertising campaigns are handed off to mates in the party, with said mates knowing they can charge way above the going rate. Mind you, the same argument applies to many other industries in some form or other… sell an o-ring to a plumber for $3, but sell the same o-ring to an oil-field service company for $300…just because you can.

      It disgusts me that all (most?) parties leave it until the last minute to have their campaign launch, just so they can continue wasting taxpayers money. This, i would love to see changed, but I fear hell will freeze over first.

      140

    • #
      Analitik

      The amount spent by The Greens in this election in the Victorian seats of Batman and Melbourne Ports (as well as Melbourne itself) was massive – there were billboards everywhere for their candidates. That they failed to win either (especially Batman) must be a real concern to them, as well as losing a senate seat.

      I think this shows The Greens have topped out. If their vote appeal was a broad as they and the MSM would have us believe, then they should have captured the disaffected vote and in this election, they should have made big inroads into both houses.

      Conservative Australia may be largely silent but it is certainly not to be discounted

      290

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Agreed. They have mistaken the protest vote they get for followers.
        If they couldn’t finish off Feany with all the help he gave them then there is little they can do. If this is a ‘party with a well thought out plan for the future’ then they need to think carefullly (which they won’t) about their appeal. A higher cost of living won’t resonate in most Labor. Curiously I’ve just calculated the percentages for the early votes for Mayo, and it is the suburbs with higher house prices where they got the most votes.

        70

        • #

          Added a link and note to the post regarding the funding:

          *GetUp funding: “since April, 36,155 GetUp members chipped in to fund the nationwide people powered election campaign with an average donation of $81″

          That’s $2.9m.

          140

          • #

            I bet most of them are unemployed, loosers or basic floaters. If this is so, donations most likely came from our hard earned tax $ that instead being spend on weed or Tasmanian handbags (cask wine) have been passed on to Get Up.
            Thanks Get Up for momentarily reducing the drug and cheap alcohol consumption.

            83

          • #
            Peter C

            $2.9M/$81=36000 donors (as said). Maybe GetUp is not as fringe as I thought.

            The IPA raised 5M this year from subscriptions and donations and a membership base of just 4000.
            http://www.ipa.org.au/IPA-Finances-and-Membership-2015-2016.pdf

            I must say I am quite surprised (putting it mildly) by the size of the GetUp subscription base. How can the one million Defcons be mobilised to defend our democracy?

            80

            • #
              Annie

              Maybe a drive for membership of the IPA. We don’t yet subscribe although keep meaning to. What about Cory Bernardi’s push to see how many conservative people could be interested in a movement?

              80

              • #
                Peter C

                Please consider joining the IPA. Numbers count. You would likely enjoy some of the functions. This year I attended a dinner with Mark Stein. He was a huge inspiration. It cost $88/ year. Cory Bernadini may or may not start a new conservative movement. Even if he does you or I might not agree with everything he wants.

                The IPA however is not a party. It is a political association that argues ideas in the social marketplace. It has influence on all parties. Does it really matter who is in power if the social ideas we want are implemented.

                130

              • #
                Analitik

                Sinclair Davidson is a Senior Research Fellow of the IPA and still doesn’t have a clue about the delcon reasoning – not encouraging

                http://catallaxyfiles.com/2016/07/10/delcons-lose-the-election/

                30

            • #
              Analitik

              GetUp! appears to be an organisation of “progressive”, upper middle class, suburban centrists – people that The Greens (and we) would think as their province and that Labor would be eyeing as potential converts.

              Their Liberal preference makes me think they are composed of “concerned”, media led children of conservatives. If the MSM ever flips away from climate change an renewables, I have a strong suspicion that they would blindly follow.

              70

              • #
                Analitik

                Plus after an examination of their site and the director and board member descriptions, the general members probably mostly went to university and got batchelor degrees in arts, history or psychology. The legacy of Gough Whitlam’s free university policy.

                https://www.getup.org.au/about#accordion-module-content-31709
                https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/board/the-getup-board/the-getup-board#openings-list

                40

              • #
                Peter C

                Good points.

                Even though they (GetUp) raised money to campaign against Abbott Liberals, I doubt that many of them actually voted for a Turnbull Liberal candidate.

                50

              • #
                Analitik

                Unfortunately, the GetUp! article is now paywalled but in it, they stated how the anti-Abbott strategy was formed after polling their members and finding overwhelming support for Turnbull over Shorten.

                I posted about it (and linked the article) in the Unthreaded Weekend thread this morning
                http://joannenova.com.au/2016/07/weekend-unthreaded-124/#comment-1817665

                I guess Jo didn’t see it.

                40

              • #

                Analitik. Darn. I did see your comment. Added a h/t then lost it. Will fix that.

                60

              • #
                James Murphy

                I don’t mind that GetUp! exists, as I imagine they are operating just as legally as any other militant activist group, but it annoys me when they claim:
                “…Our work is driven by our values, not party politics. GetUp is, and always has been, an independent organisation…”
                when it is obvious that they are pushing nothing but an unwavering left wing agenda. The least they could do is be honest about this. The AEC may have found that the business is not technically politically aligned (well, in 2010), but that seems far from reality when looking at the supporters and campaigns they run.

                They also seem pretty confused when talking about “members”, given that on their page, it says:
                Q: Does being a GetUp member mean I endorse all of GetUp’s campaigns?
                A: No. Unlike a political party, being a member of the GetUp community does not mean you have to support every issue that we campaign on

                If one has supplied an email address, and doesn’t ‘unsubscribe’, then they are considered a ‘member’ for all eternity.

                “…As a member, you’ll be provided with ways to get involved with issues that you’re passionate about. Our role is to facilitate action, but we don’t dictate it – you can elect not to take part in campaigns you do not personally support…”. Yes, thats it – you can elect to not take part, by…not doing anything (I am not aware of a specific ‘I do not wish to be part of this campaign option, but maybe it exists?), but as a ‘member’, you will be used as a pawn in their numbers game, whether you support their campaigns or not.

                The words “duplicitous”, “sanctimonious” and “self-righteous” come to mind – there are more, but as I am in polite company, I will contain myself.

                90

              • #
                Ross

                This is on the ABC site in a piece about Derryn Hinch.

                “Meanwhile, Mr Hinch said he predicted conservatives in the Liberal Party like Cory Bernardi would start their own version of GetUp!

                The left-wing advocacy group has been blamed for the loss of several Liberal seats in the election.”

                It doesn’t add up –on the one hand it is being said they campaigned against those that supported Tony Abbott but I thought most of those Libs that lost their seats were Turnbull supporters of the knifing of Abbott.
                Am I wrong or is it “selective ” or sloppy analysis by the ABC ?

                40

              • #
                Egor TheOne

                GetUp = CMFEU union ratbags with ‘Getup’ written on their T shirts.

                Maybe Cory Bernardi’s new gang can have T shits with ‘GetUp GetLost’ written on them!

                20

      • #
        Bill Johnston

        Getup! and the Greens are part of a broader coalition.

        Getup! was started by Simon Sheikh, who is/was Anna Rose’s husband. Sheikh ran for the senate in the ACT as a watermelon Green.

        Rose is the same “I can change your mind on climate change” – Rose, who got a medal for something at ANU. Rose started Australian Youth Climate Coalition with funds from Robert Purves. The same Purves who was WWF-Australia “President” and who is/was on the Board of WWF international; the same Purves whose environment trust funded Flannery’s amazingly crappy book that we all came to lov “The weather makers”.

        The same “the dams will never fill again” -Flannery that was funded by taxpayers to form the “Climate Commission” and who invaded our schools with his baseless rhetorical views on global warming that was actually due to drought. AYCC “governors” were the same Purves and that lawyer who runs the Climate Institute – John Connor.

        Purves also funded the Wentworth Group. Greens and Purves hate farmers. It was they and Lord Malcolm, the member for Turnbull that bought-in the Murray Darling Basin Scam Plan. The GBR-scam is just another attempt to blame farmers for something they are not responsible for.

        Now with Hunt having signed-off on Paris, and Lord Turnbull having instituted his climate tax, I would say our political system is rotten to its core and corrupted beyond salvation.

        Cheers,

        Dr. Bill

        40

        • #
          Analitik

          If what you are saying is true, the GetUp! are misleading their members by pitching themselves as being centrists to capture the soft conservatives.

          A conservative counter is needed as I cannot see the MSM presenting an expose on GetUp!s malfeasance.

          20

        • #
          Ross

          GetUps malfeasance. Just HOW stupid are conservative voters Analitic? Would anyone here like to fess up as not knowing GetUp were left of centre.
          But I thought it was the delcons, what won it? Or lost it? Or started a new party? Or didn’t? Or something.

          01

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Good post. Thanks Bill.

          00

    • #
      Lewis P Buckingham

      In past elections the teachers federation and other unions have campaigned personally or contributed to campaigns in marginal electorates.
      As education did not make it as an issue in this election, it could be that they were just part of a merged left force, with Get Up the lead organiser.
      As such the effect was just the same as in previous elections, the left targeted marginal electorates again.
      Same tactics, different front organisation.
      The difference was in the Liberal response, lacklustre,vaguely committed, relying on slogans and mass media.
      Leadership is a skill that must be learned and passed on to this new Liberal generation.

      20

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    Shady Shorty (Carbon Bill) and the Alp celebrate coming second in a two horse race to the Waffling Wizard of Aus that has squandered a ninety seat lower house majority that was achieved by a real PM, the peoples PM, Tony Abbott.

    In about another month we might know the senate outcome!

    Carbon Bill says that he wants to work constructively with the TurdFull, on matters that they have in common…..great big new co2 taxes (ETSs) and renewable energy rackets…come straight to mind!

    251

  • #

    I had a feeling that Brexit would win. There has been information that there was some cheating with and for the remainers and that the true result was something close to 60% for Brexit. The Queen undoubtably was happy with the Brexit result. I have a feeling that Andrea will get the vote of the majority of party members and inspite of some cheating, she will be a new Margret Thatcher. I think she will get on well with Donald Trump who is taking criticism similar to that before Ronald Reagan’s election. Andrea and Donald are necessary to contain firstly to clean up the mess in their countries, then the Moslems in the middle east, Putin in the Arctic and surrounding countries, and China in the East. Obama and Clinton in the USA have fostered corruption. There is corruption in the UN and the EU. In Australia labor, the greens and the Turnbull crew are also corrupt or bow to corrupting influence. There is a need for strong incorruptible leaders. Tony Abbot was a strong person but was restricted in what he could achieve. His treatment of Paul Hanson (encouraged by John Howard and the ALP) was a blot on his character. I believe she is willing to forgive and forget. I hope he listens to her and makes up.

    110

  • #
    Ross

    With the result close Turnbull effectively has a minority Govt.
    It takes real political skill to succeed with this type of thin margin. Has Turnbull got the skill set and the personality to achieve that?
    If he has the skill it can work ( look at NZ) but if not then either nothing will happen ( in terms of change) or a very big bun fight will result.

    130

  • #
    handjive

    Antony’s calling it: Malcolm over the line, give or take a seat (cartoon by David Pope)

    60

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    Guido Fawkes (order-order.com) is pretty clear that the reporting about Andrea Leadsom has been appallingly dishonest.

    As for the threat from the idiotic Nicky Morgan (absolutely no relation) to quit the party, where is she planning to go? She wouldn’t be much of a loss, since she’s the kind of person who enhances the ambient IQ by leaving the room, but the Conservative majority in Parliament is slender.

    70

  • #
    DonS

    And the winner is……Malcolm Turnbull!

    A lot of people, esp. conservatives, are saying that he is the big loser but think about it for a moment.

    Turnbull wants to take the Liberal party to the center left and occupy the ground that the old Labour party held before it lost it’s sense reason and purpose and followed the green rabbit down the magical fairy hole.

    He now has a Senate that will only pass legislation that meets with ALP and green approval so forget about tax reform, workplace/productivity reform, crack down on Unions, changes to immigration, changes to 18C, a vote on same sex marriage (that will now be done by the parliament) or anything useful.

    Instead we will get increased spending on health, universities, the ABC, renewable energy, public transport and most of all an anti-carbon dioxide tax/levy/fund the size of which Turnbull, Hunt and Bishop could never have dreamed possible before. They will be fated as heroes at the next big UN meeting of international global warming activists.

    So what do conservatives in the Liberal party do? Tow the Turnbull line or cross the floor and vote against their own government? Do they take the opportunity to sit on the crossbenches and hold the balance of power in the house of reps or do they sit meekly by, enjoy the comforts of being in government, and try not to destabilise a government with a paper thin majority?

    When it comes to a choice between self-interest and the national interest I think we all know how a politician will vote. Looks like we will get at least another 2 years of bad government before we get a chance to throw them out and start again. We can only hope they don’t do too much damage in the mean time.

    150

    • #
      Peter C

      Yes it seems very bad. But we still have the the Nationals, the conservative Liberals and the Senate.

      90

      • #
        Dennis

        Nationals vote increased, the “junior partner” did far better than the other Coalition partner.

        30

      • #
        Angry

        Any deal the Nationals make with TURNCOAT TURNBULL must be public so that we can can all see when TURNCOAT is breaking his committments………

        40

        • #
          ianl8888

          Any deal the Nationals make with TURNCOAT TURNBULL must be public …

          Not a hope of the full agreement becoming public. Both organisations, but especially the Libs, want room for tricky manoeuvres without the public glare.

          00

        • #
          Dennis

          So Union Labor are saying.

          10

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    My last post seemed to vanish into the ether, so here I go again…

    I’m not competent to say anything about Australia’s politics; I just wanted to comment about the goings-on in Britain. The political commentator, Paul Staines (Guido Fawkes, at order-order.com) seems pretty clear that Andrea Leadsom has been appallingly misrepresented.

    As for the claim by Nicky Morgan (absolutely no relation) that she will leave the party, if Leadsom wins, where is she planning to go? Frankly, she is the sort of person who enhances the average IQ by absenting herself. The only thing that makes her significant is the slender Conservative majority, but I still can’t see her joining the LibDims, or Corbyn’s neo-Trotskyite Labour Party.

    110

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    Donchajushateitwhenthathappens????

    60

  • #
    Analitik

    Most effective campaigner for the Liberals goes to Victorian Premier, DANIEL ANDREWS! :D
    Malcolm had better send him a Christmas card as he won’t be getting one from Bill Shorten.

    Too bad those of us in Victoria need to deal with the consequences of our Marxist state government on a daily basis :mad:

    241

    • #
      Dave

      Analitik

      The big worry for Victoria & Daniel Andrews in late 2016 & early 2017 is Bushfires
      The build up of under story fuel is going to be huge

      Look at Jan 2016 to Jun 2017 here

      With good ground water, it will increase until late summer

      Then the Unionised Fire Fighters will have a losing battle on their hands

      Many Volunteers are leaving.

      Danger ahead I feel – but hope I’m wrong!

      120

      • #
        Dave

        Forgot to add

        Bushfires have been very light this year

        They are going to be horrendous without controlled burns!

        110

        • #
          Analitik

          No argument from me at all, Dave. With all the greenery that will sprout from the heavy rains we are getting this winter, the lack of feet on the ground for controlled burns will lead to a horrific bushfire season.

          Just saying that Daniel Andrews’ handling and timing of the CFA issue was the most effective campaigning for the Liberals – far more so than T Nutt and the rest of the brains trust came up with.

          80

          • #
            delcon2

            Just goes to show you,that “Our”politicians,are as thick as two short planks.They just got their collective”A$$es”handed to them on a platter and they don’t even know it.

            70

        • #
          Robert O

          Fuel reduction burns are done under benign conditions for that purpose and are more often done in Autumn when there is little wind and they will extinguish themselves over night with the increased humidity. Last year there were fires in the Otways and also in WA where they hadn’t be done for many years and there were large amounts of dry woody material on the ground for which one must thank the greens. Southern Aust. is a fire environment over summertime, little rain, low humidity and generally windy; the only effective way to reduce the threat is to keep fuel levels fairly low as we cannot control the weather.

          60

          • #
            Dave

            Robert O
            Agree totally
            Go to Current Planned Burns and go down to the current planned burns!

            In One 10 day period they are burning less than 1 single hectare! This will take 600,000 years plus to do Victoria total

            It’s almost negligent!

            10

      • #
        Egor TheOne

        That dud Andrews is another in urgent need of the Bum’s Rush Out!

        What are we doing with Marxists in our Country, and their infiltration into our politics and education systems.

        In fact our education systems are becoming/have become institutionalized indoctrination centers….group thought instead of free thought!

        40

    • #
      Angry

      I’m sure that the traitor “Daniel Andrews” helped the LABOR cause more than the Liberals…………..

      What a disgrace he is !

      20

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    All this, despite the mainstream media barely mentioning Delcons, and hardly ever interviewing minor party candidates (except for Greens).

    Two Hanson candidates in NSW are both presenters on the 2SM network that broadcast on the east coast, Carter Edwards that ran for Dobell in the lower House, obtaining over 8% of the vote and Dean Mackin 2nd on the Senate ticket. Neither could get any attention from the media despite contacting all of the media outlets. Dean’s only media interview was with one of his networks stations. There was a meet the candidates meeting for the seat of Dobell only Liberal, Labor and the Greens candidates were invited.

    140

  • #
    PeterS

    Not only that unfortunately Australia again has a group of hopeless politicians that formed a rabble who think they are the government of the people, by the people, for the people but in reality they are anything but, and in particular are for themselves. I sincerely hope the Libs take some serious time to study the election results and ponder not only where they went badly wrong (assuming they admit that – I yet have not seen any real evidence of that) but also change their ways and do good for the nation for once instead of for themselves. I doubt they will change but one can only hope. One thing is for sure; if they don’t change this nation will continue to slide into the abyss. Losing our AAA rating will be the least of our worries.

    90

  • #
    JB

    Has anyone noticed the snarling from the ABC and Fairfax media re the One Nation win. At least Pauline won her place without playing one of the usual race / gender victim cards.

    110

  • #
    C.J.Richards

    Trumbull has been returned for Wentworth. Should’ve been returned to Wentworth.

    70

  • #
    TdeF

    So what will happen? Turnbull did nothing as PM except plan for his fabulous new party. He really did not need to campaign, as the world’s smartest negotiator had the election in the bag but the Greens walked away from a done deal at the very last minute, leaving him and Kroger and Textor looking extremely foolish and discredited. Malcolm was hoodwinked by smarter players and he will be angry with everyone. He trusted them and they lied. Malcolm has learned you cannot trust politicians.

    However he has banished everyone he can to the back bench and the bed wetters lost their seats. The others will have to swear an oath of loyalty to Turnbull’s Liberals but how can he threaten them when he needs every vote and they can cross the floor as he did on the carbon tax? Gay marriage? Very Fast Train? More taxes on people who have planned for decades to save and pay for their own retirement? Prime Minister in charge of nothing. A joke.

    So despite the forced smirk when he is forced to appear in public, behind doors he will be threatening, demanding, thumping the table and not very happy, like the last days in the Fuhrer bunker. His Greens can do nothing in the House with only one member. All those plans for his new Australia and once again cannot get a mouse through the senate! He even has to sweet talk Pauline Hanson. All this while his ABC waits very impatiently to see their Greener than Green Malcolm shine through, the real Malcolm. Wait till they attack him personally after all the promises he has made, public and private.

    Then there is the accursed Abbott just sitting there, waiting. Being nice. Respected. Happy. Infuriating. So expect a lot of nothing from this PM while like Kenny he goes through the motions. What if Australia loses the AAA rating? Who will people blame for his economic incompetence? How can he call another election when he just played his unbeatable hand and nearly lost everything? How can he even hand out tax cuts? Things can only get much worse for the man who still thinks he was far too good for the job. He is rich. He doesn’t need this. Australia does not deserve him, a point on which everyone agrees.

    Expect petulance, anger and eventually, while blaming everyone else for his disaster, he will try to hand the job to someone else in a deal, as long as it is not Tony Abbott. He has completed his CV and destroyed of his lifelong enemy. Job done. So expect a resignation and retirement from Turnbull when the going gets tough and a petulant Nixon style exit. If the pope can resign, so can Malcolm. Everyone but Julie Bishop will cheer. Some byelections coming up this year.

    130

    • #
      Robert O

      I think that Mr. Turnbull shares many qualities with Mr. Rudd of which ego is in preponderance, whereas Mr. Abbott was more concerned with the interests of the country.

      Australia is in for a rough ride and perhaps it was the election that was best to lose. However, if Mr. Shorten have had won just think of the union nepotism that would have occurred which would have made the Victorian Premier look like amateur.

      I don’t think Senate will alter its ways very much, but at least it may act as a handbrake on some issues. But as to things like renewable energy, global warming and carbon taxes, these will be supported by labor, the greens as well as the PM.

      110

    • #
      Angry

      turd bull got what he wanted……

      His ETS !

      Why so much silence from the media on this very important issue ?

      Supermarket prices have already risen since 1st July when it became operational !!

      http://www.australianconservativecoalition.com/#!the-secret-ets/xx8a8

      20

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    Last week Tony Abbott went to Canberra for a meeting with Tony Nut, one of Turncoat’s bag men. He has not been seen or heard of since. Does anyone know what the meeting was about and what transpired? Has Tony been told to take a back seat and let the Waffler have some air?

    30

  • #
    pattoh

    GetUp SorosBOTS!

    George & his instruments have crafted an army of useful idiots built from a stock(Goy?)/gene pool designed by the tax exempt Rockefeller Foundation’s General Education Board.

    From their Occasional Letter #1:-
    “In our dream we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science. We are not to raise up among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply.” – Frederick T Gates

    & the “benevolence of the Rockefeller Foundation continues today in Australian education systems via the K-12 we import from them:-

    http://www.rockinst.org/education/

    QLD -
    https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/k-12-policies
    NSW -
    https://my.une.edu.au/courses/courses/BEDK12
    VIC -
    http://glenps.vic.edu.au/app/webroot/uploaded_files/media/the_australian_national_curriculum_k2.pdf

    & it goes on….

    Their zombified blinkered compliant products are just smart enough to man the machines & keep the (their) economy going.

    Just add an iPhone & Actor/musician sprouting a slogan you have a

    SOROSBOT AGW/GREEN LEFT/OCCUPY/ABBOTT HAS BIG EARS tragic!

    10

  • #
    RoyHogue

    Hey Jo, where can I get one of those Burning Money signs? I’d want to change the wording from, “Next 3 years”, to, “Endlessly”. Otherwise they will be great the way they are. And the bigger the better.

    40

    • #
      RoyHogue

      With my luck thee’ll be some ordinance prohibiting the display of such a sign. Sigh… … … !!!

      30

  • #
    Dennis

    Great line from Caroline Overington:

    With Turnbull you get the impression that, for a politician, he thinks he’s a bit above politicking …

    A week on from the poll, he has made plain that he knows who is to blame for the Coalition’s terrible showing. It’s Shorten, obviously.

    Tim Blair:

    If only people would do the right thing and let Malcolm run unopposed.

    From Andrew Bolt Daily Telegraph

    30

    • #
      Another Ian

      “If only people would do the right thing and let Malcolm run unopposed.”

      I doubt that there would be interference with his run if it is towards the door marker “Out”

      30

  • #
    Bill Johnston

    Um…

    Why am I disappeared by moderation?

    Cheers,

    Bill

    10

  • #
    TdeF

    I would like to make a suggestion on the retrospective grab for taxes on people’s savings for their retirement. Make politicians pay exactly the same taxes. At present it does not affect them.

    Rob Oakshott for example claims he cannot live on his measly $70,000 pa indexed upwards for the rest of his life.
    Others like Bronwyn Bishop and even Peter Slipper would be retiring on something like $260,000pa, indexed. Politicians get salaries from $190Kpa to $450Kpa, 3x to 9x the Australian average wage plus committes and allowances and more but clearly do not need to save. Tax them identically to those people who have saved all their lives so they can live the lifestyle they want in the houses which are their homes.

    Consider if Mr Oakshott’s $70Kpa was based on his own savings and this amount increases, not decreases with time, cancelling out the CPI.
    To achieve this with bank interest rates around 3.5% less the inflation rate around 2%, a nett 1.5% return and he would have had to have saved saved $70K/0.015 or $4.7Million. Clearly the tax would hit hard. For Bronwyn Bishop’s tidy windfall, $17.33Million. They did not save this money! It is a retrospective gift for service from the people who are paying taxes. However this proposed super taxation on super savings starts at $1.4Million so it should apply equally to all politicians income.

    Then watch this awful, unfair retrospective tax being withdrawn instantly. No wonder hard working people are angry.

    As for man of the people Malcolm, his real money is hidden overseas as he quite happily admits. Still Other Peoples money is very attractive and despite being in the Rich 100 list, will enjoy his cash for being such a great guy and taxing everyone else to pay for his retirement, even raiding their savings as well as their earnings. What’s next, a tax on mortgage free homes to pay for politician’s comfortable retirement? There is a mansion on Point Piper which calls out for punitive taxation.

    100

    • #
      TdeF

      Plus add all the public service pensions. Anyone who has an indexed income which corresponds (including CPI) to savings over $1.4M should pay the same punitive tax on savings. Then watch the fun with the people advising the politicians.

      Why should politicians be paid so well retire as if they have given a lifetime to public service? Are their jobs so much more difficult? Do they actually work harder than anyone else or take big risks for which they should be handsomely compensated? Why should they retire to comfort without having worked and saved for it? Oakshott’s allegedly miserable salary for doing nothing exceeds the income of most Australians and he is being forced to plan to work again. For the man who gave us the Gillard government, that is tragedy. To get rid of unfair taxation, just make politicians and public servants pay it too.

      70

      • #
        ianl8888

        For an added wrinkle, the existing defined benefits superannuation of serving judges cannot be legislated or regulated against in any way. Various high level Courts have already ruled that any such attempt is illegal as it interferes with judicial impartiality.

        And people call me cynical … !

        20

    • #
      Lewis P Buckingham

      In this lies the opportunity to sort out the Superannuation dilemma.
      Have a nexus between us poor mortals and federal Political superannuation.
      Say, if they want to cut back the deductions of old white males who are still working and over retirement age because they raised a lot of kids, do it to themselves as well.
      If they want a retrospective cap,do it to all the retired pollies, and so on.
      I am sure there will be bipartisan support of the concept not to tinker with super.

      00

      • #
        ianl8888

        … bipartisan support of the concept not to tinker with super

        There has always been this, at least in political rhetoric.

        But then, each successive Govt … their spirit claims it is willing, but their flesh is oh-so-weak. The promise not to push super around is repeated every year and then promptly ignored. Super has become a deliberate Govt trap: ” Save your money in a super account – in fact we have legislated to force you to – where you cannot touch it till late in your life, but we can whenever we want to … and we will and do !”

        00

        • #
          Dennis

          People need to read what the amendments are all about, the government wants to stop very high income earners from using superannuation to minimise income tax over and above what is deemed to be a reasonable amount.

          10

          • #
            Lewis P Buckingham

            That’s true, so all they need to do is curb their own as well and we will have a level playing field.
            My own beef is that we are always told the truism that women who are unable to contribute as they are raising children are behind in super.
            However we are not told that men who are working and paying for children can end up in the same boat.
            We only hear about the averages for men and women of retirement age.
            The super changes proposed mean someone working beyond retirement age, with a super fund well below the cap, will be able to put in $35000 deductible, ie pay 15% tax, this year, but next will be reduced to a deductible amount for a 50 year old, years from retirement.
            This super ‘plan’ will no doubt be revised.
            It needs more work.

            00

  • #
    ROM

    Marcus Tullius Cicero was a Roman politician, lawyer, and orator who lived from 106 BC to 43 BC
    He was one of the very few “new men” in Rome, meaning the first man in his family to become a senator, and gain the highest office of consul.
    ————-
    Cicero as quoted;

    “Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century:
    _ _ _

    Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected;
    .
    Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it;
    .
    Refusing to set aside trivial preferences;
    .
    Neglecting development and refinement of the mind;
    .
    Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others;
    .
    Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do.”
    ————

    Somehow this following ironic quote from the Roman Senator, Taticus seems appropiate re Turnbull

    No one would have doubted his ability to reign had he never been emperor.
    .
    Tacitus

    60

    • #
      Annie

      Excellent ROM!

      20

    • #
      TdeF

      “Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others”

      This is straight from the Turnbull handbook. His treatment of Abbott is identical to Gillard’s treatment of Rudd, trying to write them from the pages of history. Even today, Turnbull is determined to destroy Abbott and force him from parliament.

      “Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do.” Turnbull is the sort of visionary who believes he is right and everyone else is completely wrong. However he does not want them all on Point Piper and living as he does. Ridiculous. That is reserved for rich people. It is amazing that the ABC does not attack his charade as a man of the people who catches trams in Melbourne.

      70

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Also a fine public defender.

      00

  • #
    Robert R

    The hipster nerds that call themselves Get Up used hi tech applications to target certain seats only in the election. They achieved swings against the right in these seats. The methods were misleading and questionable. This technology is new to election campaigns and should be regulated in the same way that TV election advertising is.

    60

    • #
      Analitik

      Agreed and if what they are doing is strictly legal, there needs to be some conservative counter to them – maybe via the http://www.conservatives.org.au group he is trying to establish. We may need to get off our ar$e$ on election day to present this and possibly fund a call campaign as well.

      20

  • #
    ScotstsmaninUtah

    Nobody talks about global warming anymore

    In everyday conversation i have noticed that nobody even mentions CO2 or global warming …

    except politicians ?

    50

    • #
      TdeF

      That’s possibly because Global Warming has a severe downside, people understand it. There is a single measure, temperature. Unfortunately the temperature has hardly changed for fifty years, except a short period where everyone was changing the gauges. The change was within the reading accuracy too, so possibly no change in temperature at all. None in the tropics anyway and who really cares about the poles or even the whole bottom third of the planet which is mainly water and ice?

      So far better to talk about changing weather as everyone knows the weather changes, day to day, year to year. This is now called Climate Change. How it is distinguished from ‘natural variation’ is impossible to say but it is undeniably possible and so obviously caused by man. Consider that 250,000 windmills placed exclusively in rich countries with no energy shortage has not stopped Climate Change. Human sacrifice may be next. Maybe politicians and climate commissioners.

      70

      • #
        Robert O

        Based on Friday’s performance when the wind turbines got down to 7% capacity for more than a few hours, one would need approx. 25,000 x 3669/ 350 = 250,000 MW of turbines to keep the lights on. This would take up somewhere between 125,000 sq.km. and 180,000 sq. km. of wind turbines, that is from 6 to 9 times the area of Metro Melbourne plus Sydney!

        And yet all three main political parties are espousing the credentials of renewable energy which is only really useful in isolated communities with diesel back-up.

        40

        • #
          ROM

          Robert O @ #27.1.1

          I suggest checking Euan Mearn’s [ Energy Matters ] latest post on El Hierro completes a year of full operation

          Wiki; “El Hierro”

          El Hierro, nicknamed Isla del Meridiano (the “Meridian Island”), is the smallest and farthest south and west of the Canary Islands (an Autonomous Community of Spain), in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Africa, with a population of 10,162 (2003).

          Euan Mearns has some articles on El Hierro’s renewable energy systems which are based on wind turbines plus a pumped storage into a small lake in the volcanic cone.
          In his latest post he analyses what should have been a truly classic example of a successful wind power reliant renewable energy system for a island with a population of 10,000 situated way out in the Atlantic with lots of wind and a easily built pumped storage system for when the wind turbines are temporarily out of action.
          The whole renewable energy system was projected to provide 100% of El Hierro’s power needs with renewable energy.

          The El Hierro renewable energy system was under test for a year before completing its first full year of actual commercial [ ? ] operation.

          Mearns after much past and quite neutral comment on this El Hierro renewable energy system now gives it a FAIL on just about every aspect of the renewable system.
          The wind turbines in that very isolated and very amendable to wind power location were projected to have a capacity factor of 50%.
          They achieved 24% capacity factor.
          The pumped storage has failed almost totally to do what it was supposed to do in providing back up power of any usability when the wind stopped blowing.

          The renewables penetration achieved in GdV’s first year of operation does not “substantially exceed” 30%. Renewables have been “the sole source of generation” for only 241 out of 8,880 operating hours, or less than 3% of the time. For 969 hours (11% of the time) renewables generated no energy at all. But of course we never get to read about that.

          30

          • #
            Robert O

            Why can’t the pundits learn from the experience of others without joining the lemmings? There is enough experience and problems with renewable energy in Europe to strongly suggest it is not the way to go unless of course you want expensive electricity and unreliability in supply.

            00

            • #
              Analitik

              El Hierro is a colony of Spain so its the Spanish taxpayers who are bearing the 84 million euro bill for this white elephant.

              It would be interesting to compare the cost of El Hierro’s GdV against KIREIP but Hydro Tasmania are keeping the costs for KIREIP to themselves.

              00

  • #
    ScotstsmaninUtah

    Unfortunately the EU has no Government

    If anyone who has an EU passport is about to discover (in the coming months and years)
    The single currency and EU super state is going to disappear.
    50% young unemployment in Greece
    40% young unemployment in Spain
    45% young unemployment in Portugal
    45% young unemployment in Italy

    The unelected EU officials have forgotten the principles of being a country ….

    you have to provide a future for the young

    70

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    They are now talking about electronic voting: that is you roll up to a booth and vote paperless.

    This is still in the dark ages!

    All voting should be taken directly to an online process, not just a paper saving exercise!

    Imagine being able to vote from home and/or anywhere, with no queues, you will have all day if you want to study and choose your selection/s carefully, no intimidation from Marxist clown shows like GetUp or Unions,and so on.

    And the election result of both the lower and senate houses in a couple of hours after voting time closes.

    This would have to be a major improvement over the pinnacle of stupidity we are presently burdened with.

    In addition allow say a week to cast your vote,instead of the half day mad Saturday rush.

    When our ‘esteemed leaders’ cannot even get something like this right, it is little wonder that we as a a country are heading towards bankruptcy….a Greece version 2.0!

    21

    • #
      ROM

      Egor TheOne @ # 29

      They are now talking about electronic voting: that is you roll up to a booth and vote paperless.

      This is still in the dark ages!

      All voting should be taken directly to an online process, not just a paper saving exercise!

      Nope!
      .

      ELECTRONIC VOTING AND COUNTING AROUND THE WORLD

      Recent research has shown that 31 countries around the world have used non-remote electronic voting machines for binding political elections at some point.2 Some of these countries have experimented with EVMs and then decided not to continue with their use, in some cases after using them for many years.
      EVMs are being used in 20 countries, with six of these countries still piloting the technology.
      Globally, very different trends are seen in different regions.
      Europe and North America can be seen as moving away from the use of EVMs, while South America and Asia show increasing interest in using electronic voting technologies.
      Unfortunately, no similar research is available for the global use of electronic counting technologies.

      ————–
      Key considerations;

      [ each of the following key "Considerations" are expanded on through their links]
      ………………………
      Legality of E-voting

      Timeframe

      Sustainability

      Inclusiveness

      Transparency

      Integrity

      Trust

      Secrecy

      Accountability

      Security;
      ————–
      .
      A read of this series of articles on the various and fundamental requirements for a voting system and how those fundamentals relate to electronic voting and the inability in an electronic voting system to verify any voting machine glitches and errors as there is only a very limited trace back in electronic systems when a voting machine fails has caused a lot of formerly electronic voting states in the USA and Europe to go back to the fully traceable and publicly verifiable paper trail voting systems.

      [As an example, the below is quoted from the article page on "Integrity" ]

      One of the fundamental principles elections must comply with is that they must accurately reflect the will of the voters. The integrity of the electoral process also has implications for other related issues, as discussed later in the section on trust.10

      The integrity of the process when using electronic voting and counting technologies is a particular challenge because of the nature of these technologies. With traditional paper balloting and hand counting, the entire process is not only clearly visible to those observing it, but it is also easily understandable to the average voter. The ballot box can be shown to be empty at the start of voting by polling staff, then sealed, observed in the polling station to ensure that only legitimate voters are putting in ballots, and at the end of voting the seal can be broken and the ballots counted in full view of observers. This overall transparency and simplicity of the process makes it relatively easy to observe the process and identify errors in the system if and when they occur. While political party and candidate agents, observers and the media perform a monitoring function, they also carry out a verification function to ascertain whether the process leads to an accurate reflection of the will of the voters.

      This basic transparency is lacking for electronic voting and electronic counting, especially for electronic voting. The complexity of electronic voting tends to be beyond the understanding of the vast majority of voters. The technologies have what are known as “black box” components that take inputs from voters and produce outputs in a way that cannot be observed and verified by external observers or easily checked by election administrators. This is a potential problem from a transparency, trust and integrity perspective.

      Those advocating against the use of electronic voting and counting technologies in the United States have long argued black box voting should not be accepted or trusted. They argue there is absolutely no basis on which to accept or trust these voting and counting technologies.11 Examples of voting and counting machines making significant errors in the results they generate have been provided, and the worry is that there are many more discrepancies taking place that are not identified because they are not as egregious and obvious or are impossible to identify because the necessary audit mechanisms are not in place.

      As a result, additional and varied measures are required to provide the same level of assurance that an electronic voting or counting process is actually delivering an election that reflects the will of the voters. Additional measures may include transparency mechanisms; testing and certification regimes; authentication mechanisms; and audit mechanisms:

      21

      • #
        Egor TheOne

        If Banking on line can be made secure, then voting most certainly can.

        Any reason to be against this is to be of ulterior motive or just plain idiotic.

        There is no serious rationale not to take voting online.

        To argue that to put a vote card/paper into a ballot box, and then have a team of electoral lackeys drongo their way towards a count …. beggers even basic common sense, which has led us to the current fiasco.

        It needs to be an ‘ONLINE’ system ,not just ‘electronic’ at a polling booth.

        Law of averages would state that for example: senate vote with a multiple of prefernces of say a vote electorate of 50,000 would result in a count that would vary in result no matter how many manual recounts were undergone ….. such would be the stupidity of calling such a result conclusive to any more than of ‘moderate accuracy’ !

        It’s the 21st century …. time to progress from medievalism !

        01

        • #

          Egor, if it takes a week to form government, that is an advantage. Unless we were going to have more votes on more topics (citizens initiated referendums) I can’t see many benefits but I see many risks. I don’t care if once every three years I have to take an hour off to vote.

          Banking has two people on each end checking the transfer. How could online voting do that?

          I’ll just say “High Frequency Trading”. Stock trading online has destroyed the integrity of global stock markets. For goodnesssake, don’t give the corrupt goblins another route….

          70

          • #
            Egor TheOne

            Sorry Jo,

            Cannot go with you on this one.

            The voting system is just a count. A counting system. A ticking of boxes and/or even a numbering of boxes that can be computerized as easily and securely as gambling systems as tattslotto and similar and so on.

            A counting system of large numbers which is what computers are good at.
            They can do very complex calculations at very high speed which we cannot, which is why we have them and supercomputers etc.

            I do see where you are coming from when you say that if it takes a week or longer, then good because that is less time they have to mismanage the country.

            No government is good government…..probably truer than not with the present clowns, although I would argue that the quicker they misgovern, is the quicker we can throw them out and vote for One Nation, Rise up, ALA, Cory Bernadi’s pending new conservative wing ,etc.

            But the interest bill of approx ..40 million or so per day heading offshore keeps ticking over while we remain in limbo.

            As far as being able to manipulate a voting result online…of course I will concede that that is possible, but they already do that now with intimidation as Getup demonstrated particularly in Tassy.

            Personally,i would always take the online option just for convenience if for no other reason for banking, shopping, bill paying, etc, and voting if that option was presented.

            Some, maybe many as yourself would choose to disagree, so again, on this one, I will simply agree to disagree.

            10

      • #
        Another Ian

        ROM

        On the Allan Jones segment (Chris Smith) this afternoon there was mention that the ACT has been using electronic for a while “and it should be easy to – - -”

        Any info on this?

        20

        • #
          ROM

          I hadn’t caught up with Canberra’s electronic voting Another Ian so looked it up ;

          Electronic voting and counting

          They seem to have a lot of human input into the system to try and keep it honest and it is separate from and doesn’t use the Internet for any voting procedures.

          Reading the AEC’s article and I almost get the impression that there is actually more work involved in the Canberra electronic voting system than there is in the plain paper system.
          But of course they are mostly Canberra bureaucrats and therefore we can’t expect any rationality at any level to be seen in anything much they get involved in.

          One of the problems overseas appears to be that the software for voting is commercially owned by corporations leaving the voting authorities with little power over the actual software programming with a potential for the controllers of the voting programs to sway the vote without anybody ever knowing about it.

          Ditto Canberra’s voting software;

          The software for the electronic voting and counting system (EVACS) was built and is owned by Software Improvements.

          Probably would never be a problem with just Canberra being involved here as only the eighth largest Australian city at 425,000 population, just a bit smaller than Newcastle / Maitlands 434,000 population and way behind the big cities with Local Government areas, ie; Councils of the City of Brisbane at one million plus population and the City of Gold Coast at 495,000 population, both Local Governments being quite a lot larger in population than the Canberra Government’s total population.

          Put electronic voting on a national level and considering the stinking corruption that is being dug up now in the run up to the current election you would get ethics and morality free outfits like Get Up right in there busily involved in corrupting the electronic voting system to swing the vote like we have never seen before in this nation.

          10

    • #
      AndyG55

      I would have thought that you should have to provide, say, your tax file number when you vote.

      The MyGov site should allow this sort of verification.

      43

      • #
        Egor TheOne

        Agree Andy 55,

        Tax file Number, Name and address,bank acc number, mediscare number….and so on.

        There are plenty of methods for voter identification, besides just being ticked off of a roll…. not exactly ironclad or etched in stone.

        A present good example of how good it could work are how the lotteries are concluded.

        Imagine how pathetically clumsy they would be if the results had to be counted and calculated manually!

        10

        • #
          ROM

          The identification of the individual voter in electronic voting systems is not the problem.
          The problems lay in the transparency, the reliability and the integrity including the ability to hack the results, of the electronic voting machines and systems themselves.

          With voting there is just the one single, one time voting input oppurtunity for and by the individual voter.

          With a paper system there is a hard copy record of the voters intentions which can be scrutineered , checked and rechecked visually and easily by a number of people to verify that vote if there is a need and which can be done over a period of time without ever identifying the individual voters personally.

          With an electronic system there is as with the paper trail voting system, just the one single, one time input by the individual voter.

          But that vote can literally disappear, be hacked or even inadvertently altered and corrupted in a voting system and voting system electronic failure and there is literally no method of even knowing if that vote has disappeared or been altered or corrupted by a glitch, be it a programming glitch or just an electronic voting system failure or deliberately by hacking.
          All of which have happened to electronic voting systems over the last decade or so.

          In banking, shares, money handling and even lotteries there are always backup and checkable alternatives, usually paper based backups which are retained by at least one and usually both of the parties to the transaction, to the electronic systems that can be perused at a later period to check for any irregularities and if such irregularities are suspected or are demonstrated then corrections can be put in place.

          In pure, non paper electronic voting systems there is no such identifiable manner of checking the voters real intentions in the event of a system failure or breakdown or a power glitch or loss of data nor is there any secondary back up for later checking and verification of the voters intentions as he / she recorded them in that one time voting opportunity.

          The paper trail in our voting system is messy, complicated, expensive [ although vast numbers of electronic voting machines needing to be maintained and constantly and expensively updated and only used a couple of times a year would every costly indeed.] and very time consuming but it has that innate accuracy and a back up ability and permanentallity that enables the Voting authorities to go back and identify and check and correct for voting system glitches and failures so as to provide a true record of the voter’s intentions when they filled out their voting papers.

          30

          • #
            Egor TheOne

            Yes Rom all good points, but who checks the checkers?

            Ultimately, what you are saying could extend to for example ‘the nuclear codes’ !

            That the only way such codes can be kept safe is to be written down on paper?

            Someone’s notebook?

            So any future checkers, can go back and check the checkers that were responsiblefor the original checking to see if they mischecked! ….unless the paper catches fire and everything burns to the ground and no future checker can check anything !

            Obviously anything electronic and or online would have security and database/power backups at a level suited/matched to its relative importance .

            If it didn’t work like that and banks, passcodes,etc were easily tampered with, there would be no such thing as online banking,shopping,tax assessments and so on.

            Obviously, on going scrutiny and vigilance will always be necessary because ultimately whatever man can make, someone else can break…..but that does not justify not advancing from the primitive!

            00

            • #
              ROM

              Back in 2014 the Australian Parliament commissioned some research for an electronic, on line voting system to elect Parliamentarians.

              I can’t recall ever reading or hearing of this report but tonight I was browsing through the Northern Territory News [ I have a daughter [ nurse ] and two grandsons in Darwin,] which is a bit of a fairly rambo back country news sheet with crocs and land based white pointers the major interests to get the mostly male punters to buy.
              One of the NTN subjects was promoting the tongue in cheek buying of Ugg Boots due to the imminent cold snap in the Top End where the temperature is forecast to drop to miserable 26C in the next day or so.

              Anyway in the NTN to my considerable surprise there was a mention of this 2014 electronic voting parliamentary report so here it is for anybody’s perusal;

              e-voting: the promise and the practice

              Estonia is the only nation with electronic voting for its single house [ unicameral ] ” Riigikogu” or to us english speakers, “Parliament”.

              Quoted from the Introduction to the report;

              The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has frequently turned its mind to the question of electronic voting, and has conducted relevant trials. The Commission remains of the view that:

              There is no evidence to suggest that there is any political or community support for changing the voting systems presently used in Australia. This is an important point to appreciate when considering the possibility of introducing any form of electronic voting in this country. In our view, the introduction of any form of electronic voting must support the present voting systems and voting culture.[1]

              This paper touches on some of successes and failures of e-voting and is intended to stimulate ongoing thinking about the relationship between technology’s capacities and citizens’ aspirations.

              Well worth a perusal if electronic voting is again being pushed onto the Australian people without a long term cultural preparation.

              We have had far too many extremely expensive resource sucking, un-needed unwanted changes enforced on our nation by politicians and “activists” of every nefarious, dubious, rabidly fanatical cause that is capable of rearing its ugly fly blown head these days without the politicians trying to create another grossly expensive and completely unsuccessful electronic monster in the voting game because they want to be seen as being with it in the latest fads.

              The Culture associated with our national voting procedures gets a lot of mention in this report as it seems that a nation’s voting Culture is a surprisingly large factor in many aspects of the way a nation conducts its elections to its governing bodies.

              00

    • #
      Lewis P Buckingham

      Pre poll voting this year was enabled by an online?laptop in the hands of the returning official.
      There was no paper electoral roll that was used to rule me off.
      Perhaps a first step would be to put the electoral roll online and rule people off electronically as they vote.
      Paper copies would be used still as backup if the system crashed, say a Telstra outage.
      The advantage of this would be to rule out multiple voting.
      If someone shows and appears to vote again, then ID could be demanded.

      21

  • #

    Not sure how this works. The AEC seem to have only declared one seat. That seat is Mallee Vic. Even there the Absent, Provisional and Pre Poll votes do not appear to have been counted yet. There is a large number of these votes showing as having been rejected. This number goes up as the page updates.
    http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-20499-224.htm

    10

  • #
    pat

    11 Jul: Australian: Graham Lloyd: One Nation threat to bipartisan renewables bid
    The re-elected Turnbull government faces a major test on renewable energy and climate change policies because of spiralling electricity prices, supply concerns and the success of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation in the Senate.
    Environment groups have launched a campaign claiming the tight election result justified bipartisan support for tougher climate change action and renewable energy, the Climate Institute saying politicisation of climate change was “one of the main issues to have eroded public trust in our political process”.
    Behind the scenes, state and federal energy ministers are struggling to understand a spike in wholesale electricity prices that reflect a squeeze on gas supplies, infrastructure breakdowns and difficulties managing the high penetration of renewable energy in South Australia…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/one-nation-threat-to-bipartisan-renewables-bid/news-story/1ac4db721798e92038c53495855b7f66

    Leggett tells some truths in the following – about his own SolarCentury & SolarAid not doing well & about lack of interest in the industry from investors; Robyn Williams basically ignores all the negs & Bumpus’s piece is about how keen investors are:

    AUDIO: 9 Jul: ABC The Science Show: Game-changer for new energy technologies
    The global solar industry market has demonstrated exponential growth, doubling every year for the past seven…
    Jeremy Leggett and Adam Bumpus point to a new wave of renewable energy innovation which could be a game-changer for clean energy production…
    Guests:
    Adam Bumpus, Senior Research Fellow
    Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne
    Jeremy Leggett, Clean energy entrepreneur and investor
    Director Solarcentury
    Chairman SolarAid
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/game-changer-for-new-energy-technologies/7581222

    10

  • #
    pat

    16 Jun: Guardian: Katharine Earley: Unless investors see light on solar, women will still give birth in the dark
    It’s becoming more affordable, and it’s a viable investment proposition for investors. Yet solar businesses are struggling to get the cash they need to scale up and reach more off-grid communities. Why?…
    Dennis Tessier of ARTI Energy, the company that brought solar-powered light to the birthing clinic, explains: “Access to finance is the biggest hurdle we face as a small solar company. Grant funding from donors has helped us make some progress, but interest rates are high, and we haven’t managed to secure any loans from banks.”
    Banks are often cautious about lending money to solar businesses as they lack specialist knowledge of the sector, according to SunFunder’s Lais Lona. Other types of investors would like to invest…
    “Just last year, we took over responsibility for running the SunnyMoney [a social enterprise founded by charity SolarAid] distribution network in Tanzania, but the transition required investment,” says Tessier. “We had the database and call centre all set up. But we had no lights to sell as we’d exhausted our funds. SunFunder provided us with a loan to import the first 3,000 lamps.”…ETC
    https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jun/16/investors-solar-poor-dark-finance

    11

  • #
    pat

    playing with fire:

    10 Jul: UK Times: Danny Fortson: Energy minnows spark talks on lifeboat fund
    Watchdog fears wave of new suppliers could fail customers
    The energy watchdog is considering launching a “customer lifeboat” amid rising concern about the potential collapse of a welter of new electricity and gas suppliers.
    The industry has been overrun with challengers to the “big six” energy giants. Since December 2014 the number of household suppliers has risen from 26 to 44, equivalent to one new company joining the mmarket every month. The big six have seen their market share fall from 99% to 83% since 2012.
    The rise of new competitors has been welcomed by politicians and campaigners but has caused alarm at the regulator, Ofgem. It is worried that a “gratuitous failure” could damage confidence in the industry and leave customers out of pocket. Ofgem last month launched a consultation on how best to deal with supplier insolvency. The watchdog is understood to be particularly concerned about companies that take payment up front. Most suppliers bill their customers after energy is used…
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/energy-minnows-spark-talks-on-lifeboat-fund-7hqqz5x6m

    00

  • #
    Kratoklastes

    I’ve detested Turnbull since the Republic stuff – he’s clearly obsessed by being in the history books as Straya’s Thomas Jefferson, whereas all he can actually hope for given his talent is a footnote in a Wikipedia page about second-rate lawyers who made modest fortunes due to political connections, and parlayed them upwards.

    {Note – I’m not anti-republican, as such… I’m a voluntaryist, so it’s irrelevant to me whether Straya is a Republic or chooses its Head of State via the mystical, ludicrous “magical genitals” method: paying taxes so that parasitic vermin can live in palaces is something that only the religious-minded would think sensible. If government moved to a subscription model tomorrow (as churches have), folks would soon learn how much their ‘free’ stuff costs.

    That said, I reject the idea that a hereditary monarch results in government that is less responsive to the general will – while it’s true that a hereditary ruler makes as much sense as a hereditary mathematician, throne-dwellers see the job as a duty, whereas the sort of 2nd-decile sociopathic scumbag who becomes a politician is looking for a payday and an avenue to exercise his will to power.

    Aside from that, Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem shows clearly that you can’t work out ‘the general will’ anyhow – unless you have a cardinal, interpersonally-comparable utility measure… and the Gibbard Satterthwaite Theorem shows that no vote-counting method is immune to tactical voting (which is why parties spend so much time and effort on preference deals and ‘how to vote’ cards). Democracy is a scam with as much validity as the Deed of Constantine.}

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    More from under the election carpet

    “WAKING UP TO LABOR’S DIRTY TRICKS
    … this one is a ripper and it cost the Libs seats”

    http://pickeringpost.com/story/waking-up-to-labor-s-dirty-tricks-/6212

    10

    • #
      Dennis

      Robot phone calls to voters after midnight ……

      10

    • #
      Another Ian

      Hmmm!

      Thinking about this a bit more the polling “nearly suggested that the Libs were desperate enough to try this”?

      10

    • #
      ianl8888

      This is a perfect example of how to speculate without fear of factual contradiction.

      Obviously, someone paid for and implemented these after-midnight robocalls, and just as obviously no-one will own up to it. We have no hard evidence as to who this was, so we may speculate to our heart’s content, giving riotous rise to our own biases. Mine is that the LNP couldn’t possibly be that stupid (??) but leftoids are that spiteful and malicious (!!).

      Easy, isn’t it ?

      00

  • #

    Never take anything for granted.

    You all know I live in Rockhampton, and that is the Capricornia seat.

    It was expected to go back to Labor, quite easily in fact, and has been held by Labor for all but 25 years since Federation in 2001, (105 years) and one of those was the locally popular Liberal member who held it for 12 of those years back in the 50′s. Very few people gave Landry a hope.

    It was won by Michelle Landry in the Abbott landslide, and even then it was still the most marginal electorate in Australia.

    Flynn is the next electorate to ours, so on our local TV (WIN, 7′s Local and 10′s Local channels) during the campaign we saw endless TV ads for both Ken O’Dowd in Flynn, Zac Beers (Labor) in Flynn, and Michelle Landry for our electorate. However, at no stage ever, on any channel did we see an ad for the Labor Party’s Leisa Neaton on any channel, anywhere, at any time. My good lady wife commented on it, because I invariably just tune out, but as soon as she did mention it, I agreed with her. We got the generic Labor ads but nothing even mentioning the Labor candidate.

    I wonder if this no TV ads was a tactical mistake, because it actually looks like Landry may even slightly improve the percentage she holds the seat by.

    Both Flynn and Capricornia have swung right back to Coalition holds now, and in fact, both of them are actually pulling away.

    They both sit with Barnaby’s Nationals in Canberra, and those Nationals have actually improved their standing while the Liberals went backwards, so I wonder if Barnaby might actually argue for two extra Ministries.

    Sometimes I guess it pays to be actually seen. Just a personal observation here.

    Tony.

    40

  • #
    pat

    2 pages: 7 Jul: Forbes: Robert Bradley Jr: Fossil Fuel Divestment: A Fool’s Errand
    Green activists are getting schooled in fossil fuel divestment. Despite left-environmentalists’ best efforts, New York University and the University of Cambridge just rejected pleas to stop investing in fossil fuels…
    There isn’t enough space in this piece to dissect the exaggerated fears of global warming. Suffice it to say that climate science is revealing lower climate sensitivities to the enhanced greenhouse effect. And global lukewarming has benefits, not only costs. Carbon rationing via government decree and/or an investor revolt against fossil fuels is both intellectually and politically misplaced…
    As a result of this domestic energy boom, the fossil fuel industry is now a main driver of American prosperity, contributing (LINK) more than ***$1.2 billion to the U.S. economy each year. The industry also supports over 9.8 million jobs around the country…READ ALL
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbradley/2016/07/07/fossil-fuel-divestment-a-fools-errand/#6aa0de5b5735

    ***surely $1.2 billion is incorrect; figure from link is $1,209 billion. Bradley or editor responsible for a typo/error?

    U.S.A: $1,209 BILLION: THE INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTES TO THE NATION’S ECONOMY
    9,833,200 NATIONAL JOBS: SUPPORTED BY OIL AND NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY
    http://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/american-jobs/oil-gas-stimulate-american-jobs

    About the writer: I am the founder and CEO of the Institute for Energy Research, a 501(c) 3 educational foundation with offices in Houston and in Washington, D.C. I am also adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute and of the Competitive Enterprise Institute; visiting fellow of the Institute of Economic Affairs in London; and honorary senior research fellow at the Center for Energy Economics at the University of Texas at Austin. I hold a BA and MA in economics and a PhD in political economy. I received the Julian L. Simon Memorial Award in 2002 for my work on free market approaches to energy sustainability and blog on such issues at MasterResource.org. I am author of seven books on energy history and policy, the most recent being “Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies.” This is the second book of my trilogy on political capitalism described at my website http://www.politicalcapitalism.org. I blog at http://www.masterresource.org

    00

  • #
  • #
    pat

    MSM falling out of love with Elon?

    11 Jul: AFR: John McDuling: Tesla’s Solar City deal: Do you trust Elon Musk?
    Last month he unveiled a deal for Tesla to acquire Solar City, the rooftop solar panel company of which he is chairman and also the biggest shareholder, and which is run by his cousin.
    If that sounds like a complicated mess, that’s because it is: a swag of directors on both sides of the deal have had to recuse themselves from the approval process…
    Problem is, the market hates the deal. Tesla shares have gone backwards since it was announced (and since the bid is all stock) Solar City is trading well below the implied purchase price.
    “It’s hard to see how adding a loss-making, cash-consuming business to Tesla’s already loss-making, cash-consuming business, at a point in time where both require a high degree of operational focus to realise their goals, makes sense,” says Tom King, the chief investment officer of Sydney based Nanuk Asset Management, a thematic fund focused on sustainability, which has a short position in Tesla…
    http://www.afr.com/technology/teslas-solar-city-deal-do-you-trust-elon-musk-20160708-gq1kif

    10 Jul: NYT: Lee Gomes: Silicon Valley-Driven Hype for Self-Driving Cars
    Mr. Brown may be the first casualty of the widespread and potentially dangerous belief that autonomous cars are much closer to being road-ready than they actually are.
    Mr. Brown, who died in Florida on May 7, does not appear to have been heeding an important rule in the official instruction manual for the Tesla Autopilot feature he was using: Drivers should keep their hands on the wheel and be ready to resume control of the vehicle at any time…
    Mr. Musk is well known for his salesmanship, and used it liberally in promoting Autopilot. “It’s almost twice as good as a person” was one of his claims. Another: A driver could use Autopilot for the roughly 800 miles between San Francisco and Seattle almost “without touching the controls at all.”…
    Much of what is passed off today as “autonomous driving” is some variation of this sort of advanced cruise control…
    Google, while never explicitly saying so, has long intimated that self-driving cars would be available by the end of the decade.
    In February, though, a Google car caused its first accident; a bus collision with no injuries. A few weeks later, Google made a significant, if little-noted, schedule adjustment. Chris Urmson, the project director, said in a presentation that the fully featured, truly go-anywhere self-driving car that Google has promised might not be available for 30 years, though other much less capable models might arrive sooner.
    Historians of technology know that “in 30 years” often ends up being “never.” Even if that’s not the case here, if you’re expecting a self-driving car, you should also expect a wait. And so you might want to do something to pass the time. Maybe go for a nice drive?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/opinion/sunday/silicon-valley-driven-hype-for-self-driving-cars.html?_r=0

    10 Jul: Forbes: Brooke Crothers: The Myth Of The Self-Driving Tesla
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookecrothers/2016/07/10/the-myth-of-the-self-driving-tesla/#42020aed4797

    10

  • #
    pat

    BREAKING NEWS…AND NOT SURPRISING:

    11 Jul: UK Telegraph: LIVE: Theresa May looks set to be crowned Prime Minister as Andrea Leadsom prepares to quit Tory leadership race
    Andrea Leadsom ‘to quit’ race at 12pm – speculation

    12:01PM
    Theresa May is rushing back to London
    Preparing for a visit to Buckingham Palace perhaps?

    11:56AM
    Leadsom stepping down because of ‘abuse’
    It is understood Andrea Leadsom is stepping down because of abuse that she has received since her comments about motherhood in The Times.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/theresa-may-launches-conservative-leadership-bid-as-andrea-leads/

    10 Jul: UK Telegraph: Allison Pearson: ‘I’ve been under attack, it’s been shattering’: Andrea Leadsom apologises to Theresa May over motherhood comments and admits furore has left her hurt
    In no particular order, she has been called dangerous, implausible, a “religious maniac” (or Christian as it used to be known), dishonest, “Trump Lite”, the kind of mummy “who gives her kids ice cream for breakfast” (GQ), ghastly woman, “thick as pigs—”, “loathsome Leadsom” and those are just the printable names.
    Who is throwing all this ordure at the previously blameless MP for South Northamptonshire, and why are they hurling it with such force?…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/10/ive-been-under-attack-its-been-shattering-andrea-leadsom-apologi/

    BBC, including Rob Watson, are pretending not to know why Leadsom would be withdrawing.

    00

    • #
      pat

      re Rachel Sylvester, the Times’ journo who started the “scandal”, with the Leadsom cover story: “Being a mother gives me the edge on May”.

      Leadsom never said this & Sylvester has ***admitted she didn’t say it:

      9 Jul: ConservativeHome: Paul Goodman: The Times’s transcript of what Leadsom said in her interview with Rachel Sylvester
      FROM COMMENTS:
      BromleyPolecat: Rachel Sylvester is a known Blairite and ***admitted on the Today Programme that the headline and the word “edge” wasn’t justified based on the words Andrea uttered.

      Jonathan Tokely: I understand that the journalist has now admitted that she over-reached herself, and that her use of “edge” directly contradicted what Leadsome’s last paragraph was stating…

      BillSperco: “Being a mother gives me edge on May — Leadsom” this is the headline. Andrea Leadsom did not say this. that is the point!
      http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/07/the-timess-transcript-of-what-leadsom-said-in-her-interview-with-rachel-sylvester.html
      (ABOVE IS PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT)

      9 Jul: GuidoFawkes: Now Rachel Sylvester contradicts her own story
      (READ COMMENTS)
      http://order-order.com/2016/07/09/rachel-sylvester-corrects-story/

      11 Jul: GuidoFawkes: Brady signals May coronation
      FROM COMMENTS:
      MrVeryAngry: can anyone hear the cheering at the BBC?

      sandy winder: I can even hear it in Brussels.
      http://order-order.com/2016/07/11/brady-signals-may-coronation/

      00

    • #

      After the brutal defenestration of Leadsom, which came after a Times reporter managed an interview to literally place words in her mouth which did not represent her actual attitude, we have been presented with the ‘Coup’, the very ‘Coronation’ which the new Prime Minister had stated that she did not want. Fair enough, according to the Party Rules, being the only one left in the race after Andrea stepped down, or was probably pushed after one of the acolytes stamped on the fingers which were clinging to the ledge; she was the one chosen of the Party; but is she the chosen by the Party.

      There are some 150,000 Tory Party members who would have liked to hear what she had to say, and would liked to compare her statements with her opponent, before making their minds up on who should lead them: and I reckon that many of those Tory members are, like me, just a teensy-weensy bit miffed at the speed with which we were presented with a ‘fait accompli!

      00

  • #
    OldOzzie

    I would like Mike Baird Liberal Premier NSW to start worrying about the cost of living, same with Liberals/Nationals, rather than Greyhounds

    Have received a letter from Energy Australia advising of Electricity Price Increase from 1st July 2016

    Daily Supply Charge from $0.87172800 to $0.99419100 - Increase 14.05%

    Peak Usage $0.4910169 per KW/Hr to $0.5398844 per KW/Hr – Increase 9.95%

    Off Peak Usage $0.109429 per KW/Hr to $0.1203719 per KW/Hr - Increase 15.10%

    Shoulder Usage $0.1917322 per KW/Hr to $0.2162446 per KW/Hr - Increase 12.78%

    Dedicated Circuit $0.080836 per KW/Hr to $0.0896896 per KW/Hr - Increase 11.10% ( can anyone tell me what a Dedicated Circuit is?)

    I have looked at swapping to cheaper provider, but as I am on TOD (Time of Day), every time I do the sums, even with discounts, TOD comes out ahead

    But to Mike Baird and the Liberals/Nationals – given Inflation is only 2%, why in the hell are Electricity prices going up by 7 1/2 times inflation? And why are we so much dearer than Europe?

    Compared to Europe

    Our Peak Usage of $0.5398844 per KW/Hr is way above EUR28 Average price of EUR 0.211 perKW/Hr (at todays exchange rate = $0.3085 Per KW/Hr)

    Main statistical findings

    EuroStat – Electricity prices for household consumers

    For medium size household consumers, electricity prices during the second semester of 2015 were the highest in the EU in Denmark (EUR 0.304 per kWh), Germany (EUR 0.295 per kWh) and Ireland (EUR 0.245 per kWh) (see Figure 1 and Table 1). The lowest electricity prices in the EU for households were found in Bulgaria (EUR 0.096 per kWh), Hungary (EUR 0.115 per kWh) and Lithuania (EUR 0.124 per kWh). The price of electricity for households in Denmark was more than 3 times higher than the price in Bulgaria.

    The EU-28 average price (this price is weighted with the most recent national electricity consumption in the household sector which is data for 2014) is EUR 0.211 per kWh.

    30

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      “Why are we paying so much for electricity?”

      That’s the price you have to pay for the renewable racketeering….subsidizing via taxation the littering of prayer wheels along the coast lines and solar panels on roofs so some house owners can have high feed back tariffs that the rest of us are forced to pay for.

      And it is only going to get worse thanks to the shysters in charge…. Carbon Bill (oppostion dud) and the Turdfull (true b’lver PM elect).

      30

      • #
        Angry

        Answers……..

        The RET (renewable energy target) AND
        The ETS that TURNBULL introduced from 1st july 2016

        20

  • #

    http://theaimn.com/from-serial-pest-to-senator/#comment-475191
    Kaye LeeJuly 11, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    “Will, could you please link to one of Malcolm (Roberts)’ peer reviewed papers.”

    Sure: http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/docs/new/CSIROh_18.3.2013.pdf

    Although Malcolm gives to much credit to the intelligence of his identified controlling cabal, They certainly have the money and political power to fully engage all that get trapped by the Church of the Anthropogenic! This includes all the choir members posting here! Please download all the references and appendices. Please report any errors! The paper is fully peer reviewed by most of the engineering community that are actually employed, not feeding at government trough! We all agree that Malcolm overrates the intelligence of those feeding on public funding! These are the same engineers that have to deal with this Earth’s atmosphere and have both the fluid-dynamics and electrodynamics experience to do just that!

    “Could you also tell me who reviewed the BoM – the people you dismiss as clowns – so I can check their credentials for myself”.

    Your BOM site has the list of all their reviewers. See if you can find even one that is not fully bought by government funds! That is not a Climate Clown!

    20