Well if its labor or for that matter the coalition, we don't want a government with an automatic rubber stamp.   

Good lets hope the greens and the teals do well at the next election.   

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2025 at 4:39pm:


I'd ;like to see multiple proper Independents not totally women these days... they've proven they can't handle their own lives or the nation or the world.  They've still got a lot to learn about real life and they won't start to do that until all the props are removed so they can truly be equal and they find they aren't just being ushered into the best spots.

They've had forty years of coddling - now it's time to face the music for real and actually compete on a level playing field.

Quote:


NO very unlikely.

Looking at the
https://www.tab.com.au/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/Australian%20Federal...

It’s worth a bet!?!

whiteknight wrote on Jan 10^th, 2025 at 4:29pm:

A “greenlash” is coming, as ­voters throughout the developed world realise how duped they’ve been by years of unscientific, uneconomic nonsense spouted by much of the media and the so-called “experts”.

The marketing genius of referring to wind and solar power as “renewable”, when the associated infrastructure needs to be replaced more often than for nuclear or fossil fuel power stations, is wearing off.
...
Yes, new nuclear power stations will be expensive until the tempo of production increased and local industry climbed the learning curve. In any case, the cost argument is laughable given state and federal governments just sprayed around $400bn of borrowed money against the wall during Covid-19 for a cumulative excess deaths outcome that was scarcely different from Sweden’s, a country that spent barely anything by comparison.

As for safety, far more people tragically died at a South Korean electric battery manufacturing plant last week, at least 22, than have died from nuclear power related accidents since the poorly run and designed Chernobyl plant broke down in the 1980s.

Anyone who grew up near Sydney’s Lucas Heights reactor (as I did) knows nuclear power can be very safe. Whatever the case, transition to “net zero” by 2050 is a delusion. As eminent Canadian scientist Vaclav Smil pointed out in a recent essay, it hasn’t even started – despite all the trillions spent. “Since the world began to focus on the need to end the combustion of ­fossil fuels we have not made the slightest progress in the goal of ­absolute global decarbonisation,” he points out.

Since 1997, fossil fuel consumption in absolute terms has increased 55 per cent. Its share of the total has declined from 86 per cent to 82 per cent. “All we have managed to do halfway through the ­intended grand global energy transition is a small relative decline,” Smil writes.

For affluent nations to achieve the net-zero carbon goals outlined in the international treaties they have signed, they would have to commit to annual expenditure of at least 20 per cent of GDP, for decades. To put it in perspective this is even more than the Soviet Union spent for a few years in its existential struggle to defeat Germany in World War II.

More than 80 million kilometres of new transmission lines (equivalent of redoing the entire global grid) would need to be built by 2040, the International Energy Agency has noted.

None of this is obviously going to happen, and Australia’s policies won’t make a scintilla of difference given our tiny contribution to global carbon dioxide emission.

If the mainstream media focused more on retailing these important facts, rather than dwelling on hot days in summer, we’d have a better chance of avoiding massive economic costs for zero environmental benefit.

Adam Bandt’s Greens better hope Australia is still a few years behind the rest of the world. If Australia’s electoral dynamics come to resemble Europe’s even a little bit come the next federal election, they should be worried.