Next Federal Election
bonza wrote:Weird. Bizarre…, or just SOP?
Keep them coming bonza , has Gerry been granted anything lately ?
“Households will have solar and battery and become self reliant not using grid at all”
Spoken like a true home owner.
Supafreak wrote:bonza wrote:Weird. Bizarre…, or just SOP?
Keep them coming bonza , has Gerry been granted anything lately ?
lol. He’s on the popcorn duties
andy-mac wrote:Supafreak wrote:bonza wrote:“Giving money to the corporations.” Hey Gina..
It’s bizarre that labor would give a loan/grant of close to 1 billion AUD to a company that is partly owned by someone worth over 30 billion USD . She may only have 10% share but if it’s such a good thing why can’t she back it herself ?
Yep weird...
It's not weird it was even explained in the article.
"What we find is because of the thin markets for these things, and really low volumes ... rare earths are different.
"They're riskier, and they need government support to make sure that they get started and draw in that private capital."
Governments do this all the time to help reduce risk for investment and try to encourage investment in areas needed that ultimately benefit Australia and Australians in a manner of ways.
Only people that will or can live fully off the grid will be in a shed or cheap house on a bush block.
Not in suburbia.
indo-dreaming wrote:andy-mac wrote:Supafreak wrote:bonza wrote:“Giving money to the corporations.” Hey Gina..
It’s bizarre that labor would give a loan/grant of close to 1 billion AUD to a company that is partly owned by someone worth over 30 billion USD . She may only have 10% share but if it’s such a good thing why can’t she back it herself ?
Yep weird...
It's not weird it was even explained in the article.
"What we find is because of the thin markets for these things, and really low volumes ... rare earths are different.
"They're riskier, and they need government support to make sure that they get started and draw in that private capital."
Governments do this all the time to help reduce risk for investment and try to encourage investment in areas needed that ultimately benefit Australia and Australians in a manner of ways.
@indo , so if it’s successful who benefits the most ? And if it falls over who takes the hit ? The original railway line from newman to port hedland was funded by the government ( tax payers ) , tell me who benefited the most from that scheme .
@Supa this type of thing happens all around the world all smart governments do it, many probally including Australia even try to encourage foreign investment.
Its nothing new and smart, yeah the companies investing benefit but so does the government and its citizens, we benefit in the long run through taxes of all kinds and rents and other payments and the flow on effect to other business, communities, economy and of course jobs ect.
In the case of green hydrogen its something we need to reduce emissions so we benifit there too.
This whole green eyed i hate anyone who is successful is just so pety and immature.
Maybe it doesnt always pay off, thats why they do it because the government shares the risk, but most of time it pays off and thats why they do it.
And please spare us the whole big business doesnt pay tax bullshit,because yes there is years when they dont and years when they do and it far more complicated than that there is all kinds of taxes, rents and royalties etc.
But yeah you guys thrive on the whole Michael west and Jordie thing, they are smart they make money off you stiring you guys up for clicks/$$$$ and providing only half the story the half they know you want to hear and keeps you coming back for more.
I just don’t agree that the major beneficiaries are individuals that have wacked a few pegs in the ground taken a lease , then get the taxpayers to fund the project and ar the end of the day reap billions. If they funded it themselves, good on them but they never use their own money. Gina’s not short of a quid , if she funded the project herself and lost it wouldn’t affect her , but the taxpayers could use that 1 billion on better things than making her richer .
Supafreak wrote:I just don’t agree that the major beneficiaries are individuals that have wacked a few pegs in the ground taken a lease , then get the taxpayers to fund the project and ar the end of the day reap billions. If they funded it themselves, good on them but they never use their own money.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-10/pm-says-public-funds-tipped-into-...
Supafreak wrote:I just don’t agree that the major beneficiaries are individuals that have wacked a few pegs in the ground taken a lease , then get the taxpayers to fund the project and ar the end of the day reap billions. If they funded it themselves, good on them but they never use their own money. Gina’s not short of a quid , if she funded the project herself and lost it wouldn’t affect her , but the taxpayers could use that 1 billion on better things than making her richer .
Yeah well thats just a pigheaded aproach governments only do it because they and we benefit, for every dollar they invest they get much more back in the long run.
If we dont do it, these people and companies and foreign companies too will just invest in other market's or ofshore where other governments are dangling carrots or just less risky investments.
Speaking of friendly jordies …..https://www.reddit.com/r/friendlyjordies/comments/1dkzpvp/only_a_year_ag... https://x.com/julianhillmp/status/1803930465000382596?s=46 Maybe Gina had a word in his ear when he flew over for a prawn on the barby.
Supafreak wrote:Speaking of friendly jordies …..https://www.reddit.com/r/friendlyjordies/comments/1dkzpvp/only_a_year_ag... https://x.com/julianhillmp/status/1803930465000382596?s=46 Maybe Gina had a word in his ear when he flew over for a prawn on the barby.
Indo carrying on about Michael West and Jordie. The bloke who thinks Sky news and the wife basher are reliable.
Crikey.
Hope you have a good Telo trip.
And @indo
A while back I posted a number of references re Australian economy and who has been historically the better economic managers from a number of different sources. You never got back to forum with your rebuttal or evidence to the contrary.
Funny that ey....
Funny some on here demanding responses to their comments so they can try and prove them wrong lol ;)
ashsam wrote:Funny some on here demanding responses to their comments so they can try and prove them wrong lol ;)
No demand, but if you are going to make claims, they should be able to be backed up with evidence. Evidence which is reliable not feelpinions.
Is that not the case?
Dunning Kruger effect..
Look it up.
indo-dreaming wrote:Supafreak wrote:I just don’t agree that the major beneficiaries are individuals that have wacked a few pegs in the ground taken a lease , then get the taxpayers to fund the project and ar the end of the day reap billions. If they funded it themselves, good on them but they never use their own money. Gina’s not short of a quid , if she funded the project herself and lost it wouldn’t affect her , but the taxpayers could use that 1 billion on better things than making her richer .
Yeah well thats just a pigheaded aproach governments only do it because they and we benefit, for every dollar they invest they get much more back in the long run.
If we dont do it, these people and companies and foreign companies too will just invest in other market's or ofshore where other governments are dangling carrots or just less risky investments.
Tell me your really stupid and short sighted without saying “hey I’m really stupid and short sighted”. Nailed it Indo.
#1swellnet has more quality up to minute open News links than any rival wannabe Global Newscorp.
Just for the record...also the best Alternate Current Video Vault...burn yer eyes out it will!
Best Cams + Forecasts - WOTD -Stories-Comp Guy-Comments...you name it!
Happy to be proved wrong...but that's not gonna happen is it.
Be cool if we could hook up with a companion surf sista Chiko chix online surf hang...
Crew : 'In yer dreams tbb...lets not get burnt...(Dunno' we got some smooth players in here!)
Sure! That's really funny that world's #1 Surf Site is also world's #1 Independent News Link Site...
Totally stoked with #1swellnet Journos/Gurus/ Surf Godz /Tunes / News / Frontline health service.
tbb is a mental health outpatient that was recently bumped from Medicare Clinical Treatment.
Emergency / GP offer all day seating but between them can't afford a virtual couch to lie on.
Without the word of a lie...swellnet health frontline crew & open sessions help in tbb's recovery!
swellnet frontline lifeline was / is #1 Helpline when tbb was recently bumped without support.
Proud to be a supporter of swellnet frontline Surf health & news services...3 cheers to Ben's crew!
If tbb ever makes it back into the surf it'll be swellnet supporters that perform such miracle.
tbb openly thanked and shared here with former World Surf champ for performing previously miracle.
Where else but here...#1swellnet! Salute!
Huey decides wotz right or wrong...stoked just to be in the line-up to be proven either either!
WOTD *~~~~^~~~~/\~~~~/(`~~~~/C....../|(C`[#1 crew )
Sincerely hope you get back in the water TBB , would love to sit down with you one day and have a rave . All the best on your journey mate .
ashsam wrote:Battery’s will never help the average Joe much, $15-20k now for one that will power your house for a few hours, even if/when drop gonna need a lot bigger or more than 1 to make a difference.
If you have a $100k to drop on solar plus batteries sure.
I don't know ashsam. I was cleaning out the drawers in this house we just moved into and found these in the cavity. What do you reckon??
garyg1412 wrote:ashsam wrote:Battery’s will never help the average Joe much, $15-20k now for one that will power your house for a few hours, even if/when drop gonna need a lot bigger or more than 1 to make a difference.
If you have a $100k to drop on solar plus batteries sure.I don't know ashsam. I was cleaning out the drawers in this house we just moved into and found these in the cavity. What do you reckon??
Wow. How big are those? What you think they were for?
Woh, is that bottom date 1944?
Peter Dutton’s flimsy charade is first and foremost a gas plan not a nuclear power plan
(Simon Holmes à Court, The Guardian)
Straight from the Donald Trump playbook the opposition leader left Australia with more questions than answers
Finally, on Wednesday morning Peter Dutton announced his nuclear plan … well, it’s more a vibe than a plan – a flimsy announcement leaving us with more questions than answers.
If there’s any doubt that Dutton has internalised the Trump playbook, here’s an example of how he’s deployed the infamous Steve Bannon technique: “flood the zone with shit”.
The media conference was a stream of falsehoods, empty rhetoric and veiled swipes, deftly delivered with unwavering confidence.
As an energy nerd, there’s a lot I like about nuclear technology, and my long-held interest has led me to visit reactors in three countries. Last year I took a nuclear course at MIT and met nuclear developers, potential customers, innovators and investors, tracing many footsteps of the shadow energy minister, Ted O’Brien.
I strongly believe nuclear power is an important technology – but it has to make sense where it’s used and that requires close questioning. Here are some important questions, and what we know so far.
How to remove the current bans?
Nuclear is banned in Australia by two acts of parliament. Naturally, to repeal the ban the Coalition would need to win back control of the house – a daunting task when they are 21 seats shy of a majority – and control of the Senate, power it hasn’t held since the end of the Howard era.
Once the federal ban is lifted, Dutton needs a plan for lifting state bans in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland.
The leaders of the Labor governments and their Coalition oppositions in each of these key states have expressed their clear opposition. Dutton rehashed the old quip that you wouldn’t want to stand between a state premier and a bucket of money, indicating that he thinks dangling commonwealth carrots will solve the issue.
They will not be cheap carrots!
Where will the reactors go?
The Coalition has named seven specific locations, two in Queensland, two in New South Wales and one each in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, all on sites of retired or soon-to-be-retired coal power stations.
One big problem – the commonwealth doesn’t own any of these sites, and in many cases the owners of the sites have plans to redevelop the sites, such as a $750m battery on the site of the old Liddell power station being built by AGL.
On Wednesday Dutton hinted that if the owners wouldn’t sell the sites, he had legal advice that the commonwealth could compulsorily acquire them. That’ll go down well.
How do we keep the lights on?
Australia’s 19 coal power stations generated 125 TWh of electricity last year. The Australian Energy Market Operator expects all will be retired by 2037. On top of that, our energy demand is expected to increase by more than 230 TWh by 2050. Over the next 25 years we need to build facilities that generate at least 355 TWh every year.
Dutton announced that the Coalition would build five large reactors and two small modular reactors by 2050. This would be about 6.5 GW of new capacity, which at best could be expected to generate 50 TWh a year – less than 15% of the new generation needed.
The Coalition has been quite clear that it wants to see renewable energy development slowed to a crawl. This would leave a massive hole in our energy supply, which could only be filled by extending the life of coal and a massive increase in gas power generation.
This is first and foremost a gas plan, not a nuclear plan.
What will it cost?
Gas is the most expensive form of bulk energy supply in the electricity market … at least until nuclear is available.
Replacing the cheapest form of energy – wind and solar, even including integration costs – with the two most expensive forms can only send energy prices higher.
The Coalition’s announcement is too vague to cost precisely and nobody really knows what SMRs will cost, but a reasonable estimate using assumptions from CSIRO’s GenCost would be in the order of $120bn, or to coin a new unit of money, one-third of an Aukus.
What does this mean for emissions?
An analysis by Solutions for Climate Australia, released before Wednesday’s announcement and which assumes a much more aggressive nuclear build, shows an aggregate increase in emissions by 3.2bn tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2050 – the emissions equivalent of extending the life of our entire coal fleet by 25 years.
While the Coalition has turned its back on Australia’s legislated 2030 target, their talking points say they’re still committed to net zero emissions by 2050. This does not compute. Dutton’s proposal would see high emissions in the electricity sector all the way to 2050 and beyond, blowing our carbon budget and every emissions target along the way.
What if locals object?
For years Coalition members have been running around the country fomenting then amplifying community concern around wind and solar farms. Genuine community consultation, which has sometimes been lacking, is the best antidote to opposition.
Yet the Coalition has made a massive blunder in telling communities exactly where they’ll go before any consultation. Worse, it has adopted a strong-man posture that communities will have to accept that the reactors are in the national interest. It will be fascinating to watch how the Coalition handles local opposition over the coming months.
How will they be built?
With a combination of astronomical costs and zero interest by energy companies, there only ever was one possible owner of a nuclear power station in Australia: the commonwealth government.
One of the biggest challenges will be locking in major contractors. With the high likelihood that a future Labor government would cancel any contracts, no contractor would proceed without very expensive cancellation protection.
When will the reactors come online?
We often hear that a nuclear reactor can be built in eight years. In reality it takes three to four years from signing the contract to completing the civil works to begin ‘construction’, and it would very optimistically take four years to complete site selection, planning, licensing, vendor selection and contracting. Add in the inevitable legal challenges and it’s highly unlikely a reactor could be delivered by 2035 – as Dutton claimed – let alone before the early 2040s.
The newest reactors in the United States took 18 years from announcement to commercial operation, while in the UAE, it took 13 years under an authoritarian regime … and I’m being kind by not mentioning contemporary projects in France, the UK, Finland and Argentina.
Dutton has said he favours the Rolls-Royce SMR, tweeting an artist’s rendering on Wednesday.
These SMRs exist only on paper, yet Dutton wants us to believe he can provide one by 2035. Remember, this is the mob that brought us the NBN and the Snowy 2.0 disaster. This is the team that couldn’t even build commuter car parks.
What about the water and the waste?
I think we can relax a little about water and waste. Yes, nuclear power stations generally require large volumes of water for cooling, but so do coal power stations. By choosing sites with existing access to cooling water, the Coalition has sidestepped this concern.
Public concern around nuclear waste is high, but ultimately the problem is manageable. The waste will be kept on site, likely in dry casks and eventually moved to wherever Australia decides to store its waste from the Aukus program. Nobody has ever been harmed by spent nuclear fuel.
Who will provide disaster insurance?
While serious nuclear accidents are very rare, their costs can be astronomical. The Japan Centre for Economic Research has estimated that total costs related to the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident may reach $350 to 750bn. The only viable solution is for the commonwealth to accept liability.
For a long time the Coalition’s nuclear plan sat beyond the horizon, to be unveiled before the election. But now Dutton’s built a castle and he has to defend it.
Dutton is still learning about nuclear. On Wednesday he said that an SMR would emit only a “coke can” of nuclear waste a year. In reality it would probably produce more than 2,000 times that.
Nuclear energy is complex. He and his team will keep making mistakes. Keith Pitt, a Nationals backbencher told RN Breakfast on the same day that the grid couldn’t handle more than 10% wind and solar power combined. Over the past year the grid has averaged 31% wind and solar.
Some people want to believe there are simple solutions to the complex solutions behind the cost of living crisis, and like his political forebear Tony Abbott, Dutton has a knack for delivering simple messages with cold competence.
But Dutton’s nuclear castle is made of cardboard. Close questioning over the many months until election day will show that behind the costly facade, it’s not so much a nuclear plan, as a plan to give up on our climate targets, turn our back on a clean energy future and burn a lot more gas (and money).
— Simon Holmes à Court is a Director of The Superpower Institute, the Smart Energy Council and convener of Climate 200. Contrary to Coalition belief, he is not a large investor in renewable energy.
soggydog wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Supafreak wrote:I just don’t agree that the major beneficiaries are individuals that have wacked a few pegs in the ground taken a lease , then get the taxpayers to fund the project and ar the end of the day reap billions. If they funded it themselves, good on them but they never use their own money. Gina’s not short of a quid , if she funded the project herself and lost it wouldn’t affect her , but the taxpayers could use that 1 billion on better things than making her richer .
Yeah well thats just a pigheaded aproach governments only do it because they and we benefit, for every dollar they invest they get much more back in the long run.
If we dont do it, these people and companies and foreign companies too will just invest in other market's or ofshore where other governments are dangling carrots or just less risky investments.
Tell me your really stupid and short sighted without saying “hey I’m really stupid and short sighted”. Nailed it Indo.
Great argument full of substance as per usual, you terrorist loving piece of trash.
seeds wrote:garyg1412 wrote:ashsam wrote:Battery’s will never help the average Joe much, $15-20k now for one that will power your house for a few hours, even if/when drop gonna need a lot bigger or more than 1 to make a difference.
If you have a $100k to drop on solar plus batteries sure.I don't know ashsam. I was cleaning out the drawers in this house we just moved into and found these in the cavity. What do you reckon??
Wow. How big are those? What you think they were for?
Seeds apparently they were used as a back up power supply for the phones back in the 60s and 70s, hence the PMG label. My electrician reckons they were a 50 volt supply. About the size of two beer cans.
Ashsam 1971
andy-mac wrote:And @indo
A while back I posted a number of references re Australian economy and who has been historically the better economic managers from a number of different sources. You never got back to forum with your rebuttal or evidence to the contrary.
Funny that ey....
Mate the conversation has been had many times and im not going to go digging up posting the graphs to back thing up but historically interest rates and employment rates are better under LNP, Labor edge out lnp slighlty in taxes but its more complicated than that because as we know Howard had to clean up the mess and debt that labor created under hawk and keating.
But its very hard to compare things because Labor have barely been in power over the last 25+ years anyway,something like 7 years only.
End of the day people vote for the party that they are doing best under and thats the beauty of democracy.
Cheers WOTL.
Battery Info...
Q: Clocks?
https://forum.arduino.cc/t/output-200ma-to-power-a-clock-solonid/368584/10
A: c/o Radio museum!
https://www.radiomuseum.org/r/evereadyau_eveready_no_6_dry_cell.html
(Cheers supafreak...Tonic for the troops!) Good health to all crew!
1980 NT CLP (Election Policy) 5 year Cost neutral / Carbon Credit Solar Rebate Scheme
Purchase / install # capacity needed onsite certifying to track credits...all cool.
Why visit the site but not trade, return or swap yer old hot water system...that bit don't add up!
(Cash back any ol' iron Returns were Standard practice for the Day)
No provision to store or dump the old Hot water / AC systems? (That's the #1 fault that stands out!)
Also excluded Govt Housing.
https://tfhc.nt.gov.au/heritage-libraries-and-archives/library-and-archi...
https://tfhc.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/266313/Decision-1790.pdf
clearly the internet isn’t good for @info in indo and he’s getting his monthly dose of tripe in before he leaves …. haha
“ End of the day people vote for the party that they are doing best under”
I think after even the briefest of considerations that statement is really weak.
indo-dreaming wrote:soggydog wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Supafreak wrote:I just don’t agree that the major beneficiaries are individuals that have wacked a few pegs in the ground taken a lease , then get the taxpayers to fund the project and ar the end of the day reap billions. If they funded it themselves, good on them but they never use their own money. Gina’s not short of a quid , if she funded the project herself and lost it wouldn’t affect her , but the taxpayers could use that 1 billion on better things than making her richer .
Yeah well thats just a pigheaded aproach governments only do it because they and we benefit, for every dollar they invest they get much more back in the long run.
If we dont do it, these people and companies and foreign companies too will just invest in other market's or ofshore where other governments are dangling carrots or just less risky investments.
Tell me your really stupid and short sighted without saying “hey I’m really stupid and short sighted”. Nailed it Indo.
Great argument full of substance as per usual, you terrorist loving piece of trash.
Hope your Telo’s trip sucks.
And your post was full of well presented sensible arguments………..not!
AndyM wrote:“ End of the day people vote for the party that they are doing best under”
I think after even the briefest of considerations that statement is really weak.
i think it's more like...
'people don't vote governments in, they vote governments out
and this is the dynamic labor is facing
dutton's a fucken clown...
he should of just shut up about nuclear, and keep his rabbiting on about immigration going
it was almost a shoe in
sypkan wrote:AndyM wrote:“ End of the day people vote for the party that they are doing best under”
I think after even the briefest of considerations that statement is really weak.
i think it's more like...
'people don't vote governments in, they vote governments out
and this is the dynamic labor is facing
dutton's a fucken clown...
he should of just shut up about nuclear, and keep his rabbiting on about immigration going
it was almost a shoe in
Some poll taken recently was 60% in favour of nuclear...probably the same 60% who turfed out the referenDUMB BS...
Some irony with the Paris stuff, its powered by Nuclear over there and so are the missiles.
PotatoHead is on track, could be a LANDSLIDE like TonyAbotts victory...
What was AlbaSLEAZYs approval rating 2 years ago???...Hes spent too much time trying to learn how to run a chook raffle and still doesn't know where to get a chook(and they cost double too under his term).
Some poll I just took here resulted in Quadzilla losing out being an arsehat while Syppy just wins by claiming Dutton’s a fucken clown.
I thought that was a picture of @indo doing some intrawebz resurchin’
Sypkan also wins because he’s not suffering the Dunning Kruger effect
Spud certainly casts a big shadow. 
Haha ha it took me a second!
Ex policeman Peter Dutton made a great guard dog on the border control….
As a prime minister…..nope…don’t think so ….but maybe deep down he doesn’t want to be hence the walk down nuclear road….trying to nuke his chances.
…like Syp said , all he had to do was shut up and he probably would have won.
I think opposition pays pretty well and you don’t have to do anything important.
Might better suit some people…..and Littleproud turned out a letdown as well….but he’s good at backflips…..gotta be good at something….
So we have a dodgy wimpy fibbing prime minister and an opposition leader good at guard dogging and that’s about all….as well as his farmer mate who can’t make up his mind what he believes.
Can someone tell me who I should vote for and why?….haven’t got the vision yet.
Michaelia nuking it out with Penny on Aukus Security
[L] Are desperately drooling to expose ALP's haphazard fondling of Uncle Sam's privates!
Dutto : "Albo is not a fit & proper Commander-in-chief to Nuke Australia...that's my Job!"
2025 UN endorsed [L] Campaign Bumper Stickers
[ ALP cartoons denigrate [L] Prophet ]
[ Don't Love the smell of Uncle Sam's Deodorant then Leave ]
UN Ruling motions that ALP must stop picking on the World's thinnest skinned Bully!"
quadzilla wrote:sypkan wrote:AndyM wrote:“ End of the day people vote for the party that they are doing best under”
I think after even the briefest of considerations that statement is really weak.
i think it's more like...
'people don't vote governments in, they vote governments out
and this is the dynamic labor is facing
dutton's a fucken clown...
he should of just shut up about nuclear, and keep his rabbiting on about immigration going
it was almost a shoe in
Some poll taken recently was 60% in favour of nuclear...probably the same 60% who turfed out the referenDUMB BS...
Some irony with the Paris stuff, its powered by Nuclear over there and so are the missiles.
PotatoHead is on track, could be a LANDSLIDE like TonyAbotts victory...
What was AlbaSLEAZYs approval rating 2 years ago???...Hes spent too much time trying to learn how to run a chook raffle and still doesn't know where to get a chook(and they cost double too under his term).
two questions:
who did this mysterious poll?
and, what was the question?
I imagine a leading question, something like...
would you support nuclear power if it reduced your power bill?
aside from the ethics and statistical flaw of such a loaded question...
it ignores what would seem to be, reality...
as to paris etc.
there's a reason nuclear is suitable to places like paris, Japan,and korea...
these are high density populations where 'the economics' stacks up
and, they don't have large swathes of glaring hot sun beating down on literally millions of kilometres of (almost) vacant land...
the csiro original report - that I believe john howard commisioned... reported these very findings...
ie. nuclear is not really viable in australia due to its sparse low numbers population
now, you could argue with the uni-party's ever-growing population ponzi scheme, places like sydney, melbourne, and brisbane now justify another look...
but really, nuclear is suited to high density northern hemisphere situations much more than australia
hence it's implementation
Hey 600 billion for 3.5 % of grid energy sounds like a bargain, go spud you really are a green visionary. 
#bettereconomicmanagers
Will the real leader of the opposition please come forward. 
#givethatgirlapie
sypkan wrote:quadzilla wrote:sypkan wrote:AndyM wrote:“ End of the day people vote for the party that they are doing best under”
I think after even the briefest of considerations that statement is really weak.
i think it's more like...
'people don't vote governments in, they vote governments out
and this is the dynamic labor is facing
dutton's a fucken clown...
he should of just shut up about nuclear, and keep his rabbiting on about immigration going
it was almost a shoe in
Some poll taken recently was 60% in favour of nuclear...probably the same 60% who turfed out the referenDUMB BS...
Some irony with the Paris stuff, its powered by Nuclear over there and so are the missiles.
PotatoHead is on track, could be a LANDSLIDE like TonyAbotts victory...
What was AlbaSLEAZYs approval rating 2 years ago???...Hes spent too much time trying to learn how to run a chook raffle and still doesn't know where to get a chook(and they cost double too under his term).
two questions:
who did this mysterious poll?
and, what was the question?
I imagine a leading question, something like...
would you support nuclear power if it reduced your power bill?
aside from the ethics and statistical flaw of such a loaded question...
it ignores what would seem to be, reality...
as to paris etc.
there's a reason nuclear is suitable to places like paris, Japan,and korea...
these are high density populations where 'the economics' stacks up
and, they don't have large swathes of glaring hot sun beating down on literally millions of kilometres of (almost) vacant land...
the csiro original report - that I believe john howard commisioned... reported these very findings...
ie. nuclear is not really viable in australia due to its sparse low numbers population
now, you could argue with the uni-party's ever-growing population ponzi scheme, places like sydney, melbourne, and brisbane now justify another look...
but really, nuclear is suited to high density northern hemisphere situations much more than australia
hence it's implementation
Google...ya heard of it
Tom Dutton
Birthday Day Treats...
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE1...
udo wrote:Tom Dutton
Birthday Day Treats...
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE1...
Talcum
Potato beats a Weasel any day....Call it SLEAZY...its a NO again to your bunch of inept idealogical dimwits.
Might as well put this up in the politics subforum, to spare the front page. It's 18 months away or so, but here we go.
This is how Dutton wins:
https://www.afr.com/politics/enter-the-liberal-party-working-class-heroe...