Independent Australian political analysis with a broad-based view across the pillars of government, governance and national interest.
Politically independent. Retweets, reposts and likes are for discussion or reference and do not imply endorsement or support.
Ah yes, the gold standard of economic analysis: a large number, “his mates,” and absolutely no supporting evidence. Why burden an argument with sources, budget figures or context when a sweeping assertion can do all the heavy lifting? A compelling demonstration of what happens when confidence substantially exceeds comprehension.
You mean the renewables lobby? Their financial influence dwarfs anything the nuclear industry could hope to match. And when the “solution” has virtually unlimited scope for expansion, it creates a powerful incentive for politicians to keep backing it, and the political donations that come with it.
The sad reality is that no other country would tolerate its politicians pulling the wool over their eyes to this extent and you facilitating that as an apparatchik makes you either grubby or stupid.
An unprecedented build does not place renewables beyond scrutiny. If we are committing to a generational investment potentially exceeding $1 trillion, we must consider not only the cost of construction, but the full cost of ownership.
True accountability means accounting for the entire lifecycle, from construction and replacement to decommissioning and disposal. The real cost is not what it takes to build something, but what it ultimately costs society.
I believe that cost is too high, and that most other nations recognise the same reality. We are the outlier because our politicians lack the courage to confront the true cost because it’s politically convenient.
@MettaBhavana1@DHughesy So that means 60–70% of the workload must be all the divisive identity politics, ideological crusades and virtue-signalling nonsense.
@Mon4Kooyong Why are you the only politician who insists on putting “Dr” in front of your name? Is it because the political credentials don’t quite fill the space in your profile or are we supposed to call you in when the politics has a categorical myocardial infarction?
@TonySheldonNSW@AustralianLabor It’s a shame that the rise in cost-of-living pressures has diminished people’s borrowing capacity, offsetting the gain of any reduction in competition.
People are tired of the political argument that says, “We’re better than they are, so vote for us.” Being better than your opponents is not enough. If your policies are mediocre or failing to deliver, you don’t get a free pass simply because the alternative is worse.
Yes, change was necessary. But the real question now is: what are you actually doing to help ordinary people get into a home?
If housing affordability is the priority, then make a meaningful choice. Either freeze or substantially restrain rent increases, or give long-term renters a practical pathway to home ownership by allowing them to access a portion of their superannuation for a deposit.
You can argue about the details, but the fundamental issue is black and white: people don’t need another political argument about who is better. They need policies that actually help them afford a home.
I have little interest in the views of a political apparatchik like John Menadue. Six years of Labor government left substantial economic challenges for its successor to address. Look at the condition of the economy when Tony Abbott was elected, and then consider the sustained political undermining that followed from the outset.