Marty_d

That causes a pucker just looking at it in a photo.

If you don't know the relative costs, why are you arguing that renewables are not cheaper? Anyway this thread is about politics. Happy to have a discussion about the relative costs and merits of various types of generation over on the climate change thread. But getting back to politics, these are the facts: The Libs had their arses handed to them by people voting for the Teals, and did not get those seats back when they went to the last election with their uncosted and unrealistic nuclear plans. Compulsory voting in Australia means that overall, people go for the centre. 65+% of people in Australia rate action on climate change as one of the top 2 issues. Older voters are dying off and a massive proportion of younger voters want action on climate change (because guess what, they have to live on this earth a lot longer with the effects). Apart from the few thousand idiots who watch Sky News, voters are not particularly interested in culture wars, DEI, wokeness (whatever that is), the colour of their neighbour's skin or other non-issues. With those political facts, it seems clear that the Libs have decided to commit political suicide. I don't actually want them to. I'm not an LNP voter but I want a strong opposition with sensible, costed policies - backed up by science - to hold the government to account. They can't do that when the conservatives, desperate to keep suckling at the teat of the fossil fuel industry, throw out ridiculous ideas like government funded nuclear power plants, government funded propping up of elderly coal plants, inefficient and expensive carbon capture and storage. The LNP is supposed to be the party of the free market. There are plenty of players looking to provide wind farms, big batteries, solar farms, household solar & batteries. There are zero players looking to build new coal and nuclear without it being funded by YOU the taxpayer. Ask yourself why?

The Nat tail is definitely wagging the dog there. i actually have some sympathy for Sussssan. She's trying to be a consultative leader as opposed to the jackbooted "my way or the highway" Dutton. Unfortunately most of the moderate Libs lost their seats in the last election, leaving the conservatives in majority. So when she's consulting, the conservatives get their way, many of whom seem to be more closely aligned to the mad Nats than their own party. So she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. The Libs seem to have forgotten that they lost lots of city seats to the teal independents precisely because of their stance on climate change. So how the hell do they think that taking an even stupider stance will win those seats back? Without those seats, they cannot get the numbers to form government. On the other side, if they split from the mad Nats then they also don't have the numbers. All the dithering about "we don't want net zero but we still want to stay in the Paris agreement" and "we're all about lowering power prices but we have no plans of how to, and we're going to do it with coal and gas even though renewables are cheaper" are not going to wash with the public. Looks like they've decided they want to be in opposition for the foreseeable future.

Yeah be careful to make sure it's really cool before putting the cover on... A neighbour's shed burned down last year because he put a cover on his ride on mower before it was cold.

Only an utter bastard like Trump would try that.

I got a virus warning when I clicked on that link.

So what does the Admiral do... Oh! I'm shocked Nev!!

I think it's an americanism. I've never heard canned tuna being called "tuna fish" here.

Good video. Like the way he kept commentating while sliding along the road.

I got around that by getting a Honda without fairings. But really, if you've crashed badly enough to crack the fairings, you've got bigger problems (injuries)

I've eaten croc. Kind of like a mix of chicken and fish. Probably wouldn't eat it again, if there were other options.

I'm not gay so I don't know if someone who was would find it offensive, but it seems a bit vague and pointless. Why wouldn't you just describe them as gay, if their sexuality is a valid point of discussion?

While you are correct, if you could reasonably be expected to see the person and you didn't take action to avoid them, I suspect you'd still face charges (our neighbourhood Mr Plod may know). Either way, I wouldn't want someone's death on my conscience.

Showing your age there Nev! The lead actress of that died in 1986.

Pedestrians always have right of way. Anywhere. If you're doing 110 on a freeway and a pedestrian climbs over the barrier and wanders across the road, it's your responsibility to avoid them.

Looks great Jerry! Winter riding in England - you're a braver man than me. If it's raining here the bike stays in the garage.

John Laws has bit the dust. Albo released a statement stating "Generations of Australians trusted and respected him for telling it straight..." which I thought a bit strange given the cash for comment saga.

Appropriately named bus stop too (top of the sign). Yeah even a trillion can't buy him a proper personality.

The problem with the housing market is that it's been taken over by investors. There needs to be a fundamental shift in how houses are viewed. They should be a home rather than an investment or part of a superannuation portfolio. I know supply is the big thing but I do think removing capital gains discounts and negative gearing would do a lot to make it less attractive to investors.

Of course he doesn't care about affordability. He's the president of billionaires.

Screwloose, anyway

Tesla shareholders have approved a $1 trillion pay package for Musk as CEO. I listened to some idiot American justifying this. "But one of the conditions is that he raise the share cap to $7 trillion. So if he increases the value to that and only wants $1 trillion in return, I think it's worth it!" I have real problems with this for a number of reasons. Firstly, no person, however brilliant, is worth $1 billion let alone 1000 times that. This spanker was talking about Musk like he was some kind of genius. "He didn't improve things. He made things out of thin air!" What, like rockets? Yeah I think Werner was doing that in WW2. Electric cars? Not a new thing. Yes he did some good in pushing them into public consciousness but now his product is done better and cheaper by the Chinese. Robotaxis? Well, his don't work very well, whereas Waymo or whoever they are do. So not sure how that's a world leading step by him. Cybertrucks? Please. Pile of shit that he has to sell to his own companies because no one else wants them. Humanoid robots? Again, done much better by the Chinese. Secondly - it's grotesque. He's already a half-trillionaire. He cannot physically spend all his money in the rest of his life. So why? The American idiot was saying it's "recognition". You can recognise someone's achievements without giving them the GDP of an average sized country to do it. Imagine what a trillion US dollars could do in fighting disease, spreading education, health, vaccines in poor countries, improved sanitation, etc etc. Instead it's given to one man who will probably spend vast amounts destroying democracy. Thirdly - what is the message this gives to other CEO's? "Hey, how come he gets that much? My company is bigger than Tesla. I deserve that too!" So now the already bloated CEO class will be crying poor and agitating for bigger salaries. And we already know that they don't just get bonuses when their companies do well. They can make absolutely stupid mistakes, drive the share price down and still walk away with their massive bonuses. Billie Eilish had it right the other day. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/05/billie-eilish-billionaires-super-rich To summarise, she gave away $11m of her own money to help fight hunger and said "Love you all, but there’s a few people in here that have a lot more money than me. If you’re a billionaire, why are you a billionaire? No hate, but yeah, give your money away, shorties." It's a good question. Why are there billionaires? They didn't earn it, they don't need it, they can't spend it all, and it would be far better for everyone if it was given to the poorest people on Earth. And if billionaires shouldn't exist, that goes a thousand times more for trillionaires.

That's a bit tucked. Those mothertuckers.

Like throwing a sausage into a White House ballroom, I reckon.

No, I've never worked with poo tin. Which is good because I don't have to be afraid of windows.