Albo to the rescue

[facthunter]

They are Misfits from everywhere and right wing. How will they decide the Pecking Order? Too many Chiefs and Not enough Indians. What policies will they AGREE on?  It's Pauline Hanson's ........(whatever it IS). One Notion. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

Despite this, according to a headline on The Age website today, One Nation are in with a decent chance:

 

Reform here, and their predecessor party UKIP (effectively the same but rebranded), spent years without any seat in the House of Commons until the last election, where they got 4. The seat Farage holds is Clacton, one fo the more deprived areas in the country. Despite his voting record which will make the people of Clacton even worse off, they love him and his popularity there has increased. Because they only listen to what they want to hear and reject everything else. Pretty well much how society works these days, I guess.

 

The fact is Hanson offers people who feel left behind, of which more of the population seems to be itself an issue that needs to be resolved), something to blame at least, and therefore an answer to the problems. People will expect to see these problems solved overnight, just as per Chump, but it will take a long time before they stop excusing her. 

 

Also, rusted on Lib voters can never see themselves endorsing Labor - it really is that simple. Libs are in no mans loand between what @pmccarthy correctly terms as Australian conservative values and the rabid right.. They will never compete with Pauline properly unless what is left of the more middle ground is hollowed out completely. 

 

Like Reform, they are more likely to pick up seats the longer out poltical malaise continues. 

[old man emu]

I would rather vote for a Party that actually has experience in running a government. These smaller parties are often single issue Parties and don't have the experience of operating the many varied portfolios that are needed for government. The LIB/Nationals have a lot of work to do in regaining the trust of the electorate after the recent split and reunification. It seems that there is a widening gap between them in core policies. That will have to close before they become a realistic threat to Labor. Not that Labor has all the correct policies, either.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I think there's a real market for a new political party, without necessarily experience of running a government, but with solid central policies that foster innovation/entrepreneurship  and ensure the risk/reward formula rewards well  those who take risks and succeed, but also ensures that those that participate are not left behind - i.e. striking the right balance. The right balance is different for different people - I get it - but at least the rational conversation to try and strike that balance.

 

While I agree that it would be good getting someone in who has experience running the country, by being in parliament, you do get that experience even in minor or major opposition as you are exposed to the machinations indirectly and directly through parliamentary committees and the like. So, you would want them not to take government day 1, but maybe after one or two elections where they have had time to get that experience and build their numbers - and also prove their mettle - or not - to the electorate. 

 

The other reason is that (hopefully) they would come with little political baggage. For example, the issue Jacinta Allan in Vic has in tackling the CFMEU is just that.. a lot of this happened under her watch (and prior). also, when you represent the old guard, coming out and changing things is admitting you were wrong the first time, and the press love that; and people naturally question your competence. She is not the only one - Dutton is a second (although I think he didn't see any wrong he and the government he was very senior in did). For some reason, the electorate hates it when pollies admit they were wrong and learned their lesson and will do better - it's as if everything we try and teach our kids goes out the window when it comes to politics. 

 

Edited February 15 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

9 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

the press love that

Nowadays, "freedom of the Press" seems to have become "enslavement of the masses".

[facthunter]

You can PROMISE anything. (Like Palmer) that you have NO hope of ever delivering and the Masses FALL for it.. SHE's 100% for Trump. All the Press is anti LABOR even the ABC, often. ALBO has a Giant Balancing act to do  and whether you believe it or not labor is very close to CENTRE.. Nev

[ClintonB]

We should lead the world and allow 1 term for AI and have it runs the county without emotion, just for the best interests of the people as a whole.

if it worked we would be pioneers, if it fails what would the worst outcome be.

 

 

 

Edited February 15 by ClintonB
Autocorrect again

[facthunter]

No one KNOWS. Nev

[nomadpete]

4 minutes ago, ClintonB said:

We should lead the world and allow 1 term for AI and have it runs the county without emotion, just for the best interests of the people as a whole.

if it worked we would be pioneers, if it fails what would the worst outcome be.

 

 

 

Thy will, be done. On earth as it is in heaven.

 

By then A.I. will be so logical that it will remove the plague of humans and bring lasting peace to Earth.

 

So, it would indeed work very well.

 

 

Edited February 15 by nomadpete

[facthunter]

It's THOU will be done. Experts see risks with AI. I will trust the experts like we do with Most other things. Fully competent and with NO vested Interests. Nev

[red750]

[Marty_d]

2 hours ago, ClintonB said:

We should lead the world and allow 1 term for AI and have it runs the county without emotion, just for the best interests of the people as a whole.

if it worked we would be pioneers, if it fails what would the worst outcome be.

 

 

 

They made a documentary about that... It's called "Terminator"

[Jerry_Atrick]

Well, back to topic.. Albo proomised us he would lead a government of integrity. Once of his henchwomen promised to end jobs for the boyz...

 

How far did that one go?

 

 

 

Ahh.. not very.. Easy to talk the talk while in opposition 

 

 

[red750]

🚨JUST NOW: Australia REJECTS Trump’s Minerals Demands — Pentagon PANICS as Rare Prices EXPLODE⚡......
Australia has firmly rejected a U.S. request for preferential access to its rare earth minerals, signaling a deeper strategic shift—not just a trade disagreement. These minerals, like neodymium and dysprosium, are critical for advanced military systems such as F-35 jets and missile guidance.
Following the decision, rare earth prices surged, exposing a major vulnerability: the U.S. still depends heavily on China for processing these materials. Despite billions invested, domestic production covers only a small fraction of defense needs.
Australia’s refusal reflects growing concerns over sovereignty and trust, especially after recent U.S. trade pressure and policy moves. This isn’t just about resources—it’s about whether allies are being treated as partners or dependencies.
Globally, China dominates rare earth processing, giving it strategic leverage. Any disruption could impact not just defense, but also everyday technologies like electric vehicles and renewable energy.
In short, this standoff reveals a fragile supply chain, rising geopolitical tension, and a critical question: can the U.S. secure reliable resources without straining its alliances

[Marty_d]

Source?

[rgmwa]

Might be fake news.

AI Overview

It is not entirely true that Australia rejected U.S. demands; rather, in early 2025, the U.S. rejected an Australian offer to trade guaranteed rare earth supplies for exemptions from steel and aluminum tariffs. While the U.S. initially refused this, both nations later moved to secure a framework on critical minerals. 

Reserve Bank of Australia +2

Key Details of the Situation:

• The Swap Attempt: Australia proposed a deal offering the U.S. increased, secure access to its critical minerals (including rare earths) in exchange for exemptions from U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum.
• U.S. Rejection: The Trump administration rejected this, maintaining the tariffs, which Australian officials expressed disappointment in, noting the missed opportunity for secure supply chains.
• Subsequent Action: Despite this initial rejection, the two countries later established a "United States–Australia Framework for Securing of Supply" in October 2025, aiming to secure supply chains for defense and commercial industries, according to the Department of Industry Science and Resources website.
• Context: Australia is seeking to become a major supplier of rare earths to help the U.S. reduce reliance on Chinese supply chain dominance. 
  Argus Media +4

The situation shows intense negotiations rather than a flat refusal of U.S. demands, with Australia using its mineral wealth as a bargaining chip to protect its domestic steel and aluminum industries from tariffs. 

ABC News +1

[red750]

Are you standing in for Nev?

 

POLITICSUSAv reported on FB.

 

 

Disregard it. Tried to open the website, but got a Wikipedia report saying 

 

PoliticusUSA is an American left-wing website that publishes hyperpartisan clickbait. Its content has been described by academic studies and journalistic reports as "unreliable", "misleading", and "fake". It is among the most popular U.S. political websites.

[rgmwa]

Not standing in for anyone. Nev doesn't need a representative.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I would hope very much that Albo (or whoever is in government) is going to negotiate hard for Australian interests in any demand from any government. Too many times it appears various countries, inclduing Australia roll over, especially for Chump on threats. If we clearly have an upper hand, we should use it to our advantage. 

 

I remember years ago when the US government decided to heavily subsidise and agricultural product to protect their farmers. I think it was sugar. Australia protested to the WTO as I recall, with little effect. I think ti was 3LO that had the US secretary for agriculture of the time on for an interview. The US offical repeatedly stated the US government has to do what is in the best interests of its growers and that the Australian government should do the same. When quizzed about how the US wwas pursuing open markets and it was hurting Australia's growers, he repeated the mantra. When asked about using their disproportionate economic clout to protect their farmers and their markets were also of disproportionate size, the US official repeated the mantra.

 

Well, if Australia has the wood over the US in this, they should definitely negotiate hard to the disadvantage of the USA and claw something back, taking into account the bigger picture.

Edited 2 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

Don't you think that over the past couple of months a lot of countries have been reconsidering their need for close relationships with the USA because of Trump's behaviour?  Many countries seem to be looking for trade partnerships with countries of holding similar views. If you think about it, all the alliances wiht the USA seem to be based on the idea that any government system that is not similar to that of the USA is planning to invade, and therefore there is a need for the military protection of the USA.