2019 Federal Election Discussion

[Hvr]

Or maybe a OneWorld v Star Alliance discussion with various members comparable to preferences.

 

[love_the_life]

there are a lot of people out there, who aren't that bright & are easily swayed

But not posting on this thread. Everyone has quite strong views.

 

[andye]

I am potentially swayed but hope not considered too dim

 

[Pushka]

after she got free accommodation in like a granny flat, separate to main house, all meals, a car & petrol for use anytime she wasn't working & only worked minimal hours cos wife only worked part time, about 15 hours a week. Think the story said she worked an average of 20 hours a week & was guaranteed she'd have 2 days a week, when she wasn't looking after kids at all. So she worked on average 4 hours a day, 5 days a week & got all of above in a very nice flat in central Sydney & still got given $160, which wasn't subject to tax. Many people would like that arrangement & do it for nothing. Is that wage theft ? Probably not.

Why wasn’t it taxed? Aren’t all those things subject to FBT?

 

[ozfflyer]

Why wasn’t it taxed? Aren’t all those things subject to FBT?

you've go to be kidding ? As if any of that is ever going to be declared. Am sure none of it, is in writing.

 

[get me outta here]

All these appalling candidates who have to quit because they weren’t properly researched in the first. Its
it’s very disappointing that people are saying, ‘well they should be careful what they say on social media’. Actually, no what we want are people that don’t hold those views in the first place not that they savvy enough to keep it out of the public eye.

 

[Hvr]

All these appalling candidates who have to quit because they weren’t properly researched in the first.

And if anybody is actually elected and has a s41 issue then they should be liable for the costs of the by-election and not allowed to re-contest for Parliament until that bill is fully paid.

Make it like a Centrelink debt that is fully payable and the same follow up to ensure repayment.

 

[Isochronous]

Latest is that Labor not guareenting private health insurance rebate in some media outlets. Its getting to the point where financially I might be better working 4 days per week under Labor.

Labor don't believe in reward for effort or people striving for success. Independent self-sustaining individuals don't make for compliant voteherd who go along with whatever lunatic left policy they feel like experimenting with.

Wasn’t there someone in politics recently who only paid their au pair around $4 an hour?

Correct - holier than thou hypocrite Richard di Natale.

wage theft can be looked at in 2 ways. Know a retailer who's business is very seasonal. He employs 20+ staff for 6 months of year & works 7 days & for rest of year, employs 2 staff & only opens 4 1/2 days a week.

Awards simply don't work for this type of seasonal business, so he offers some of his full timers, time off in lieu.

He simply says, you can have as many hours as you want in the 6 months we're busy up to 6 days a week(he finds if anyone works 7 days a week like he does, their productivity drops) & then get time off in lieu, meaning they can have 6 or 7 weeks straight annual leave. He has a deal with some airline & offers them cheap trips overseas, which many take advantage of.

So everyone is happy, except strictly speaking, he's not paying by any award.

He doesn't keep records of hours worked on the premises, so no one can inspect them & he has to pay some of his casual cash, or they simply won't work. He suspects some are on welfare as well.

That's reality.

If it ever went to court re wage theft, his lack of records might save his ****.

Look at recent case of Flight Centre(FC). They were paying a retainer + commission. Anyone who was any good, was happy cos they earned much more than any award + lots of travel benefits. Anyone who was useless wasn't happy & should have been let go. They were the ones who had a go at FC & were small in number. So FC had to restructure they pay deal to satisfy the useless ones, who no longer worked there, no because they were sacked, but because they were useless.

Very interesting anecdote which highlights the way in which the Australian employment system is geared towards the lowest common denominator and not the encouragement of success.

think greens might be wiped out this election. Hardly any media coverage & some of their loony ideas. Good to see the back of Hanson Young.

That would be worth celebrating!

 

[get me outta here]

Well it’s probably not a good idea to let truth get in the way of a story that suits bias.

 

[JohnK]

I'm not sure that an informal vote achieves anything. Wouldn't it be better to vote for the best and most honest candidate, regardless of which party they belong to?

Preferences ruin that theory.

Plus Labor will win my electorate.

 

[ozfflyer]

Well it’s probably not a good idea to let truth get in the way of a story that suits bias.

it's the senate that counts not house of reps. Short guy might win lower house, but very unlikely to control senate (although unions/alp are doing everything they can to lose the election)

 

[get me outta here]

This thread has been hijacked by a coterie. There should be a special thread for the perpetually outraged, they must be exhausted. Any exchange of ideas has long gone.

 

[Isochronous]

it's the senate that counts not house of reps. Short guy might win lower house, but very unlikely to control senate (although unions/alp are doing everything they can to lose the election)

Very true - if Shorten wins government (as expected) but needs UAP and ON support to pass legislation that will make for an entertaining 3 years. Seeing him grovel to Clive especially!

 

[cove]

The way I voted in the Senate in WA.
I did under the line 12 votes.
I picked my favorite first four.
The next 8 I used the bottom members of the ones who have zero chance.
That way my vote cannot go off to parts unknown.

 

[drron]

This thread has been hijacked by a coterie. There should be a special thread for the perpetually outraged, they must be exhausted. Any exchange of ideas has long gone.

Well how about we talk about Shorten's climate change policy and it's cost.It has been costed by an economist at at least 264 billion over 10 years.BS tries to shoot the messenger but he has been used by the ALP as well in the past to shoot down coalition policies.
Every where in the world where solar and wind have high penetration Electricity prices are higher than countries where little penetration.
Countries whose renewable energy comes from nuclear or hydro have much lower costs-France,Norway,Sweden and even New Zealand.

Wind is definitely not scientifically proven as the best way to reduce carbon emissions.

 

[get me outta here]

Well that guy from BAEconomics’s report has been “shot down” again.

 

[drron]

Well that guy from BAEconomics’s report has been “shot down” again.

By whom?
The ALP.Doesn't count.
But I asked you a policy question.Do you believe wind power is the right way to combat Climate Change?
May i remind you about your complaint re this thread-
"This thread has been hijacked by a coterie. There should be a special thread for the perpetually outraged, they must be exhausted. Any exchange of ideas has long gone. "
So I am ready for an exchange of ideas.Are you?

 

[cwd]

Come on people, the discussion in this thread is filled with all sorts of baseless accusations, from a few players, and it's quite obviously almost all in one direction.

The report being cited assumes wholesale electricity prices go to over $130/MWh. The cost of renewables at the moment is probably somewhere below $50/MWh, and not much more than that with firming included (so no need to go down that line of attack). These prices have been going down quite dramatically for many years, while figures being talked about for a coal plant are over $50/MWh just for the fuel to run them. So unless a Coalition government decides to put our money towards building and subsidising the running of a new coal power station, we ain't going to see any more built. And anyway, since the carbon pricing mechanism we had has been removed, the price of power has increased, while our emissions, which were falling, immediately started rising again.

As someone in their 30s, I don't see the appeal of trusting a party filled with climate change deniers. Their policies seem designed to do as little as they think they can get away with, with much of it being a handout to companies who in many cases already have an incentive to implement the changes they're going to be paid for.

I don't believe anyone's actually suggested wind power alone is the solution to Australia's energy needs when combating climate change?

As for the rest of this thread, and super...the generation which benefited so magnificently from an almost limitless ability to funnel income into super at low tax rates (a mechanism no longer available to those of us working) are complaining because the ALP is proposing to not pay them back the company tax that was paid by the companies they own shares in? All so that they don't have to touch their capital, allowing them to leave it to their kids. Far be it for me to begrudge anyone their hard earned wealth, but sound economic management would surely be to target tax concessions to where they're most effective, not to those who'll live an extremely comfortable life even without them.

As for government debt, the shouting about it seems to have gone quiet while the Coalition's been in power, despite it doubling.

</rant>

 

[drron]

Seems you don't want a real discussion.
Just for the record when Mark butler dissed the Fisher report when in Burnie beside Bill Shorten he used Bill McKibbens 2015 report into the economics of Climate Change to justify their opposition.Unfortunately someone decided to ask Bill Mckibben for his view-sorry the report is 4 years old and many things have changed so it's irrelevant.

Now to the case against wind in particular.This is not done by any "deniers" but by Michael Shellenberger and James Hansen.James Hansen to many is the father of Climate Change first giving evidence to the US Congress in the mid 80's of CO2's effect on warming.They now campaign for Nuclear Energy and oppose the IPCC's position as biased against nuclear.

Top Climate Scientists Warn Governments Of 'Blatant Anti-Nuclear Bias' In Latest IPCC Climate Report

Some of the scientists most often cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have taken the unusual step of warning leaders of G-20 nations that a recent IPCC report uses a double standard when it comes to its treatment of nuclear as compared to renewables.

www.forbes.com

One of the reasons is that basically the safest way to generate electricity-and this is the real reason coal should go-it kills people.

How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources

Coal is by far the biggest killer. Nuclear is the safest energy source.

www.forbes.com

Many of those who campaign against nuclear do so because of money.

Why Renewables Advocates Protect Fossil Fuel Interests, Not The Climate

For 50 years, anti-nuclear groups have used renewables to greenwash the killing of nuclear plants and the inevitable rise in air pollution that results.

www.forbes.com

Renewables are both unreliable and dangerous for the environment.

Unreliable Nature Of Solar And Wind Makes Electricity More Expensive, New Study Finds

Solar panels and wind turbines are making electricity significantly more expensive, a major new study by a team of economists from the University of Chicago finds.

www.forbes.com

Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

Dealing with energy sources that are inherently unreliable, and require large amounts of land, comes at a high economic cost.

quillette.com

And yes there are many who say nuclear is just too dangerous.however they are the real; deniers of the science.
ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/13/mit-historian-alleges-united-nations-scientific-cover-up-of-death-disease-toll-from-chernobyl/#5fc52a526269

It Sounds Crazy, But Fukushima, Chernobyl, And Three Mile Island Show Why Nuclear Is Inherently Safe

Nuclear’s worst accidents show that the technology has always been inherently safe thanks to the high energy density of its fuel.

www.forbes.com

We have abundant supplies of Uranium.Absolutely criminal to be blocking it's use here.

https://environmentalprogress.org/the-complete-case-for-nuclear/

So the scare campaign on Climate Change isn't being run by only the coalition.BS is a master of the scare campaign.

 

[drron]

cwd the cost you say is the cost for renewables is the after subsidy cost.
It also doesn't take into account the capital costs-both wind and solar farms last well less than nuclear.
As well no consideration of the hazardous waste problem that is going to be immense.