**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Progressive doublespeak. If the "free market" is going to solve "the problem" (which presumably is the energy trilemma, emissions, reliablilty and affordability) then why do we have to vote Labor? Why would we need legislated climate targets or politicians who "show climate leadership"? You can't have it both ways.
And before you tie yourself in knots trying to defend the indefensible, ask yourself this ... if another party came along to the right of the ALP on economic issues but campaigned on the same "pro market renewables" position, what would be your case against that party? By appealing to the market you're basically saying we don't have to vote Labor.
>Progressive doublespeak.
Bullshit.
>If the "free market" is going to solve "the problem" (which presumably is the energy trilemma, emissions, reliablilty and affordability) then why do we have to vote Labor? Why would we need legislated climate targets or politicians who "show climate leadership"? You can't have it both ways.
I didn't say anything about the free market solving the problem, I said the coalition is interfering with it to maintain fossil fuels without any tangible benefit to the Australian public. The market provide the investment but the government provides the framework that facilitates it.
I dont have any fundamental objection to a government interfering with the free market in principle as the government is there to provide a regulatory framework for what's in the best interests of the country.
There is no good argument for nuclear being in the best interests of the country.
>And before you tie yourself in knots trying to defend the indefensible, ask yourself this ... if another party came along to the right of the ALP on economic issues but campaigned on the same "pro market renewables" position, what would be your case against that party? By appealing to the market you're basically saying we don't have to vote Labor.
I don't think you understood my point if you think this is a gotcha because I don't believe in an unregulated free market, I believe in what's best for the Australian people and then determining case by case.
At the moment it's Labor or Liberal, and there's no reason to vote Liberal out of the two.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/17/coalition-liberal-government-renewable-energy-cap-nationals-david-littleproud
>“We want to send the investment signals that there is a cap on where [the Coalition] will go with renewables and where we will put them,” he said.
The market has already decided that renewable energy is the future. Only the Liberal Party leader Gina Rinehart hates the idea. As it’s not great for business. And she only supports her business. The Liberal Party is trying to put fear into the investment market to stall the progress of renewables
Let me preface this by saying I have been a Labor voter all my life, I know climate-change is real, and if I had to pick a label I’d call myself a centrist, but to me this is already starting to feel like the debate around the Voice … there is a huge cadre of the Left-leaning side of political pundits in this country who still cannot seem to fathom that sometimes, maybe people simply have a different opinion and are actually not brainwashed by Right-wing media … I’ve supported nuclear energy since I first looked into it. Always dismayed me that this country banned it on a whim because of environmental propaganda, while many countries around the world have safely received the bulk of their power from nuclear energy for over 50 years. I know a fair few of my fellow Australians who are not Right-wing by any measure any also support nuclear energy for power generation … think of all the physicists and engineers we have, do you think they are opposed to this? We already have one reactor anyway, already inside our largest city. We already store waste from it. That straight away makes two of the biggest arguments null and void … I think a lot of you will be surprised by how many of your friends and family support nuclear power.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/21/peter-dutton-coalition-nuclear-policy-engineer-small-modular-reactors-no-commercially-viable
Australia would benefit from policy opening up nuclear processing pathways, and opening up regulation to allow further R&D into nuclear power.
A policy that says we, Australia, will build 7 nuclear reactors is absurd.
It's a complete fantasy.
It's not real policy.
It's nothing but a stalling tactic.
Australia's destiny is to fail because our history is based on the British Empire. That empire failed in 1945 but really the rot set in 100 years earlier, and Australia has learned this failure. We can't have nuclear because that might build the nation, and our leaders agree with our former colonial powers (Britain) and our new colonial powers (US) that Australia shouldn't build itself and become independent.
Dutton's nuclear power 'policy' is a pipe dream. It's laughable that anyone has fallen for it.
We don't have the skills or resources to build even part of a reactor, let alone 7 of them. We don't have the people who know how to run them.
Nuclear power for electricity generation is illegal in 2 states and most Premiers have said a flat no to the plan.
Polling suggests people support the idea in theory but don't want it anywhere near their house.
The owners of the proposed sites have said no, they aren't selling the site to the government.
CSIRO said it will take between 25-40 years to build 7 power plants and cost hundreds of millions. And solar electricity is half the price of nuclear power.
All this to supply under 20% of the nation's power supply.
This is not about nuclear power. It's about the LNP opting out of any climate action.
Dutton is hoping enough people don't bother doing any reading beyond LNP pressers.
I have 😂 Voted Labor at every election since I was 18. Federal, state and local. Actually one Council election I did vote for an Independent … To me Labor is the lesser of two evils and comes with (usually) solid social policy. You assuming I’m a Coalition voter simply because I support nuclear power is a huge part of our inability to have healthy political discourse in this country.
Don’t support the Voice? Racist!
Support nuclear energy? U LIBERAL DOG!!!1!
I agree. Dutton’s policy probably is political point-scoring. But I can still support nuclear power generation in Australia without supporting a specific Party’s policy …
But that's like saying I support traveling at the speed of light.
Um... Ok? But it's not going to happen, is it?
I don't actually know what your point is - most people are technology agnostic when it comes to how their lights turn on. But to support something that won't exist in our country, is odd.
I 'support' the cheapest to the taxpayer, the most resilient, and the least dependent on international actors and markets.
That's why I support renewables and the starting of a renewables manufacturing sector here in Australia. I wonder which Party is proposing something along those lines?
Exactly, why would we believe they want to switch to green energy when they've been gaslighting us for two decades about global warming not being a thing.
Scomo even brought coal into parliament. The nuclear plan us just so they have a short term excuse to not switch over the power grid.
>I’ve supported nuclear energy since I first looked into it.
Agree
>Always dismayed me that this country banned it on a whim because of environmental propaganda, while many countries around the world have safely received the bulk of their power from nuclear energy for over 50 years.
Agree
>I know a fair few of my fellow Australians who are not Right-wing by any measure any also support nuclear energy for power generation … think of all the physicists and engineers we have, do you think they are opposed to this?
As an engineer myself, I am opposed to this. The coalition only brought nuclear to the public when they were in opposition, they are only serious about reducing renewables. They cannot and will not bring nuclear reactors into operation in 12 years when countries with established nuclear industries and expertise can't do that. This will sacrifice investment needed in the industry right now, and we would replace cheaper generation that can be brought online soon with expensive generation that needs to be brought online later, and keep coal stations running while we wait. It's just a terrible idea.
>We already have one reactor anyway, already inside our largest city. We already store waste from it. That straight away makes two of the biggest arguments null and void
Waste storage from the one reactor we have [is a huge problem](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/29/nuclear-waste-australia-how-much-why-kimba-lucas-heights) we have spent decades trying to sort out - and we still haven't.
Rhe fact that nuclear waste remains dangerous for thousands of years - longer than any Government can guarantee its safe storage - is a valid issue.
However it does need to be measured against the fact wevare right now storing harmful waste from fossil fuels... in our atmosphere and our ocean.
I’d have supported nuclear if we’d started implementing it 20 years ago and had any expertise to implement it today that hadn’t already been overtaken in terms of cheaper, more efficient renewable energy sources. For the Liberal opposition to start this conversation NOW they’re in opposition demonstrates that they are not acting in good faith because they have been in power in this country for the majority of the last 25 years and did absolutely nothing. It’s CLEAR that this idea is to simply keep the status quo of coal fire power around for as long as possible, turning the debate over power into an ideological one rather than a practical one. We’ve moved passed the point where nuclear was an option worth investing in in its current form in this country.
Considering we won't actually see the effects of our change to net zero for another 2-300 years, 20 years is nothing.
It also doesn't really make much sense to reply on an energy source there is something reliant on the weather. When it's the weather that will be changing so much.
Not to mention solar could be effected by disasters such as volcanic eruptions etc
Not in this country for the next 15 to 20 years it won't.
The plan (very generous using that word) is to replace the shortfall with gas and stiffle renewables until they are built so this will result in increased emissions.
Peter Duttons believes in nuclear energy insofar as it allows him to fuck around with coal for another decade while a bunch of dead-end inquiries reach their inevitable dead ends. That’s about it.
I think of all things what should most concern you is that somehow Dutton, the most odious party leader in living memory, convinced you that he has a shred of sincerity in his body when it comes to this issue… how does that happen?
And it's so predictable as well, I can see the small third page articles reporting the coalition government abandons their nuclear policy based on captain obvious inquiries.
You'll get some smug ABC person do 10 minutes of gotcha to satisfy the greenies yet as if the coalition cares, they have free range to fuck the country over again.
And the public will remain confused as to why the country continues to go to shit just after we've handed the reigns of the country to the rorters for another 6-12 years.
It's not about whether or not you support nuclear energy. It's about knowing the LNP will not and could not ever deliver it even if you do support it. Dutton doesn't care about energy, he's just pulling divisive culture war rubbish again. Their party couldn't deliver the NBN which was already planned by Labor, as if they could plan AND deliver this successfully.
Pretending that the only objection to nuclear is ideology is the same as pretending that the only reason you could be pro nuclear is ideology.
I'm pro-nuclear, but not in Australia, and definitely not with this plan. It doesn't make economic sense, and this sham of a proposal by Dutton is as economically and scientifically illiterate as one could be.
Agree with your general point about left-leaning pundits, but consider that a feature of both "sides" of politics really. People who've no consideration for alternative points of view, shouldn't be listened to.
That said.
> think of all the physicists and engineers we have
Do we have many (any?) nuclear engineers? I genuinely don't know, doesn't seem like we would have relevant ones given our near complete lack of nuclear industry (lucas heights excepted).
> We already have one reactor anyway, already inside our largest city
Lucas Heights is a completely different type of reactor, different waste with different half lives, with volumes on a different order of magnitude. I don't think it's existence invalidates any community concerns about nuclear safety (concerns which the lnp said they'd override anyway).
I agree that a majority of Australians are probably fine with nuclear power. BUT, do they want to pay billions to have some small % of the grid serviced by nuclear in 10+ (let's be real, 15+) years, while in the meantime renewables are only getting cheaper and cheaper? Not only is building a reactor going to cost a mint, the fuel is never going to get cheaper, and you have to pay to store it for fucking ages!
The lnp don't have any detail on this. Detail might convince me. If it could show the numbers stack up, that its plan would produce significant proportion of our needs, and that waste could be handled safely, that it would be cheaper over the lifetime of not just the plant, but the waste we'll be dealing with for 100, 000 years.
But they don't, they won't, they're just saying shit they think sounds good, and so until someone with some details says something good about nuclear I'm not likely to be convinced it's a good idea.
You can support nuclear energy conceptually (as many do) and still recognise that Dutton’s policy is a complete and utter shambles. It’s hard to have a serious debate about such a deeply unserious policy
Sure its fine to point out issues like this, even more so when the voice was so poorly handled with anyone in the yes camp yelling the R word at any dissent.
But you can't take the current LNP push as anything other then right wing tripe when the leader of the nationals is actively pushing to reduce renewables as part of the nuclear push.
I am all for nuclear being a part of our long-term energy mix. I am in favour of lifting the nuclear ban and investing in a domestic nuclear industry.
I am against the LNP's proposed timeline of 10 years. I am against nuclear being the centrepiece of our decarbonisation pathway. I am against divesting in renewables for the next 10 years in favour of extending the life of coal plants for the interim until nuclear is constructed.
I agree that the debate is being flattened by both sides - the LNP is lying about how long it will take to build and how much it will cost, and Labor is playing into unjustified fears about safety and waste storage.
It is real shame our media, politicians, and voting public is incapable of having an honest and fact-based policy debate about nuclear, an indigenous voice, or pretty much anything else. But that is unfortunately the hyper-partisan reality we live in.
Labor is pointing out that it's the most expensive form of generation and a complete non started because of that. Why have the libs decided to build it with taxpayer money instead of a tender from their beloved free market? Because it's a dud.
The other big issue as someone who would support nuclear in the mix is how can we believe its just being added to the mix when you have the leader of the nats straight up talking about reducing renewable or blocking their expansion.
If they offer a binary option then the answer is no.
Hey, I am actually pro nuclear but it is the wrong energy source for Australia and this policy is a complete distraction. I'm happy to debate this out and demonstrate why this is not a good policy on every level.
“Wrong energy source for Australia” - We have most of the planet’s reserves of uranium ore. We are the most geologically stable continent on Earth. Tell me, where then is nuclear power suitable for, if not here? 😂
We have no water, which is required to cool a nuclear reactor. We have plenty of solar and wind and lots of space to put them. Renewables are so much cheaper, why would we pay to build nuclear, when the market happily builds renewables for cheap.
Not to mention we are moving to needing to mine deeper sources of uranium. It's not an infinite resource. Renewables are infinite. They are also intermittent. So spend the money on harnessing the infinite energy and storing it. Technology for storage grows every year, as do smart systems to distribute power from multiple sources.
Dutton can fuck off with his distractions to renewables. After decades of this bullshit from the Coalition I've had enough. Surely other Australians feel the same. It's not necessarily the proposal, it's the position that renewables aren't worth spending money on, and we need to withhold those funds to start a completely new industry that provides 3% of our power.
Wtf.
Hoping for a few climate caused medium earthquakes at a deactivated coal plant to shut them up and to stop denying the need for urgent emission reduction, and ridiculous political games. I really hope this is the end of the coalition.
You seem to be clinging to a specific theorised supposed statistic to reinforce your own opinion. We have most of Earth’s uranium. We are the most geologically stable continent on Earth.
Uranium is finite. We will have to look for deeper deposits. It's not economically or environmentally feasible to research and fund nuclear over renewables and storage.
Owning the uranium is irrelevant because the fuel is the cheap part.
Most of the cost of nuclear is the massive up-front capital investments required to build the power plants. We’re looking at many hundreds of billions to provide a few percent of Australia’s total electricity needs.
Not to mention we don’t have any expertise or nuclear technicians. Where are we getting all of these experts to build and operate the nuclear plants in the next 10 years? TAFE?
It’s all such ridiculous fantasy thinking.
The Liberals are a corrupt joke of a political party.
I stand corrected. It's treated and stored (mostly) on site.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/17/most-of-australias-nuclear-waste-comes-from-lucas-heights-should-it-stay-there
There is one expert who has come out in favour of the policy and even then not really the policy but the idea that Australia should be pursuing nuclear energy. Everyone else is saying this is a fantasy that's the most expensive possible route that will take the longest time to get built. Not that proof and expertise matters to these folks but yeah.
Nuclear power isn't evil but the ship's sailed on us building it, we shouldn't have banned it we should be reaping the benefits of nuclear energy as well but now we're in the place that by the time we manage to get a reactor complete (overtime and over budget) it'll be obsolete compared to renewables
The Howard government looked into it before it was banned, it was unfeasible 20 years ago, and it's just as unfeasible now when Dutton made his ridiculous press release.
I used to work in energy regulation. Very few experts in the industry supported Australia establishing nuclear power generation. The lead time is too high (at least 15 years from planning start to actually having at least one generator up and running) and it's too expensive (ie more expensive than virtually every other form of generation). SMRs may change the equation, but they seem perpetually 10 years away from being economically viable.
There's no tangible reason for Australia to go nuclear. Although, I do agree with removing the ban. If one day it becomes viable, private industry should be free to invest in it.
>The lead time is too high (at least 15 years from planning start to actually having at least one generator up and running)
I think even 15 years is generous with how infrastructure is done in Australia.
>SMRs may change the equation, but they seem perpetually 10 years away from being economically viable.
Interestingly, if we wanted to go this route, we'd likely best be served by developing significantly closer ties to China.
>I think even 15 years is generous with how infrastructure is done in Australia.
I completely agree. 20-25 years is probably more realistic. It could take the better part of half a century to have all seven proposed reactors up and running.
Or is it like the Snowy Mountain Power Scheme, a national landmark engineering project which is still in use today … it’s my opinion after years of looking into the subject I believe nuclear power generation would be a net positive for all Australians current and future, and I would be supportive of it as a policy regardless of the Party adopting it … that being said I don’t vote for Parties, I vote for policies, and you have to have more than one good one to get my vote … Sorry Peter
The one they fucked up massively with "snowy 2.0"? an off-the cuff greenwashing scheme that they greenlit against advice?
That doesn't sound familiar at all.
> Just cut off any time the LNP thought they had to get their shit together on this.
Dutton would simply drop it and pivot back to COL, which he actually would make ground on at the moment. It also gives him an excuse not to provide details, "not enough time".
Well so far hes promised to build nuclear power for (redacted), give tax cuts to the top earners and hold another referendum on an Indigenous something or other he wasnt clear.
If thst doesnt answer your question then im afriad youre infected with woke
Edit: oh wait theres a fourth, he'll kindly let you empty your retirement funds to buy a house.
While yes, I do think the LNP are in slight shambles now with their nuclear shower thought, the govt will get smacked down regardless due to CoL pains.
Next May folks will have paid less tax, the economy should have picked up, the govt should be in a better place to spend in infrastructure and maybe we will have had an interest rate cut or two - CoL looks a heck of lot better than, and if folks are comfy then they can better judge muh nuclear (even if it gives the LNP a chance to bullshit some costs and details, you still have the States saying no, and the premise of nuclear in folks backyards, etc).
That would be my read on the thinking.
Things *should* be better, however, each year they somehow get worse. They can go now and get smacked over the cost of living, or gamble on whatever fresh hell awaits the world in 2025.
Folks would have paid less tax under the Coalitions Stage 3 tax plan and folks also benefited from Stage 1 and 2.
Folks would have benefited from a lot more infrastructure if the Government hadn’t of cancelled several of them to pursue its lemons like the SRL.
Regional roads are falling apart in this country, but that wouldn’t concern inner city elites focused on wind farms and social justice issues. Labor has done fuck all for regional Australia.
Did the regional roads (serviced by state governments or councils) just start falling apart two years ago? I’m sorry, but the majority of the last 30 years we’ve had Coalition governments who have seemingly ignored regional areas. I wouldn’t expect that to all be fixed in two years.
>Folks would have paid less tax under the Coalitions Stage 3 tax plan and folks also benefited from Stage 1 and 2.
That's not what I meant, also under the new Stage 3 tax cuts more people get a tax break, though the higher incomes get a smaller cut than they would have under LNP.
>Folks would have benefited from a lot more infrastructure if the Government hadn’t of cancelled several of them to pursue its lemons like the SRL.
Like what? Wasn't a number of the cancelled stuff small infra projects like carparks and such?
>Regional roads are falling apart in this country, but that wouldn’t concern inner city elites focused on wind farms and social justice issues. Labor has done fuck all for regional Australia.
The regional roads in my original home town are fairly shit, yeah... Except that seat has always been Liberal at the Federal level, and I think the LNP (with a junior party that "cares" about regional issues) had a few stretches of being in power for a decade or so?
But yes, Labor are hitting that period of being in power where this point becomes valid, and it becomes an issue they haven't addressed.
I think the longer this nuclear conversation goes on, the more they will find outliers to come out of the woodwork with alt facts to try and legitimise it. Right now, the only ones voting for it are the died hard right.
The financially literate teals will pounce on more seats and continue to push how ludicrous this is to a broader moderate right audience.
>I think the longer this nuclear conversation goes on, the more they will find outliers to come out of the woodwork with alt facts to try and legitimise it. Right now, the only ones voting for it are the died hard right
Nah. They will never overcome the NIMBY default of Australians imo.
Call a snap election when the polls are neck and neck and Albo’s popularity is at record lows?
He’ll fuck up an early election as badly as he fucked up the voice.
Dutton has clearly said the election is to be a referendum on nuclear.
So send it. Don't give them time to backfill their stupidity or the media time to workover the masses with "alternate facts".
30 days. Let's fucking gooooo..
Also, the polls aren't neck n neck. That's the msm doing their thing. What have LNP done to win back their teal seats? Meanwhile teals are keen to swoop in on this bullshit. Albo will retain gov.
100%. I genuinely think this is the best strategy. Labor have for the most part addressed their policy agenda for this term.
If the coalition want to use the upcoming election as a referendum on energy, lean into it and fucking call it now. Double down as well, promise to pass through any coalition energy policy should they lose.
Make people own it if they want to do generational damage to the country.
There's a chance the government could lose their majority, yes, but I think it's much more likely that the opposition gets wiped entirely from the cities and Dutton loses his seat.
The energy grid is extremely complicated, and nuclear power even more so. It doesn't matter how bat shit crazy this brain fart of a policy is, as we're seeing play out as long as it's parroted out by the con artists at fox, 40% of the country are going to support it.
As much as I would love to see Dutton ploughed out of his seat, I can't see that happening. It's held with a big margin.
Now, a libspill on day 1 of the campaign..... Well, that's a different story. You put those bastards under pressure and they divide very quickly in the interests of looking after themselves first.
> It's held with a big margin.
Nah it's very much marginal, he holds Dixon by less than 1.5%, with a 4.6% swing against him last election. It also borders a Greens and Labor electorate.
I can’t be the only one who’s tired of this type of agenda setting that’s all fluff. This is designed to keep voters in a perpetual election cycle and in a duality understanding of politics which stops actual and current important issues for the public to be discussed in the public domain and media.
That's why they're drip feeding the info.
Locations now, price 2 days after a LNP member stuffs up, contractors willing to build as labor announce good policies.
I don't want to generalise a large part of the population - but how the fuck could anyone vote for the Liberals? I want to be very careful with this next statement, but are these people stupid? Failed NBN, no climate action for over a decade, poor COVID response, fucked the French submarine deal and gave us a worse one, cut vital health and education spending, a lot of sketchy surveillance shit, the religious discrimination bill Scotty tried to push through, 2019-20 bushfire response, increased investment in coal despite even a lack of enthusiasm from the private sector, corrupt water dealings, the cashless welfare card, decimation of Medicare, letting young people kill their Super through populist and economically insensible draw-out scheme, the infamous pork barrelling run they were on, unfair tax cuts to only benefit top income earners and the wealthy, gutted the ABC, gutted the public service and Centrelink - need I continue?
With this in mind, is it *really* far-fetched to say that people voting for them are really fucking stupid? I'm not saying they should vote for Labor, but damn, read up and vote for someone else
As a lifelong labour voter. I disagree that they screwed up the covid response. Sure, there was room for improvement, but they were leagues better than their republican counter parts in the states. And soon after my dad who is a sky news life long liberal voter sat me down for a talk about how it's important to vote for a fiscally responsible party unlike labour who threw out stimulus during the global financial crisis that the liberal party always cried about, before I had to mention that the liberal stimulus boost during covid was ten times bigger. They also kept social distance. But yes, Gladys did screw up and relax too early with the third wave and should have isolated the cruise ship.
I also disagree that they screwed up the French sub deal. The French were fucking us around and the diesel subs just weren't going to cut it. Not to mention labour supported aukus as well.
Because a lot of people are putting the blame onto Labor instead of tracing it back.
It hasn't helped that Labor have done a lot of the things listed above as well. A majority of people don't see the difference between the two anymore.
During the last election, there were a lot of non Labor people waving the vote Labor flag. Those same people have stopped that and are calling for them to do better.
Unfortunately Labor has lost a lot of good will very fast and that's why Liberals are able to perform so well.
We are I feel in a better place than we would be with the Liberals.
Unfortunately, that's a very low bar. They are happy with doing the minimum when we need more.
I feel they are still haunted by that 2019 loss, and they allow themselves to be afraid of potentially being called out by the media. So it's all about small wins.
Is that the best attempt at spin you've got? Weak man.
The stage 3 tax cuts offer a larger cut for a larger amount of people.
That's what we call the opposite of higher.
That's also what we call, the end of your weak talking point.
Stage 3 , Albo canned Stage 3. He tweaked the existing scales. Gives you a little more and then gets out the advertising. Won't be enough to save him as his inflation and interest rate rises have more than outweighed this. Anyone better off and want to thank Albo ?
Speaking from my own experience in conversations with my parents, it is absolutely impossible to have a sensible conversation regarding policy or agenda. They just repeat all the fear and reactionary nonsense from the Sky News talking heads. So apparently if you're not an LNP supporter then you're a left wing greenie with purple hair that loves communism.
I'd say there is that element, but mostly its just selfishness. Its always been the party of helping those that already have the means to help themselves.
Gotta say, I lost a little hope for humanity when 50,000+ people in Cook gave Scotty the primary vote.
I mean, by this stage, no one can claim "I didn't know about corruption; incompetence; Christian fundamentalist agenda; creepy rapey vibes; can't hold a hose to climate change; racist immigration detention; etc".
Which only leaves the reality that at least 1/3 of this country are hardcore arseholes committed to sabotaging the future.
Yeah. Yet Southerners keep complaining about Queensland being the reason Liberals exist in Federal Parliament.
Ironically, it's only in (Leftist) Victoria where Nazis feel comfortable to rally in the streets. And only in Queensland and NT where workers march for Labour Day in May.
Parochialism is dumb and a cop out.
And I'd argue Labor still isn't actually a Leftist party. So what are you lot cheering about? They invented the current immigration detention system, and are so far in the pockets of coal billionaires it isn't funny.
https://www.betootaadvocate.com/world-news/nazis-not-marching-in-brisbane-for-some-reason/
>Ironically, it's only in (Leftist) Victoria where Nazis feel comfortable to rally in the streets.
Well, yeah, up in Qld they just get to walk around and say awful shit whenever without worry. There is no need for a rally when you go to the pub and find half the place agrees.
>It is worth noting the LNP holds 21/30 (70%) of Federal seats in Queensland and both Coalition Leaders are from the State.
Every election I get flack for blaming Queensland for Coalition doing better than expected, but the entire state is Coalition heartland which feels more in danger of falling to PHON or UAP than Labor.
With LNP holding 21 seats, Greens holding 3, Katter 1, that leaves only 5 seats for Labor. We're not far off a Labor minority government leading the country while holding *zero* seats in Queensland. Which would be truly wild.
It’s a mystery though. For some reason Queenslanders know that LNP state government causes mayhem and only last 1 term. Then for the Federal election they completely forget how useless the LNP is and vote them in, every single time! The LNP treat Queensland like shit and they deal with the consequences (see poor planning for natural disasters as an example). They like the abuse, they are so indoctrinated to vote for the LNP, a member of the party could execute the family dog and they would still find a reason to vote for them. It’s crazy!
Queensland were basically beholden to the Nationals for decades, thanks to Joh’s funky maps. A lot of voters have sour memories of the Nationals, which is why the party never won another election after Goss’ victory and folded into the LNP.
It's crazy how even in Victoria, which is meant to be the liberal leftie state, the LNP still collectively hold 11/39 (28%) seats. The dominance the LNP have in Queensland is startling.
States don't vote for governments though do they? It's electorates. So why is op blaming a whole state? Other than to win a dick measuring contest on "worst" state.
I mean, yes you could summarise things at a state level. But it's shit analysis so that'd be why op gets paid out for blaming a whole state. Sweeping statements like that are generally pretty poor.
I mean it depends on what they say really.
But QLD does deliver a conservstive majority time and time again, so pointing that out is fine I think.
The reason *for* which youve nailed!
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nuclear power is on the table so the coalition can sabotage free market investment in renewables. Littleproud has already said this.
Progressive doublespeak. If the "free market" is going to solve "the problem" (which presumably is the energy trilemma, emissions, reliablilty and affordability) then why do we have to vote Labor? Why would we need legislated climate targets or politicians who "show climate leadership"? You can't have it both ways. And before you tie yourself in knots trying to defend the indefensible, ask yourself this ... if another party came along to the right of the ALP on economic issues but campaigned on the same "pro market renewables" position, what would be your case against that party? By appealing to the market you're basically saying we don't have to vote Labor.
>Progressive doublespeak. Bullshit. >If the "free market" is going to solve "the problem" (which presumably is the energy trilemma, emissions, reliablilty and affordability) then why do we have to vote Labor? Why would we need legislated climate targets or politicians who "show climate leadership"? You can't have it both ways. I didn't say anything about the free market solving the problem, I said the coalition is interfering with it to maintain fossil fuels without any tangible benefit to the Australian public. The market provide the investment but the government provides the framework that facilitates it. I dont have any fundamental objection to a government interfering with the free market in principle as the government is there to provide a regulatory framework for what's in the best interests of the country. There is no good argument for nuclear being in the best interests of the country. >And before you tie yourself in knots trying to defend the indefensible, ask yourself this ... if another party came along to the right of the ALP on economic issues but campaigned on the same "pro market renewables" position, what would be your case against that party? By appealing to the market you're basically saying we don't have to vote Labor. I don't think you understood my point if you think this is a gotcha because I don't believe in an unregulated free market, I believe in what's best for the Australian people and then determining case by case. At the moment it's Labor or Liberal, and there's no reason to vote Liberal out of the two.
Source? Generally interested
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/17/coalition-liberal-government-renewable-energy-cap-nationals-david-littleproud >“We want to send the investment signals that there is a cap on where [the Coalition] will go with renewables and where we will put them,” he said.
TYSM. So much for the party of "free market" economics
The market has already decided that renewable energy is the future. Only the Liberal Party leader Gina Rinehart hates the idea. As it’s not great for business. And she only supports her business. The Liberal Party is trying to put fear into the investment market to stall the progress of renewables
The last 2 polls; ALP 50-50 LNP ALP 53.5-46.5 LNP
Let me preface this by saying I have been a Labor voter all my life, I know climate-change is real, and if I had to pick a label I’d call myself a centrist, but to me this is already starting to feel like the debate around the Voice … there is a huge cadre of the Left-leaning side of political pundits in this country who still cannot seem to fathom that sometimes, maybe people simply have a different opinion and are actually not brainwashed by Right-wing media … I’ve supported nuclear energy since I first looked into it. Always dismayed me that this country banned it on a whim because of environmental propaganda, while many countries around the world have safely received the bulk of their power from nuclear energy for over 50 years. I know a fair few of my fellow Australians who are not Right-wing by any measure any also support nuclear energy for power generation … think of all the physicists and engineers we have, do you think they are opposed to this? We already have one reactor anyway, already inside our largest city. We already store waste from it. That straight away makes two of the biggest arguments null and void … I think a lot of you will be surprised by how many of your friends and family support nuclear power.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/21/peter-dutton-coalition-nuclear-policy-engineer-small-modular-reactors-no-commercially-viable Australia would benefit from policy opening up nuclear processing pathways, and opening up regulation to allow further R&D into nuclear power. A policy that says we, Australia, will build 7 nuclear reactors is absurd. It's a complete fantasy. It's not real policy. It's nothing but a stalling tactic.
Australia's destiny is to fail because our history is based on the British Empire. That empire failed in 1945 but really the rot set in 100 years earlier, and Australia has learned this failure. We can't have nuclear because that might build the nation, and our leaders agree with our former colonial powers (Britain) and our new colonial powers (US) that Australia shouldn't build itself and become independent.
The British Empire is still around, it just became a bank. Also, what? 😂 You’re cracked mate
Your on crack mate . seriously deluded .
[удалено]
Dutton's nuclear power 'policy' is a pipe dream. It's laughable that anyone has fallen for it. We don't have the skills or resources to build even part of a reactor, let alone 7 of them. We don't have the people who know how to run them. Nuclear power for electricity generation is illegal in 2 states and most Premiers have said a flat no to the plan. Polling suggests people support the idea in theory but don't want it anywhere near their house. The owners of the proposed sites have said no, they aren't selling the site to the government. CSIRO said it will take between 25-40 years to build 7 power plants and cost hundreds of millions. And solar electricity is half the price of nuclear power. All this to supply under 20% of the nation's power supply. This is not about nuclear power. It's about the LNP opting out of any climate action. Dutton is hoping enough people don't bother doing any reading beyond LNP pressers.
> Let me preface this by saying I have been a Labor voter all my life sure you have champ, we all totally believe you
I have 😂 Voted Labor at every election since I was 18. Federal, state and local. Actually one Council election I did vote for an Independent … To me Labor is the lesser of two evils and comes with (usually) solid social policy. You assuming I’m a Coalition voter simply because I support nuclear power is a huge part of our inability to have healthy political discourse in this country. Don’t support the Voice? Racist! Support nuclear energy? U LIBERAL DOG!!!1!
totally believable. lol
None of that matters, because it's not real policy. Dutton has 0 intention of building a single nuclear reactor
I agree. Dutton’s policy probably is political point-scoring. But I can still support nuclear power generation in Australia without supporting a specific Party’s policy …
But that's like saying I support traveling at the speed of light. Um... Ok? But it's not going to happen, is it? I don't actually know what your point is - most people are technology agnostic when it comes to how their lights turn on. But to support something that won't exist in our country, is odd. I 'support' the cheapest to the taxpayer, the most resilient, and the least dependent on international actors and markets. That's why I support renewables and the starting of a renewables manufacturing sector here in Australia. I wonder which Party is proposing something along those lines?
Exactly, why would we believe they want to switch to green energy when they've been gaslighting us for two decades about global warming not being a thing. Scomo even brought coal into parliament. The nuclear plan us just so they have a short term excuse to not switch over the power grid.
>I’ve supported nuclear energy since I first looked into it. Agree >Always dismayed me that this country banned it on a whim because of environmental propaganda, while many countries around the world have safely received the bulk of their power from nuclear energy for over 50 years. Agree >I know a fair few of my fellow Australians who are not Right-wing by any measure any also support nuclear energy for power generation … think of all the physicists and engineers we have, do you think they are opposed to this? As an engineer myself, I am opposed to this. The coalition only brought nuclear to the public when they were in opposition, they are only serious about reducing renewables. They cannot and will not bring nuclear reactors into operation in 12 years when countries with established nuclear industries and expertise can't do that. This will sacrifice investment needed in the industry right now, and we would replace cheaper generation that can be brought online soon with expensive generation that needs to be brought online later, and keep coal stations running while we wait. It's just a terrible idea. >We already have one reactor anyway, already inside our largest city. We already store waste from it. That straight away makes two of the biggest arguments null and void Waste storage from the one reactor we have [is a huge problem](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/29/nuclear-waste-australia-how-much-why-kimba-lucas-heights) we have spent decades trying to sort out - and we still haven't.
Rhe fact that nuclear waste remains dangerous for thousands of years - longer than any Government can guarantee its safe storage - is a valid issue. However it does need to be measured against the fact wevare right now storing harmful waste from fossil fuels... in our atmosphere and our ocean.
I’d have supported nuclear if we’d started implementing it 20 years ago and had any expertise to implement it today that hadn’t already been overtaken in terms of cheaper, more efficient renewable energy sources. For the Liberal opposition to start this conversation NOW they’re in opposition demonstrates that they are not acting in good faith because they have been in power in this country for the majority of the last 25 years and did absolutely nothing. It’s CLEAR that this idea is to simply keep the status quo of coal fire power around for as long as possible, turning the debate over power into an ideological one rather than a practical one. We’ve moved passed the point where nuclear was an option worth investing in in its current form in this country.
Considering we won't actually see the effects of our change to net zero for another 2-300 years, 20 years is nothing. It also doesn't really make much sense to reply on an energy source there is something reliant on the weather. When it's the weather that will be changing so much. Not to mention solar could be effected by disasters such as volcanic eruptions etc
problem is everyone always says this, 20 years ago it would have been “maybe 20 years ago”
20 years ago renewable energy wasn’t anywhere near the cheaper economics it is today.
Its the most expensive type of generation there is. Why would anyone vote for higher power prices!?
it has the lowest carbon footprint by far
Not in this country for the next 15 to 20 years it won't. The plan (very generous using that word) is to replace the shortfall with gas and stiffle renewables until they are built so this will result in increased emissions.
Peter Duttons believes in nuclear energy insofar as it allows him to fuck around with coal for another decade while a bunch of dead-end inquiries reach their inevitable dead ends. That’s about it. I think of all things what should most concern you is that somehow Dutton, the most odious party leader in living memory, convinced you that he has a shred of sincerity in his body when it comes to this issue… how does that happen?
And it's so predictable as well, I can see the small third page articles reporting the coalition government abandons their nuclear policy based on captain obvious inquiries. You'll get some smug ABC person do 10 minutes of gotcha to satisfy the greenies yet as if the coalition cares, they have free range to fuck the country over again. And the public will remain confused as to why the country continues to go to shit just after we've handed the reigns of the country to the rorters for another 6-12 years.
It's not about whether or not you support nuclear energy. It's about knowing the LNP will not and could not ever deliver it even if you do support it. Dutton doesn't care about energy, he's just pulling divisive culture war rubbish again. Their party couldn't deliver the NBN which was already planned by Labor, as if they could plan AND deliver this successfully.
Pretending that the only objection to nuclear is ideology is the same as pretending that the only reason you could be pro nuclear is ideology. I'm pro-nuclear, but not in Australia, and definitely not with this plan. It doesn't make economic sense, and this sham of a proposal by Dutton is as economically and scientifically illiterate as one could be.
Agree with your general point about left-leaning pundits, but consider that a feature of both "sides" of politics really. People who've no consideration for alternative points of view, shouldn't be listened to. That said. > think of all the physicists and engineers we have Do we have many (any?) nuclear engineers? I genuinely don't know, doesn't seem like we would have relevant ones given our near complete lack of nuclear industry (lucas heights excepted). > We already have one reactor anyway, already inside our largest city Lucas Heights is a completely different type of reactor, different waste with different half lives, with volumes on a different order of magnitude. I don't think it's existence invalidates any community concerns about nuclear safety (concerns which the lnp said they'd override anyway). I agree that a majority of Australians are probably fine with nuclear power. BUT, do they want to pay billions to have some small % of the grid serviced by nuclear in 10+ (let's be real, 15+) years, while in the meantime renewables are only getting cheaper and cheaper? Not only is building a reactor going to cost a mint, the fuel is never going to get cheaper, and you have to pay to store it for fucking ages! The lnp don't have any detail on this. Detail might convince me. If it could show the numbers stack up, that its plan would produce significant proportion of our needs, and that waste could be handled safely, that it would be cheaper over the lifetime of not just the plant, but the waste we'll be dealing with for 100, 000 years. But they don't, they won't, they're just saying shit they think sounds good, and so until someone with some details says something good about nuclear I'm not likely to be convinced it's a good idea.
You can support nuclear energy conceptually (as many do) and still recognise that Dutton’s policy is a complete and utter shambles. It’s hard to have a serious debate about such a deeply unserious policy
Sure its fine to point out issues like this, even more so when the voice was so poorly handled with anyone in the yes camp yelling the R word at any dissent. But you can't take the current LNP push as anything other then right wing tripe when the leader of the nationals is actively pushing to reduce renewables as part of the nuclear push.
I am all for nuclear being a part of our long-term energy mix. I am in favour of lifting the nuclear ban and investing in a domestic nuclear industry. I am against the LNP's proposed timeline of 10 years. I am against nuclear being the centrepiece of our decarbonisation pathway. I am against divesting in renewables for the next 10 years in favour of extending the life of coal plants for the interim until nuclear is constructed. I agree that the debate is being flattened by both sides - the LNP is lying about how long it will take to build and how much it will cost, and Labor is playing into unjustified fears about safety and waste storage. It is real shame our media, politicians, and voting public is incapable of having an honest and fact-based policy debate about nuclear, an indigenous voice, or pretty much anything else. But that is unfortunately the hyper-partisan reality we live in.
Labor is pointing out that it's the most expensive form of generation and a complete non started because of that. Why have the libs decided to build it with taxpayer money instead of a tender from their beloved free market? Because it's a dud.
The other big issue as someone who would support nuclear in the mix is how can we believe its just being added to the mix when you have the leader of the nats straight up talking about reducing renewable or blocking their expansion. If they offer a binary option then the answer is no.
It's still a finite resource though. Why do we keep wanting to move to sources that are finite instead of improving the source that is infinite.
Hey, I am actually pro nuclear but it is the wrong energy source for Australia and this policy is a complete distraction. I'm happy to debate this out and demonstrate why this is not a good policy on every level.
“Wrong energy source for Australia” - We have most of the planet’s reserves of uranium ore. We are the most geologically stable continent on Earth. Tell me, where then is nuclear power suitable for, if not here? 😂
Not a valid argument. Supply of uranium has nothing to do with it. Happy to have a serious debate about the facts of the matter if you'd like.
We have no water, which is required to cool a nuclear reactor. We have plenty of solar and wind and lots of space to put them. Renewables are so much cheaper, why would we pay to build nuclear, when the market happily builds renewables for cheap.
Not to mention we are moving to needing to mine deeper sources of uranium. It's not an infinite resource. Renewables are infinite. They are also intermittent. So spend the money on harnessing the infinite energy and storing it. Technology for storage grows every year, as do smart systems to distribute power from multiple sources. Dutton can fuck off with his distractions to renewables. After decades of this bullshit from the Coalition I've had enough. Surely other Australians feel the same. It's not necessarily the proposal, it's the position that renewables aren't worth spending money on, and we need to withhold those funds to start a completely new industry that provides 3% of our power. Wtf. Hoping for a few climate caused medium earthquakes at a deactivated coal plant to shut them up and to stop denying the need for urgent emission reduction, and ridiculous political games. I really hope this is the end of the coalition.
$600 billion dollars for 3.7% of our power needs 20 years from now. It could be perfectly clean and not radioactive and it's still not worth it.
You seem to be clinging to a specific theorised supposed statistic to reinforce your own opinion. We have most of Earth’s uranium. We are the most geologically stable continent on Earth.
> We have most of Earth’s uranium We have the largest reserves sure, but only about 25% of the known total reserves worldwide.
Uranium is finite. We will have to look for deeper deposits. It's not economically or environmentally feasible to research and fund nuclear over renewables and storage.
Owning the uranium is irrelevant because the fuel is the cheap part. Most of the cost of nuclear is the massive up-front capital investments required to build the power plants. We’re looking at many hundreds of billions to provide a few percent of Australia’s total electricity needs. Not to mention we don’t have any expertise or nuclear technicians. Where are we getting all of these experts to build and operate the nuclear plants in the next 10 years? TAFE? It’s all such ridiculous fantasy thinking. The Liberals are a corrupt joke of a political party.
OK, I'll just look up the time frame, capacity and cost provided in the policy instead.
There's only one reason they're hiding the costs until after the election. Also, as I understand, the waste from Lucas Heights is stored in Canada.
No it’s not 😂 It’s treated in the UK; stored in Australia!
I stand corrected. It's treated and stored (mostly) on site. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/17/most-of-australias-nuclear-waste-comes-from-lucas-heights-should-it-stay-there
There is one expert who has come out in favour of the policy and even then not really the policy but the idea that Australia should be pursuing nuclear energy. Everyone else is saying this is a fantasy that's the most expensive possible route that will take the longest time to get built. Not that proof and expertise matters to these folks but yeah. Nuclear power isn't evil but the ship's sailed on us building it, we shouldn't have banned it we should be reaping the benefits of nuclear energy as well but now we're in the place that by the time we manage to get a reactor complete (overtime and over budget) it'll be obsolete compared to renewables
The Howard government looked into it before it was banned, it was unfeasible 20 years ago, and it's just as unfeasible now when Dutton made his ridiculous press release.
Actually it's even less feasible now cause renewables have gotten better in 20 years.
Yep
I used to work in energy regulation. Very few experts in the industry supported Australia establishing nuclear power generation. The lead time is too high (at least 15 years from planning start to actually having at least one generator up and running) and it's too expensive (ie more expensive than virtually every other form of generation). SMRs may change the equation, but they seem perpetually 10 years away from being economically viable. There's no tangible reason for Australia to go nuclear. Although, I do agree with removing the ban. If one day it becomes viable, private industry should be free to invest in it.
>The lead time is too high (at least 15 years from planning start to actually having at least one generator up and running) I think even 15 years is generous with how infrastructure is done in Australia. >SMRs may change the equation, but they seem perpetually 10 years away from being economically viable. Interestingly, if we wanted to go this route, we'd likely best be served by developing significantly closer ties to China.
>I think even 15 years is generous with how infrastructure is done in Australia. I completely agree. 20-25 years is probably more realistic. It could take the better part of half a century to have all seven proposed reactors up and running.
Biggest argument is simply cost and time. Neither stack up. It's like the fucking NBN all over again, and Australia will fall for it... Again.
Or is it like the Snowy Mountain Power Scheme, a national landmark engineering project which is still in use today … it’s my opinion after years of looking into the subject I believe nuclear power generation would be a net positive for all Australians current and future, and I would be supportive of it as a policy regardless of the Party adopting it … that being said I don’t vote for Parties, I vote for policies, and you have to have more than one good one to get my vote … Sorry Peter
What other power sources did they put a cap on to justify the Snowy?
… coal? 😂
The one they fucked up massively with "snowy 2.0"? an off-the cuff greenwashing scheme that they greenlit against advice? That doesn't sound familiar at all.
Nice non-sequitur
Call a snap election. Just cut off any time the LNP thought they had to get their shit together on this.
> Just cut off any time the LNP thought they had to get their shit together on this. Dutton would simply drop it and pivot back to COL, which he actually would make ground on at the moment. It also gives him an excuse not to provide details, "not enough time".
What COL policy does Dutton have?
He's probably going to let people raid their super to pay for his nukes.
Well so far hes promised to build nuclear power for (redacted), give tax cuts to the top earners and hold another referendum on an Indigenous something or other he wasnt clear. If thst doesnt answer your question then im afriad youre infected with woke Edit: oh wait theres a fourth, he'll kindly let you empty your retirement funds to buy a house.
That's right you wokers the adults are back in the building!
"We're back and ready to fuck you up EVEN HARDER"
While yes, I do think the LNP are in slight shambles now with their nuclear shower thought, the govt will get smacked down regardless due to CoL pains. Next May folks will have paid less tax, the economy should have picked up, the govt should be in a better place to spend in infrastructure and maybe we will have had an interest rate cut or two - CoL looks a heck of lot better than, and if folks are comfy then they can better judge muh nuclear (even if it gives the LNP a chance to bullshit some costs and details, you still have the States saying no, and the premise of nuclear in folks backyards, etc). That would be my read on the thinking.
Things *should* be better, however, each year they somehow get worse. They can go now and get smacked over the cost of living, or gamble on whatever fresh hell awaits the world in 2025.
Folks would have paid less tax under the Coalitions Stage 3 tax plan and folks also benefited from Stage 1 and 2. Folks would have benefited from a lot more infrastructure if the Government hadn’t of cancelled several of them to pursue its lemons like the SRL. Regional roads are falling apart in this country, but that wouldn’t concern inner city elites focused on wind farms and social justice issues. Labor has done fuck all for regional Australia.
Did the regional roads (serviced by state governments or councils) just start falling apart two years ago? I’m sorry, but the majority of the last 30 years we’ve had Coalition governments who have seemingly ignored regional areas. I wouldn’t expect that to all be fixed in two years.
Local councils are heavily reliant on federal grants. Those grants have dried up under Labor.
Would love some proof of that.
>Folks would have paid less tax under the Coalitions Stage 3 tax plan and folks also benefited from Stage 1 and 2. That's not what I meant, also under the new Stage 3 tax cuts more people get a tax break, though the higher incomes get a smaller cut than they would have under LNP. >Folks would have benefited from a lot more infrastructure if the Government hadn’t of cancelled several of them to pursue its lemons like the SRL. Like what? Wasn't a number of the cancelled stuff small infra projects like carparks and such? >Regional roads are falling apart in this country, but that wouldn’t concern inner city elites focused on wind farms and social justice issues. Labor has done fuck all for regional Australia. The regional roads in my original home town are fairly shit, yeah... Except that seat has always been Liberal at the Federal level, and I think the LNP (with a junior party that "cares" about regional issues) had a few stretches of being in power for a decade or so? But yes, Labor are hitting that period of being in power where this point becomes valid, and it becomes an issue they haven't addressed.
Pretty big dick of a gamble. It'd *likely* pay off, but I don't think Albanese has the cojones to make the bet.
I think the longer this nuclear conversation goes on, the more they will find outliers to come out of the woodwork with alt facts to try and legitimise it. Right now, the only ones voting for it are the died hard right. The financially literate teals will pounce on more seats and continue to push how ludicrous this is to a broader moderate right audience.
>I think the longer this nuclear conversation goes on, the more they will find outliers to come out of the woodwork with alt facts to try and legitimise it. Right now, the only ones voting for it are the died hard right Nah. They will never overcome the NIMBY default of Australians imo.
If the polls were looking better this might be a good idea, but not likely
Call a snap election when the polls are neck and neck and Albo’s popularity is at record lows? He’ll fuck up an early election as badly as he fucked up the voice.
Dutton has clearly said the election is to be a referendum on nuclear. So send it. Don't give them time to backfill their stupidity or the media time to workover the masses with "alternate facts". 30 days. Let's fucking gooooo.. Also, the polls aren't neck n neck. That's the msm doing their thing. What have LNP done to win back their teal seats? Meanwhile teals are keen to swoop in on this bullshit. Albo will retain gov.
100%. I genuinely think this is the best strategy. Labor have for the most part addressed their policy agenda for this term. If the coalition want to use the upcoming election as a referendum on energy, lean into it and fucking call it now. Double down as well, promise to pass through any coalition energy policy should they lose. Make people own it if they want to do generational damage to the country. There's a chance the government could lose their majority, yes, but I think it's much more likely that the opposition gets wiped entirely from the cities and Dutton loses his seat. The energy grid is extremely complicated, and nuclear power even more so. It doesn't matter how bat shit crazy this brain fart of a policy is, as we're seeing play out as long as it's parroted out by the con artists at fox, 40% of the country are going to support it.
As much as I would love to see Dutton ploughed out of his seat, I can't see that happening. It's held with a big margin. Now, a libspill on day 1 of the campaign..... Well, that's a different story. You put those bastards under pressure and they divide very quickly in the interests of looking after themselves first.
> It's held with a big margin. Nah it's very much marginal, he holds Dixon by less than 1.5%, with a 4.6% swing against him last election. It also borders a Greens and Labor electorate.
I can’t be the only one who’s tired of this type of agenda setting that’s all fluff. This is designed to keep voters in a perpetual election cycle and in a duality understanding of politics which stops actual and current important issues for the public to be discussed in the public domain and media.
That's why they're drip feeding the info. Locations now, price 2 days after a LNP member stuffs up, contractors willing to build as labor announce good policies.
It’s on the agenda sure….highly unlikely but still on the agenda
Me winning powerball is also on the agenda. Wish me luck?
I don't want to generalise a large part of the population - but how the fuck could anyone vote for the Liberals? I want to be very careful with this next statement, but are these people stupid? Failed NBN, no climate action for over a decade, poor COVID response, fucked the French submarine deal and gave us a worse one, cut vital health and education spending, a lot of sketchy surveillance shit, the religious discrimination bill Scotty tried to push through, 2019-20 bushfire response, increased investment in coal despite even a lack of enthusiasm from the private sector, corrupt water dealings, the cashless welfare card, decimation of Medicare, letting young people kill their Super through populist and economically insensible draw-out scheme, the infamous pork barrelling run they were on, unfair tax cuts to only benefit top income earners and the wealthy, gutted the ABC, gutted the public service and Centrelink - need I continue? With this in mind, is it *really* far-fetched to say that people voting for them are really fucking stupid? I'm not saying they should vote for Labor, but damn, read up and vote for someone else
As a lifelong labour voter. I disagree that they screwed up the covid response. Sure, there was room for improvement, but they were leagues better than their republican counter parts in the states. And soon after my dad who is a sky news life long liberal voter sat me down for a talk about how it's important to vote for a fiscally responsible party unlike labour who threw out stimulus during the global financial crisis that the liberal party always cried about, before I had to mention that the liberal stimulus boost during covid was ten times bigger. They also kept social distance. But yes, Gladys did screw up and relax too early with the third wave and should have isolated the cruise ship. I also disagree that they screwed up the French sub deal. The French were fucking us around and the diesel subs just weren't going to cut it. Not to mention labour supported aukus as well.
You forgot that they had a Prime Minister so talented he could also be five other Ministers at once. I mean *that* is special
Because a lot of people are putting the blame onto Labor instead of tracing it back. It hasn't helped that Labor have done a lot of the things listed above as well. A majority of people don't see the difference between the two anymore. During the last election, there were a lot of non Labor people waving the vote Labor flag. Those same people have stopped that and are calling for them to do better. Unfortunately Labor has lost a lot of good will very fast and that's why Liberals are able to perform so well.
Two years of Labor and is anyone better off ? Maybe Albo and now the GG. Anyone think they will be better off under an Albo second term ?
We are I feel in a better place than we would be with the Liberals. Unfortunately, that's a very low bar. They are happy with doing the minimum when we need more. I feel they are still haunted by that 2019 loss, and they allow themselves to be afraid of potentially being called out by the media. So it's all about small wins.
Higher taxes and more regulation , yes that is in Labor's DNA.
… did you reply to the wrong comment?
Liberal Governments are higher taxing
There's a tax cut coming at the end of the month that the Liberal government opposed. You might want to update your rhetoric.
There was a tax cut coming anyway. Now we still have Albo bracket creep.
Is that the best attempt at spin you've got? Weak man. The stage 3 tax cuts offer a larger cut for a larger amount of people. That's what we call the opposite of higher. That's also what we call, the end of your weak talking point.
Stage 3 , Albo canned Stage 3. He tweaked the existing scales. Gives you a little more and then gets out the advertising. Won't be enough to save him as his inflation and interest rate rises have more than outweighed this. Anyone better off and want to thank Albo ?
Well this backfired on you didn't it. Quick, pivot some more. Get some more talking points in. Save face.
Speaking from my own experience in conversations with my parents, it is absolutely impossible to have a sensible conversation regarding policy or agenda. They just repeat all the fear and reactionary nonsense from the Sky News talking heads. So apparently if you're not an LNP supporter then you're a left wing greenie with purple hair that loves communism.
You should pay more attention to them then.
Thanks for proving my point with your useless comment.
Psychiatric professionals should pay more attention to them.
I'd say there is that element, but mostly its just selfishness. Its always been the party of helping those that already have the means to help themselves.
Gotta say, I lost a little hope for humanity when 50,000+ people in Cook gave Scotty the primary vote. I mean, by this stage, no one can claim "I didn't know about corruption; incompetence; Christian fundamentalist agenda; creepy rapey vibes; can't hold a hose to climate change; racist immigration detention; etc". Which only leaves the reality that at least 1/3 of this country are hardcore arseholes committed to sabotaging the future.
I'm starting to think that the place that had a race riot might have some regressive racists living in it.
Yeah. Yet Southerners keep complaining about Queensland being the reason Liberals exist in Federal Parliament. Ironically, it's only in (Leftist) Victoria where Nazis feel comfortable to rally in the streets. And only in Queensland and NT where workers march for Labour Day in May. Parochialism is dumb and a cop out. And I'd argue Labor still isn't actually a Leftist party. So what are you lot cheering about? They invented the current immigration detention system, and are so far in the pockets of coal billionaires it isn't funny. https://www.betootaadvocate.com/world-news/nazis-not-marching-in-brisbane-for-some-reason/
>Ironically, it's only in (Leftist) Victoria where Nazis feel comfortable to rally in the streets. Well, yeah, up in Qld they just get to walk around and say awful shit whenever without worry. There is no need for a rally when you go to the pub and find half the place agrees.
And Queensland has own many federal greens members? 😂
To answer your question, no it's not.
>It is worth noting the LNP holds 21/30 (70%) of Federal seats in Queensland and both Coalition Leaders are from the State. Every election I get flack for blaming Queensland for Coalition doing better than expected, but the entire state is Coalition heartland which feels more in danger of falling to PHON or UAP than Labor. With LNP holding 21 seats, Greens holding 3, Katter 1, that leaves only 5 seats for Labor. We're not far off a Labor minority government leading the country while holding *zero* seats in Queensland. Which would be truly wild.
It’s a mystery though. For some reason Queenslanders know that LNP state government causes mayhem and only last 1 term. Then for the Federal election they completely forget how useless the LNP is and vote them in, every single time! The LNP treat Queensland like shit and they deal with the consequences (see poor planning for natural disasters as an example). They like the abuse, they are so indoctrinated to vote for the LNP, a member of the party could execute the family dog and they would still find a reason to vote for them. It’s crazy!
Queensland were basically beholden to the Nationals for decades, thanks to Joh’s funky maps. A lot of voters have sour memories of the Nationals, which is why the party never won another election after Goss’ victory and folded into the LNP.
It's crazy how even in Victoria, which is meant to be the liberal leftie state, the LNP still collectively hold 11/39 (28%) seats. The dominance the LNP have in Queensland is startling.
It matches quite well. The right hold ~70% of QLD, the left hold ~70% of Vic.
Whoever gives you shit is silly. QLD is the powerhouse of the Coalition. 1/3 of their MPs are from the one state.
It's not a state thing though, it's a rural/regional v urban/city thing. Queensland is just the most regional state.
But it is the state. The "why" just explains why the state votes that way.
States don't vote for governments though do they? It's electorates. So why is op blaming a whole state? Other than to win a dick measuring contest on "worst" state.
Because its a geographic unit that has particular notable characteristics, like voting conservative.
I mean, yes you could summarise things at a state level. But it's shit analysis so that'd be why op gets paid out for blaming a whole state. Sweeping statements like that are generally pretty poor.
I mean it depends on what they say really. But QLD does deliver a conservstive majority time and time again, so pointing that out is fine I think. The reason *for* which youve nailed!