All Activity

I'm not saying they are the worst government around, but are you saying that it is OK because there are worse ones around? I also think that the recent lies within the budget would have been talked about before the election. You are right that they may only be in for one term but they know that before hand and one reason for the generous pension schemes although its not as relevant as it use to be. When the pension was implemented people use to have one job their whole working life, not so anymore. I hold people in office to a high standard, but that standard is not reached as often as it should be. They do work in a media saturated society now so you would think they would be more honest as they should now chances are they are going to get caught. I believe they don't care because I think they are smart enough to realise this. The way some (all) of them act in question time when they get asked a question they don't answer makes a mockery of the whole system!

To grow wheat, you Need Moisture deep in the soil. Growers Pick the years they sow. You don't want rain Late in the cycle. ALL Farmers are gamblers. Nev

A lot of FILL and obfuscation in that answer. Transparency is what is required. I suggest there's no more corruption in Politics than most other things like Banks, etc. Politicians are very Public figures. I wouldn't like to be One and Have to put up with all the BS, Slander and lack of any private Life. Their tenure is only till the next election. You could make more money other ways in a lot of cases. They are Not overpaid . Nev

Are politicians worse than they used to be? The problem is, it often comes down to your own perception. I asked AI: "Are Australian politicians of today more or less corrupt than in the past? Is there any way of knowing if politicians lie now more than in the past? " There’s a frustrating answer here: we probably can’t measure it cleanly across history — but we can say a few useful things with some confidence. Corruption: probably less blatant than in parts of the past If you go back through Australian political history, there were periods where corruption was remarkably open by modern standards: state “machine politics” in parts of NSW and Queensland patronage jobs and contracts cash donations with little transparency ministers mixing closely with developers, police, gambling interests, unions, or business figures weak anti-corruption oversight Australia has had major scandals across decades: the Loans Affair the WA Inc the Fitzgerald Inquiry The big difference today is not necessarily that human nature changed — it’s that: investigative journalism is stronger and faster digital records leave trails freedom-of-information systems exist anti-corruption commissions are more common donations and lobbying are at least partially disclosed politicians operate under constant media and social-media scrutiny Bodies like the National Anti-Corruption Commission now exist federally, which would have been politically unimaginable decades ago. So in terms of brown paper bag corruption — direct bribery, obvious cronyism, outright abuse of office — Australia is probably cleaner than some earlier eras. But modern corruption is often subtler Many people argue corruption today has shifted form rather than disappeared. Instead of obvious bribery, critics point to: revolving doors between politics and industry lobbying influence political donations pork-barrelling jobs for former ministers opaque consultancy contracts “legal but questionable” conduct This creates a strange effect: fewer spectacularly crooked politicians perhaps but more sophisticated systems of influence A lot of public distrust comes from the feeling that powerful interests still get privileged access, even if it happens within legal frameworks. Do politicians lie more now? This is even harder to measure. People often feel politicians lie more now, but there are several complications. 1. We see vastly more of them Past politicians could make contradictory statements in different towns and there might be no recording of it. Today: every interview is clipped every tweet archived every contradiction shared instantly So modern lying is much more visible and searchable. 2. Media cycles reward rapid messaging Modern politics runs 24/7. Politicians are constantly reacting: breakfast TV radio social media press conferences podcasts That environment encourages spin, simplification, evasiveness, and talking points. 3. “Lie” is difficult to define There’s a difference between: being mistaken exaggerating changing position using selective statistics deliberate deception Historians can identify some famous past lies easily: war justifications broken promises concealed scandals misleading parliament But systematic fact-checking barely existed historically, so comparisons are shaky. One thing that has changed: public tolerance Australians may actually be less tolerant of political dishonesty now than in some earlier periods. There’s more expectation of: transparency accountability resignation after scandals evidence for claims At the same time, partisan media and online tribalism can make supporters more willing to excuse dishonesty from “their side.” The paradox Modern politicians may not necessarily be morally worse than earlier generations. But: they operate in a more media-saturated environment every flaw is amplified trust in institutions has declined generally political communication has become more professionalised and strategic So people often perceive politics as more dishonest even if some forms of outright corruption have actually decreased. A historian might summarise it this way: Old corruption was often cruder and more direct. Modern corruption, where it exists, is more procedural, legalistic, and hidden inside systems of influence. And political lying probably hasn’t been invented by the internet age — we just now possess a permanent searchable archive of it.

Overnight on Sunday we got about 3mm, but then the rains started during the day and kept up into the evening. I don't have a guage, so I can't say how much we got, but whenyou look at data from around about, it would seem that 30 - 45 mm was common. There wasn't enough rain to create running flows, but at least the topsoil is wet. It is too late around here to plant Canola and teh sub-soil moisture might not be enough for cereal crops. With the price of diesel and fertilizer, it is going to be a gamble if anyone does crop this year. One thing you have to remember is that, while you might get a good healthy growth of wheat plants, it takes a lot of water for those plants to fill seeds, which is how you get the tonnages you want from a crop.

So ... OME, did you get that drought-breaking rain? I see where Coonabrabran got 43mm, Dubbo got 30mm, and Nyngan got 50mm, so you must have had a decent downpour, at the very least?

What a lovely thought! Let's just hope the next White house resident is more like Obama, and not a Trump-like replacement.

One day there will be no Trump. What will we do with this thread then?

Who else would GET AWAY with such behaviour??? What a dreadful example HE sets. Nev

wille IIF you quote it you Own it unless you state otherwise. Siso, We have Far from the worst government around. You have to read a lot of rubbish to believe otherwise and there's PLENTY of that ABOUT. It's easy to just rave on with little facts to back it up. The rest of the World thinks WE are doing alright in the circumstances. That doesn't just happen by Itself.. Nev

Are you guys saying we should just accept that politicians are always going to lie for our benefit? Why worry about having election campaigns then. Do we just pick those whose lies matter least.

Not Elon exactly, but his old man Errol Musk. When asked about him getting his step daughter pregnant, he laughed and said "She got herself pregnant."

Trouble is, it's far more than that. The numbers on just about everything after what 4yrs of this one, , tell it all.

Not my saying, just quoting one.

It's far easier to count the number of times he's told the truth. You don't even need to take your shoes off.

Wealth accumulates wealth. You can't tell me Gina "earned" 40 bill. With that saying of yours, I'd be asking where the "someone else" got their money, because it was most likely them or their ancestor being a robber baron.

What Bl@@dy saying? You can find a "saying" for anything these days. Wealth distribution Trends to favour less and Less of the People, who all want everything done by the government but to Pay no taxes. Where? The TOP few % get the Perks because they can reward in kind.. Packer "said Paying tax for the rich is Optional". Do you want it Like Trump wants America to be.?? I doubt it. Menzies brought in child Endowment. Was HE a raving Socials lefty? A decent Civilised society doesn't neglect it's needy. Everyone should have access to Health services and education, Sewerage Roads and drainage etc. The Basics at Least. Nev .

As the saying goes, socialism works great until you run out of someone else's money.

" Trump will fix it" Remember?. A person who bears witness unto himself , cannot be trusted. How many Proven LIES now? Nev

Oh, how's that? I'd really love to know how the government works out who voted for them and distributes what it's "taken from everyone" to those people only. You've obviously lived through more governments than me, but I've lived through 3 worse governments than this - Howard, Abbott and Morrison.

We'll he's certainly leaving his mark everywhere, just like a seagull does.

Meanwhile, back in Washington D.C., the defrauding of the US taxpayer goes on. A famous landmark in Washington is the Lincoln Memeorial reflecting pool The pool is basically a concrete lined wading pool. It is only about 60 cm deep. To be honest, as anyone who has owned a pool of this construction knows, eventually the base cracks and the pool leaks. That is what has happened. The pool was in bad shape and leaking huge amounts of water each year. So it has to be fixed. It's a big job with realistic cost of around $US10 million. As with all governments work like this should be granted by tender. However, Trump had the contract made without going to tender. The successful contractor was, in Trump's intial statement, " a guy who's unbelievable at doing swimming pools". During his Oval Office press conference, Mr Trump said the project would cost "less than $2 million". But the project contract actually turned out to be for $US6.9 million ($9.7 million). And earlier this month, it was hiked up to $US13.1 million ($18.3 million). Trump's reason for not calling for tenders was that the job needed to be done as quickly as possible so as to be finished before the 250th Anniversary celebrations in July. A "no-bid" contract was given to a company called Atlantic Industrial Coatings. The contract was awarded under an exemption meant for urgent situations to prevent "serious injury, financial or other, to the government". Called out on this no bid deal, Trump wrote, "I didn't give out the contract, 'Interior' did, to a contractor I did not know, and have never used before". Then there is the colour. The pool's dark basin, a signature feature" since it opened in 1924, was designed that way to create the illusion of greater depth and a more profound reflection. Trump says the precise shade he has requested for the pool surface is "American flag blue". It's a big area to be painted and anyone who has painted large areas knows it takes lots of paint and the colour can change between batches. "'Splotchy blue' is how I would describe the colour," said Mike, a local video producer. Trump's chosen blue "is more appropriate to a resort or theme park" "Trump has shown no respect for history," said Mike, the video producer. A local non-profit, the Cultural Landscape Foundation, has filed a lawsuit to halt work, arguing proper processes were not followed. Trump is the "boy named sue".

I loved Xi's expressionless face when he was with Trump. Or should I say very expressive face. Every time I saw Xi's face, I just read, "If I give this fwit enough rope, he'll hang himself." Xi was the stereotypical "inscrutable Asian gentleman".

@pmccarthy , My God, that is one helluva lot of money and for what, what a disgrace. Media should be all over this stuff.

I can see the theory the poster made in the last point of the post, eg: "If One Nation had a candidate for Stafford, the right would have won this seat". No doubt O.N. preferences would have helped the LNP, but to get them over the line a One Nation candidate would have had to take almost 10% of the Labor vote and direct all those preferences to the LNP. Condsidering Labor already lost more than 4% of their vote to the LNP government, another 10% going to One Nation would be a big ask. It's possible, but still a big ask. I would think there would have been a certain amount of Labor voters prepared to vote ON if a candidate had run, but in lieu of that had decided to stick with Labor rather than vote LNP. The Labor opposition leader was on radio this morning praising their win and saying the result was a big wake-up call for the LNP government. Talk about a state of altered reality. Labor retained a Labor held city seat, but suffered a more than 4% swing away from them to the LNP government. Also it's very rare in by-elections for the sitting government to get a swing toward it.