Leaderboard

Jerry, you're spending a lot of time defending the indefensible. Saying that it's better to have a massive amount of corrupt behaviour because it's transparently visible rather than a small amount of hidden corruption (which usually comes out anyway) doesn't seem logical to me.

I'm trying not to fall into the habit with Google of just reading the top section only which is the AI response to the question. The reason being it can be quite misleading. Like Wikiedia, it's not gospel and is all about the source reference. I Googled a question yesterday and the two answers AI came up with were just posts harvested from a Facebook group. What AI was saying was just what some bloke on a FB group said about the subject. It might well have been true, but not a reliable reference source in my opinion. Wikipedia can have the same issues. Sometimes the reference, if the reader bothers to check it, can be just a newspaper article and a journalists opinion only and not established fact.

Which I don't really understand. I'd be interested to know which policies in particular people are having a problem with. From my perspective they could do better in a few areas, but overall they're doing a good job.

Problem is Marty, the polls are showing us that an increasing amount of people think we've already got that.

A circuit breaker is a very important thing in a circuit, but it doesn't do the work the circuit is meant to do.

Telling fibs again? https://www.onenation.org.au/issues

Nobody is just shocked anymore, they are always shell shocked. Which is a different thing entirely.

It's no news to anyone that One Nation has led the last three major voting intention polls taken. But I wonder how many people who have expressed a dislike of our preferential system and support for a first past the post system are starting to have a rethink now that One Nation is polling at number one on primary vote intention. There's arguments for and against both systems. The way I see it, with a first past the post system you could end up with a government elected on a fairly small percentage if we had a few strong parties instead of the traditional two major party dominance. That might be our immediate future, ie: an end to the two party status quo. The preferential system can have a lot more unpredictable outcomes, that's for sure. I was reading some of the views of Dr. Shaun Ratcliff, principal of Accent Research regarding preferences. He was saying based on current polling, what happened in Farrer could replicate around the country at the next election. Here's a quote from him: "In seat after seat, the Coalition is predicted to fall to third place in seats it has traditionally held, either on primary votes or it is pushed to third by Labor on Greens preferences, with Labor then losing to One Nation – usually on Coalition preferences”. That would mean One Nation defeating Labor candidates with the unintentional help of the Greens. This is my interpretation of that if I'm correct - in a four cornered contest between Liberal, Labor, One Nation and Greens, the Greens get knocked out first and Labor gets most of their preferences, pushing the Liberals to third place. It's then a contest between Labor and One Nation, and if One Nation polls well on the primaries, they pick up the Liberal preferences to top Labor. I think either way, it would be Labor with Green preferences against either One nation with Liberal preferences or Liberal with One Nation preferences. Dr. Ratcliff said the effect can magnify a small change in primary vote into a large difference in outcome. He said: “A Coalition primary vote that was just a few points higher would win considerably more seats,”. Round about now, Albo might be checking his wardrobe to see if he's still got those brown cord pants. He'd certainly be hoping for a big turnaround in the next six months or time will be running out to do it. I think the government knows that momentum will be their enemy if they don't stop it, and stop it soon.

It's always the price they pay for being in the hot seat. When things aren't good, they're the ones caught in the headlights.

The uncontrolled immigration started under Malcolm Fraser and a Liberal Govt in 1976, when he let "refugees" from Lebanons civil war into Australia with inadequate background checks - against Immigration laws and regulations and against the advice of the Immigration Dept. It was called "The Lebanon Concession". "The Lebanon Concession" was an Australian immigration policy introduced in 1976 by Malcolm Fraser's government that temporarily relaxed standard migration criteria for thousands of Lebanese civilians fleeing the country's civil war. The policy allowed many Lebanese nationals - often categorized as "quasi-refugees" because they were escaping civil conflict rather than direct state persecution - to enter Australia without the usual requirements for employment skills, language, or assimilation ability. Implemented in response to advocacy by influential Christian leaders and the worsening humanitarian situation, the policy resulted in the arrival of roughly 20,000 Lebanese immigrants between 1975 and 1980. Prior to the concession, Australia's Lebanese community was predominantly Christian. The relaxed criteria inadvertently facilitated the arrival of a significant number of Muslim Lebanese from rural backgrounds, who made up just under half of the arrivals. Many of these new migrants settled in south-western Sydney (such as Lakemba and Arncliffe), utilizing family reunion provisions in later years to establish a major, enduring community. The Fraser government abandoned the concession in late 1976 after immigration officials raised concerns that many entrants were illiterate, and admitted without sufficient regard to "economic viability, personal qualities, or capacity for successful settlement". What is not stated that a large percentage of these Lebanese immigrants were criminals.

Talking about perceptions, my perception is that the federal government is the worst we have had in my lifetime. And that includes Whitlam, who I had voted for. Each of us has our perception based on what we see and read; we draw our own conclusions based on experience. I don't mind people having an opposite perception, it just means that I disagree with them. I don't have to shout at them or be rude.

For your information Nev, the Redbridge group poll showed a better result for One Nation and a worse result for Labor than the Newspoll. So who's Redbridge's Director of Strategy and Analytics? It's Kos Samaras, former Victorian Labor strategist. Murdoch and Sky, crikey Nev, wake up to yourself. You're so blinkered you're becoming delusional.

One Nation won't do that, it would be a grave mistake. But if they do, I'll stop supporting ON

Not everyone sees it or perceives it as you do Marty. There will always be two ways to look at it. That's why we have two sides of politics and governments change.

Also Marty, if you think about it, if enough people thought we had competent government making decisions in the best interest of the people, Labor's opinion polling figures wouldn't be at an historic low and still on a downward direction.

I seem to remember that's why Trump (and brexit) happened. The risk being, of course, that your protest vote leads to an incompetent government, and / or one that doesn't make decisions in the best interest of the people.

I thought that big fat grub, Clive Palmer, had disappeared off the political scene, with my unreliable memory recalling that he said he was done with politics at the last election, where his party got hammered. But this morning, I got a flyer in the letterbox from Clives Party, like they're on the campaign trail again? Turns out, he's re-registered the United Australia Party again, after burying his Trumpet of Patriots Party unceremoniously, so he IS on the campaign trail again. He's talking about spending billions on advertising, to ensure he wins the next election. He obviously believes his money can buy every Australian, same as it does in America. I've got some news for him, he may waste a lot of his money again to achieve very little again, politically.

And there's the rub for the government. Increasingly less and less people think they are providing wise governance. What's behind the swing to One Nation is that a lot of people are increasingly feeling like the government and opposition have failed badly and they've had enough and want a circuit breaker. It's like a mild form of anarchy; tear down the house and start again type of mood.

Thanks for bringing me up to date.

It used to be that Americans held their President in the highest regard and showed the greatest of respect. Trump has caused those things to be abandoned. He's attending a basketball Grand Final in New York, and instead of being cheered by one and all, he is being booed unanamously. We all love sport grand finals. By deciding to attend this one, Trump has prevented thousands of fans from enjoying the experience. The comom fan has been barred from going near the venue, or to participate in the parties that are part and parcel of the event. It's probably made worse by the fact that the New York team hasn't been in these finals for years. A lot of us know what it feels like when your underdog team finally makes it to the top. To paraphrase England's King Henry II, "Who will rid us of this turbulent pest?"

Who says that it can't happen again? Ther power was always there in the Constitution, it just wasn't used before. That's the reason we have out Head of State as we do.

The GG won't be dismissing any gov't. That was a unique response to the Frazer Gov't blocking supply. I agree with the Rest of your post. Hanson's problem will be internal stability and operating without breaking any laws. Nev

A government in the current political climate is fighting battles on many fronts. Its first duty is to provide wise governance. To do that it has to deal with a global economy that is shivering with fright because of the actions of the USA. That means it has to deal with cost-of-living. It also has to deal with what people are saying about the causes. One of those that people are saying is immigration. It would be a very brave government that shut the doors to immigration. I could list a whole heap of reasons, but you can fill the list from your own experiences. The next battle is dealing with how it responds to the murmerings of disquiet the people are making. It is clear to see why ON is proving popular. It provides an outlet for complaining. The unfortunate thing that I see is that ON has no documented policies. Also, the candidates it puts up have no experience in governing. The other three major Parties at least have that experience. The way I see it, if ON won government, we would end up in a pretty poor position. The question is: would the Govenor-General dismiss a ON government?

I don't think I'd like to make a prediction on what will happen in almost two years time. People lost a lot of faith in opinion polls when they got it completely wrong in the Shorten lost election. The party faithful at party election HQ were popping the champagne before the polls were closed, and an hour later they looked shell shocked. The thing is, that election was all about the two major parties and now something else entirely is happening. I don't live in a political monoculture as far as friends and people in general that I know. I've got close friends that vote Green and close friends who are paid up One Nation party members, so from one end of the spectrum to the other. But for the last few months it seems like everywhere I go I'm hearing stuff that looks good for One Nation and bad for Labor. The only prediction that I'd be game to make is that the coalition will preference One Nation, which is not good for Labor. In the past, the coalition has preferenced away from One Nation to try to extinct them as conservative competition. It's too late to do that now and if they did they'd just lose more base and wouldn't have enough support in the centre to survive.

Like Arte Johnson as the letch and Ruth Buzzi as the frump in Rowan and MArtin's Laugh In. The letch sidles up to the frump and asks "Do you believe in the Hereafter? Then you know what I'm here after."

I'm doing a lot of thinking about the Hereafter. I go to a cupboard and think, "What am I here after?"

It's been a long, long time since I could wake up on saturday morning and wonder idly, 'I wonder what I'll do today?'.

Isn't that where your wife writes it for you?

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but.... The very first task that AI should complete successfully is to redesign itself to use far less electricity and no water. If it can't solve that problem, why should we trust it to do anything else?

I'm writing a book. It's all about things I should do. It's called 'Oughtobiography'

This is the satirical headline story from the Bell Tower Times - Perths equivalent of The Onion. The bloke may not be familiar to East Coasters - but he's John Hughes, W.A.'s longest-lived car dealer, and a legend in W.A. He turned 90 last December, and still runs personalised TV ads and asks car buyers to call him personally, and regularly states, he's "W.A.'s most trusted car dealer". He's also Alan Bonds BIL. Yes, THAT Alan Bond. But John Hughes has managed to evade any of the Alan Bond taint, in his business dealings.