Leaderboard

Meanwhile....Israel in razing buildings in Lebanon with impunity and killing masses of innocent civilians. Doing exactly what they have done to Gaza. More of the same war crimes.

I know you're coming from an enlightened place here - so if the best people were a mix of women and cultural minorities, with not a single middle-aged white man in view, you'd be fine with that. That's admirable and in that respect I agree with you. There's a "but" coming. Please bear with me a little as I try to elucidate my thoughts. Firstly I think that a mix of differences in life experience is hugely important in any senior role, especially government. Just like you don't want all Labor politicians to be ex-trade union bosses, and you don't want all Liberal politicians to be ex-IPA, I would argue that EVEN if the "best" candidate (and what does that mean for government?) happened to be, in every electorate, a middle-aged white man, it would not be a good thing for the government to be compiled of them. With the best will and intentions in the world, a group of men cannot make the best decisions regarding the welfare of women, for example. And the reverse is true. They simply do not have the lived experience of the gender to inform their decision-making. Something they consider a good policy, having considered its impact on the other gender, may in fact turn out to have a subtle component which is negative in the long term for the other gender. If there was someone of the other gender on the team they may pick up on it immediately and say "Hey - but what about..." Obviously the same goes for gay/lesbian (not saying you have to have a transgender person in government - but at least someone who knows what it's like to be in that non-traditional bucket), immigrants, cultural background, religion (including lack of). Secondly is visible representation. Australia is a multicultural society. We say that, but I think for many people they still think of Australia as a mainly white "christian" country. According to Wikipedia, northern European accounts for between 55 and 70% (the 15% who put "Australian" in the ancestry census question are probably mostly white). So at least 1/3 of the population is ethnically diverse. As for religion, as at 2021 "Christianity" was 44%, followed closely by "No religion" at 39%, then around 3% each for "Islam" and "Hinduism" and about 2.5 for "Buddhism". (I think I read somewhere that "No religion" had actually overtaken "Christianity" in a later census). Now obviously it would be almost impossible for the government to be a true representation of every ethnicity, gender, sexual preference and religion. There are only so many seats in each house for a start. But, I would argue that if 50% of the population (women) look at the major parties and saw 0 women in cabinet positions, they would probably think that politics is not a healthy place for ambitious women. Same for ethnicity/religion (and disability). If you see only white people in government, no hijabs (not including Pauline), no Jews, no Asian/Indian/Arab/Indigenous faces - then you would probably feel somewhere deep inside that you're not truly being represented. The (relatively) recent same-sex marriage laws would probably not have happened if there weren't gay people in Parliament who initiated, pushed for or supported bills. Of course you have internal fights and factional plotting. You mentioned Plibersek - pushed out because Albo doesn't like her (I think more likely, he correctly sees her as a threat). Same with the Libs. After a series of disastrous leaders (Abbott, Morrison, Dutton) they finally choose their first female leader who was probably the best of a bad lot, only to tear her down in 6 months and put up another useless twat whose biggest claim to fame was posting an applauding comment to his own Facebook page. Anyway - the point is, I think there are subtle benefits to having a variety of personal attributes and backgrounds in leadership groups. Sorry it took such a long post to say this!

I can't think of a single place the US has gone in to to protect their interests where they have been successful. Korea, Panama, Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan to name a few. The CIA has been involved in overthrows of democratically elected (mostly socialist) governments causing major problems resulting in chaos & confusion with thousands killed when before the US got involved everything was working except those countries shunned the US. Trump managed to pull off the capture of the Venezuelan leader ostensible to get control of their oil under the guise of stopping the drug trade, but the country is still run by the original regime and their military is intact. We have been pulled in to all the American wars due to treaty obligations. If it isn't in Trumps interest would the US come to our aid in a local conflict? Given his rhetoric, threats to pull out of treaties and threats to others I think the answer is a definitive No.

Yeah , exactly what l was thinking. Matter a fact the Alphagan Leaders words when the yanks went home, rang n my ears when Rump started this. He said the Americans have all the fancy weapons, but we have time, 100s of yrs if needed. Same thing again here l'd say.

I checked under my bed. No commies or yanks there.

This IRAN debacle will be the end of Trump at home as soon as boots are on the ground. Nev

Nobody would like to see Iran’s regime destroyed more than the Iranians themselves, but Trump went into this with no idea of what it would take to eliminate the regime and no thought of the consequences if he got it wrong. The outcome was entirely predictable had he taken the time to think it through. His military advisors, the real ones - not that idiot Hegseth, could have told him (probably did) because they have war gamed this scenario for years.

The USA has been screwing up Iran since 1953. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has repeatedly intervened in the internal affairs of Iran, from the Mosaddegh coup of 1953 to the present day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran

Damn those Russians! The very nerve of them. My internet went out yesterday, too. That war has got to stop!

Is that a good example of not endorsing or voting for a candidate?

This thread feels like an echo chamber. I think attacking Iran is the best good thing Trump has done. In all wars, the outcome cannot be predicted and you just have to act against evil when it's manifestation becomes unbearable.

I have never been married 😉

Also I was a casual polling clerk at a polling booth.. All votes are then sent to the electoral office where they are recounted. so with ballots with other markings than the actual voting, they may take a different view on their eligibility. I hasten to add, I wasn't a member of a political party at the time.

If you can clearrly discern the voter intention (i.e. the numbers are clear and legible) and it would othrwise be valid (minimum numbers next to names, etc), it is a valid vote. Nothing wriong with writing on the top, or bottom or back of the ballot anything.. At least that's how it was when I was a polling clerk. Sometimes a scrutineer would argue with us about whether it was spoiled or not, in which cae the returning officer would review and sometimes separate them out for the central vote counting team to deal with. That was in Vic but was the same for the federal elections as well.

Given I have lived in mandatory and optional voting jurisdictions, chances are yes 😉 In the UK, I vote regularly.. But not always. I have voted predominantly for the side of the divide that aligns with my values, but have swung.. less chance these days because of the way the parties have moved. I don't need to divulge much more than that unless you really want to know (if you haven't worked it out). Remember, as a youngster I was a member of one of the major parties in Australia; Was the president of my branch, a national conference delegate, and on the public office selection committee for the electorate of my branch. I consider myself pretty well politically engaged. The assumption you are making is deciding not to vote is inaction, and not a purposeful action. I agree, a lot of people who don't vote are likely to be disengaged, but a lot also are engaged - have looked at the options and decided none are for them. It does not make it inaction. It is an action to say what on offer is not what they want. I can't see what is wrong with that. I don't accept that it is better to vote for the one that won't serve your interests, but somehow is deserving your endorsement to be elected. If you feel neither of them would be good public servants. Uf you saw a bunch of plumbers to do some long term work and none of them were competent, would you retain them? I agree.. Deciding not to vote, however, isn't necessarily accompanied by whinging. Nor does it mean that someone doesn't try other ways to achieve outcomes. Or maybe they are just apathetic and don't care and don't whinge. Excpt for the whinge that neither is good.. Then yes, let your parties know they are putting up to you who are unelectable. I don't know the answer to your question. But the question I feel wrong. If only 10% of people voted, has the public given them a mandate to carry out their manifesto/policies? I would argue no (or at least, with such a low turnout, not without a huge risk to their next election chances). If I were just elected with such a low turnout (assuming an average of around 65% turnout in the UK), I would be very careful what I did in government, lest my time would be vry short. Also, parliamentary governments means that their leadership would be very weak and susceptible to takeover, so they would have to tread very carefullly. I am not sure where this comes from. There seems to be an assumption that where someone fails to vote because no one is going to doeverything that the viter wants. I can't speak for other people, bujt that has not factored into my decision not to vote. And while you can assume a certain percentage may have that approach, I would suggest that most who don't vote and aren't apathetic would not expect perfection and if there was a candidate that was likely to change things for the better for them, they wouild vote. We have seen this in the UK before with Tony Blair in 1997 that had the largest voter turnout in years, and with the previous election where people felt neither were really appropriate, where the voter turnout was the lowest since the early 1900s in the low 50%. I think this is evidence it is a ppositive action. Fair enough. I consider that every vote counts, so I take my vote and my decision not to vote equally seriously. The times I have decided not to vote have been considered choices bases on the candidates and parties' offerings at the time. If there are people se disengaged that they don't want to vote, then I don't want them to as they donot consider what they are voting for (some will decide to take interest) and will jujst follow whatever it is or do the donkey vote - as useless as not voting in that situation. And in fact can send the wrong message to someone who gets elected that they have a mandate when they don't. I consier this much more dangerous to democracy than a population of people deciding not to vote no matter their motivations. To use your 10% turnout scenario, there is clearly no mandate with such a turnout in free and fair elections. But if voting is complusory, and 90% didn't want to vote, there are two options: 1 - they spol the vote. Clearly again, no mandate so why bother turning up. Second option is a donkeyed vote. Well, the message could be interpreted as there being a mandate, as they took the time to endorse the first person on the list. That is much more dangerous to democracy to me than not turning up to vote.

I think this will go on for weeks and months if not longer. Trump has lost control of the war and despite all the destruction in Iran, the regime is now in the driving seat. The US knows roughly how much enriched uranium Iran has but not where it is, so that’s a big problem. Khamenei had issued two fatwahs in the past stating that having a nuclear weapon was not compatible with their religious beliefs, so it’s a moot point as to whether Iran would ever have developed a bomb. Iran achieved its goal with the threat alone, which was enough to get the West’s attention. Now however, with a new leader all bets are off. They apparently have enough uranium for between 11 and 16 Hiroshima type weapons, although not the long range delivery systems. That doesn’t really matter because they just have to set off one or two underground to prove the point. Trump could likely have got a deal had he continued negotiating instead of going to war. Contrary to their ambitions the US and Israel have not wiped out all Iran’s drones and rockets, and they can make more. They don’t have to import them. They have a couple of thousand sea mines and a fleet of fishing boats and midget submarines that can lay them. They have already attacked the neighbouring countries aiming to get them to pressure the Americans to abandon their bases, which may happen as it’s now clear the bases are putting them at risk rather than being a deterrent. The US and Israel are also at risk of running short of expensive missiles themselves pretty soon too. In the meantime Russia has stepped in to help the Iranians giving Putin a bargaining chip to use on Trump - “We’ll stop helping Iran if you stop helping Ukraine”. Iran has successfully bottled up the Strait with severe consequences for world energy supplies and other products such as fertiliser. The US and Israeli attacks on infrastructure and historically important sites is turning the population against the US and Trump in particular. Trump and Hegseth have got most of the US population offside as well. Trump has no off-ramp here and it’s his nature to just make a bad situation worse by never wanting to be seen to be a loser, but he’s already lost this war. All that remains is to go through the process of losing.

I wouldn't take a lot of notice of what Hegseth seth He's an ex-military Christian Funda MENTAL ist. This fight is Armageddon and Dog has chosen Trump to carry it OUT. What hope has the World got? Nev

They say he's been disfigured. Source: News video of Pete Hogsbreath news conference reporting the Kharg Island strike.

for a bloke that bitches still about been conscripted, you seem to love the idea of bombing peoples till peace breaks out.

Global Islamic terrorism needs to be eradicated. Iran is a good place to start, then Lebanon, then Western nations with muslim populations.

A surprising amount, i cant reveal how I know, but a lot of so-callled friendly countries are engaged in espionage in Australia including lots of industrial theft and hacking. Especially the current warmongers, they have even been known and proven to steal our passports to use for assassinations in the middle east.

I sometimes wonder how many 'tourists' worldwide are agents doing research. On each other's country? Spy vs spy ?

I am not sure of the angle of the question.. The POSC is much more than just picking someone that alings to the platform. In fact, factional differences makes it a delicate job. It is (or was) a vetting process covering integrity, capability, stability, commitment, tenaciousness, etc. And then compromising for local factional fights. An MP works awfully hard, despite the reputations they have. The POSC is not designed for forming policy. But as a delegate to the national (and state) conference, I was involved in debating policy. By then, it is really tidying it up and rarely generates anything material; that is all done at executive committees and sub committees. It still didn't mean I was less engaged. But, I did become disillusioned and left..But amstill engaged.

One of the problems of this form of communication is that it misses the subtleties of communication without adding emoticons, so pls forgive me if I have misread the tone of this comment.. But, in the great words of one of the actors in The Young Ines, I detect some sarcasm in that.. I mean, I could hardly post: if it did matter to me, could I.. welll without being a hypocrite, which is something I try to avoid. Note,I was writing this in the context of a comment that a percentage (in this case, women) being in government is (by itself) a good thing.. But the reality is, I could really not give a stuff is there was no white person (male of female) in government. I honestly couldn't. An the rest of the post showed you misread my post, which was the fact, by itself, that Labor has 50% women does not automatically mean good. Back in the real world, I would expect good government to be drawn from the diversity of the nation - and not in proprotional numbers of the population.. but based on their merit amongst the people available. If there are 20 of the 23 cabinet ministers that are women, or Sikh, or whatever, great, as long as they are the most appropriate people available for the job. You're right - what is the best? It's a judgement call, but promoting someone incompetent to make up a number because thast person happens to have a diverse characteristic (and by your stats, everyone falls into a minority group because there is no majority group being > 50%) is, IMHO, wrong. Do you have evidence to back this up? I am not being funny, but that isjust a statement of intuition. How do you know this? If the group of men researches and consults widely, rationally and impartially, maybe they can come up with good decisions.For example, when I was doing Criminal law last year, we had to research the law of coercion in NSW. While the women wer advocating for more money for battered women shelters, a man argued that it is the batterer that should be forced toleave the home and protection be provided, and the battered, who normally has kids should have the benefit of the home. Yep.. a man. Funny how it has since been adopted by women as the right thing to do. I don't want this to be a debate aboutj the battle of the sexes though, but as D&I training teaches us, we should discard our confirmation biases. Also, what good would a women be to women's causes if she is incompetent? Would rather have a competent man than an incompetent woman to deal with womesn's affairs, right? I gave the Tanya Plibersek example to show that, yeah, here is a woman (part of that 50%) who is very competent. For whatever reason Albos sees fit, he knows she has to be in the cabinet due to the potential threat to his leadership if she is not in there. But he is deliberatly taking what seens a competent politician (notice, I don't use the gender, or race, or whatever, I am worried about the politician) and not utilising her talents. That to me is great she makes up 1 of the 12 or so femaie cabinet ministers; it is not great he doesn't have the best of them doing the jobs most appropriate to their skill set.

Chat GPT is aware of the wide scope of citizen's backgrounds and demographics. Chat GPT has none of those pesky human weaknesses. It is pragmatic, purely running logic. Dispense with state and fed governments (esp their expense accounts and fringe benefits) - look at the instant boost to the national economy. Dispense with elections - none needed (except the occassional software upgrades). Chat GPT for E-President of the new Republic!

I used to blame the greedy telcos, but now I know it's part of the nasty Russian cyberwar. McCarthy was right all along.

They must be very selective. Mine was fine!

But how much input did you have on the Party's national platform? You role seems to have been to select the person who was most closely aligned to that platform.

How exactly did Iran's evil become any different than it has been for the last decade?

Jerry, I'm a bit confused here. I though if you write on a ballot paper it's marked down as informal. ie: you fill out the ballot correctly then write a message on it = informal vote.

The KC-135 wreckage has apparently now been found, and the U.S. military are stating there were 6 on board (not 5 as previously advised), and 4 have been confirmed as deceased. There is no word of any survivors, and I expect the reason is simply because the military still haven't found or identified, the remaining 2 crew members. I fully expect they will eventually be reported as deceased, too. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0dz5ql17vo

It will end up another Afghanistan, but with the added kick of causing a major worldwide recession. The Americans have yet to defeat any Islamic nation with a sucessful transition to a "democratic government" with free elections. They usually pull out after inflicting enormous damage, with no successful and thorough regime change, just leaving chaos and instability, as the country turns into individual fiefdoms ruled by warlords. This article below is pretty much spot on with its analysis, as I see it. The only factors that might make the country collapse totally, is a lack of water, and a lack of medical facilities and supplies. Tehran was nearly out of water before this war activity by the Americans - nothing will improve that situation, and a lack of water stops most human activity. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202602268309

Agree , Barnaby's always been a wanker .

I don't understand what th number of women, men, black, white, Muslim, jew, or swahili have to do with anything in terms of quality of government or workforce for that matter. You want the best team.. Tanya Plibersek is in the team, but I get the feeling Albo doesn't like her, so she is probably there because of her factional wars and not being utilised to her full talents (or what seems to be). So, that is a waste of a mministerial appointment. Claire O'Neil, in what I have seen seems to be completely useless. I could be wrong, of course, but from what I have seen, I wiould prefer someone better. If the minstry is 100% men or women, as long as they are the best for the job, is the important measure.

I always say, it only takes one game to win it. The guy that won the $50mill this week won with one game, lost with three. If you are meant to win it you will. Buying 50 games won't help if you're not meant to win it. You might pick up a small consolation prize, but probably wouldn't cover the cost of the ticket.

Yeah , the odds are buckleys and none for sure but l use to think well they're also those same odds for the one that wins it every wk to so yaknow, we've all got as gooda chance as anyone else is the way l look at it. Mind you, l don't even play it ha ha, haven't for yrs , thinking l might start again though, why not.

I well remember Abbott saying this: "Abbott claimed that the vast majority of Australians did not need, nor want to pay for, the high-speed fibre network proposed by Labor, suggesting it was simply a tool to allow people to watch movies." In 2020 during Covid fast internet was the saviour of the economy and many, many workers, including me. Today, many people work either full or partially from home, freeing up roads and public transportation and improving people's working lives.

Survival is NOT assured. Look what happened to the Libs and Greens at the last election. In the Lower house THEIR electorate decides whether they still have a job or not. The Australian Electoral Commission makes sure no voting Inconsistencies occur. It's an Independ body. Parties have Policies and if they don't implement them they are Judged harshly for that. The Party's members determine Policy. BIG contributors no doubt influence that Newspapers Big Coal and the IPA and Gina etc. Follow the Money Influence. In the USA it's Everything, but in the end It's YOUR Vote that can change things. Vote wisely and when fully informed and you will get Better government . Monopoly Media doesn't help. ALL media Barons have been less than Nice and they are in that game for the Power it allows. Not for Proving INFORMATION. Nev

And exactly how would you find out? Your only source of information is Chat GPT Google search. And A.I. has a self survival algorithm. (Just like our frail human pollies)

It's important to the comrades and that's why they have a quota system. They love their social engineering.