Leaderboard

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!

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

There's always necessary exceptions to that. Gun laws is just one of them. There's plenty of others.

Just to clarify the above post, I'm not suggesting the Government has suddenly dreamed up these changes as a knee jerk reaction to current polling. I'm sure they would have long been there on the backburner as alternative policy, well before the election. Like a wish list to try to introduce when the time was right. But I doubt they went into last year's election denying they would introduce these changes, while knowing all along they were going to.

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.

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.

This is an interesting read. Stick with it, it's long but puts it all in perspective. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/may/17/america-china-energy-oil-renewables

Good article by Saul Eslake correcting some misinformation that's doing the rounds about Jim Chalmers' budget. I think it's a step in the right direction, and good on them for having the courage. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2026/may/19/death-tax-startups-and-a-rent-spike-its-time-to-correct-misleading-claims-about-labors-budget

I grew up on a wheat farm but certainly wouldn't like to be doing it these days. Dryland cropping was always a gamble with nature, but a lot more so these days with high input costs. A mate of mine recently sold his farm and retired to town. It was only a small place, 700 acres of cultivation, and he would plant the whole place to barley if he got a favourable season, and no summer crop at all. He was more of an opportunity farmer. Both he and his wife worked off farm and they would plant the whole block out if they got the rain, or if not, just rely on their off farm job income. Sometimes they would go two or three years without a crop in dry times. Back when we were kids, that block supported a family of four kids but you'd need two or three times that acerage to do it now. Most farms in that district have all been amalgamated into bigger holdings now. They were all just separate soldier settler blocks when I was there.

There are a few examples of the unfairness of retrospectivity in leglislation. The various state's cultural heritage acts are an example. People in one state were immediately criminalised for something that's legal in other states due to introduced leglislation being retrospective.

Some of this stuff is very Long term and hard to re run. The time is Not there. It's not fair make something illegal today that wasn't yesterday and retrospectively apply it. . Nev

One of the Beetoota Advocate's satirical headlines, referring to grandfathering of leglislation: ' Labor To Finally Even The Playing Field For Younger Australians By Stopping Future Generations From Using The Tax Loopholes That Boomers Will Be Allowed To Keep Using'.

Just to clarify the above, he sued the IRS for not doing enough to stop his tax returns from being released. Very hard to see how that was worth $10B.

That's always possible, but I really doubt they went to the election intending to deceive voters. Stemming the exit of a lot of their younger voters has more to do with the broken word. For Labor, going back on their word is probably seen as the least damaging option compared to losing a lot of Gen X and younger voters. Their polling is sending them a message that it's not only the coalition that stands to lose by the surge in support for One Nation. The intergenerational inequity they are talking about constantly these days existed before the last federal election when they ruled out the changes they are now introducing. At that election One Nation polled about 6% and a lot has changed since then with almost one in four voters expressing support in polls. Among males in their thirties, that number rises to one in three. That's a lot for Labor to digest and the political expediency of stemming the flow outweighs the damage caused by breaking their word in their way of thinking. They're smart enough to know they can't stay in power without the vote of aspirational young people, and the budget is a big gamble that they're hoping won't backfire on them. Time will tell on that one.

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

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?

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

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.

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".

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.

In October 2024 Anthony Albanese bought a $4.3 million clifftop property at Copacabana on the NSW Central Coast. The main access road to the area is Avoca Drive. Back in January 2023 Albanese had personally announced 70 million dollars in federal funding for upgrades to Avoca Drive on top of the 30 million Labor had already promised during the 2022 election campaign. The federal contribution totalled 100 million dollars with NSW adding another 30 million on top of that. Senator Gerard Rennick moved Senate motions demanding the business case and the correspondence behind the decision. The government confirmed the Commonwealth had produced no federal business case of its own and had relied entirely on NSW assessments. When the Senate asked for the correspondence between the federal and NSW governments Infrastructure Minister Catherine King refused to release it citing Commonwealth state relations concerns. One hundred million dollars for a road on the Central Coast with no federal business case and the paperwork hidden from the Senate. But no money to finish the freight backbone of the country.

Angus is a dope. He stuffed up Big getting rid of LEY.. Nev

l reckon if Angus wants a real shot he better back right off on their shutting down the net zero thing. How could they not realize that after Duttons disaster.

Doesn't sound as if we are Missing MUCH. Nev.

l reckon there's racism going on in Trumps Obama thing too and his mate Putin didn't like him either. Putin literally smirked when he first met Obama and wouldn't even look at him, saw the clip. But funny, saw a clip of Obama from just over the wkend seems as Trump was ranting again. Obama chuckles and says, yeah, think l trigger him 🤣 He said it with such a couldn't giva fk it was just a classic.

Tesla shareholders have approved a $1 trillion pay package for Musk as CEO. I listened to some idiot American justifying this. "But one of the conditions is that he raise the share cap to $7 trillion. So if he increases the value to that and only wants $1 trillion in return, I think it's worth it!" I have real problems with this for a number of reasons. Firstly, no person, however brilliant, is worth $1 billion let alone 1000 times that. This spanker was talking about Musk like he was some kind of genius. "He didn't improve things. He made things out of thin air!" What, like rockets? Yeah I think Werner was doing that in WW2. Electric cars? Not a new thing. Yes he did some good in pushing them into public consciousness but now his product is done better and cheaper by the Chinese. Robotaxis? Well, his don't work very well, whereas Waymo or whoever they are do. So not sure how that's a world leading step by him. Cybertrucks? Please. Pile of shit that he has to sell to his own companies because no one else wants them. Humanoid robots? Again, done much better by the Chinese. Secondly - it's grotesque. He's already a half-trillionaire. He cannot physically spend all his money in the rest of his life. So why? The American idiot was saying it's "recognition". You can recognise someone's achievements without giving them the GDP of an average sized country to do it. Imagine what a trillion US dollars could do in fighting disease, spreading education, health, vaccines in poor countries, improved sanitation, etc etc. Instead it's given to one man who will probably spend vast amounts destroying democracy. Thirdly - what is the message this gives to other CEO's? "Hey, how come he gets that much? My company is bigger than Tesla. I deserve that too!" So now the already bloated CEO class will be crying poor and agitating for bigger salaries. And we already know that they don't just get bonuses when their companies do well. They can make absolutely stupid mistakes, drive the share price down and still walk away with their massive bonuses. Billie Eilish had it right the other day. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/05/billie-eilish-billionaires-super-rich To summarise, she gave away $11m of her own money to help fight hunger and said "Love you all, but there’s a few people in here that have a lot more money than me. If you’re a billionaire, why are you a billionaire? No hate, but yeah, give your money away, shorties." It's a good question. Why are there billionaires? They didn't earn it, they don't need it, they can't spend it all, and it would be far better for everyone if it was given to the poorest people on Earth. And if billionaires shouldn't exist, that goes a thousand times more for trillionaires.

He's just dropped his $10B lawsuit against the IRS for releasing his tax return information a few years ago. He's withdrawn it `with prejudice' just ahead of the deadline so that the judge in the case can't dig any further into his dubious legal justification for bringing the case in the first place. In fact, she had already gone and obtained opinions from three independent legal firms that basically said that Trump didn't have a leg to stand on, so she could probably have gone after him for bringing a frivolous case or some other contempt charge. If he had withdrawn it `without prejudice', she could have pursued it further. In fact the IRS didn't release his tax returns. An independent contractor working for the IRS gave them to the New York Times, so he was blaming the wrong entity anyway. Also, the statute of limitations had already run out before he sued, but he claimed he only discovered what had happened fairly recently despite numerous posts confirming that he knew it was a contractor years ago. Now, having blocked the judge from doing any further investigation on her own authority, it looks as though he's got a $1,776B slush fund approved as an out of court settlement in his favour. To add insult to injury the odd amount is a reference to the date of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. He apparently wants to use it in part to compensate the convicted Jan 6 rioters to boost his argument that the election was stolen and that his loyal supporters were patriots and unfairly convicted until he pardoned them. In practice he will most likely find a way to keep most of the money himself. Of course the fund will be paid for by the hapless US taxpayers. The blatant corruption, lawlessness and cynicism on display should disgust most Americans, but that's who they voted for. No doubt he'll face some legal challenges to his slush fund, but if past experience is any guide he will quite likely get away with it.

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

This is the worst period of government I can remember in my lifetime. Perhaps except the Whitlam years. The ideology is to take from us all and redistribute to those who the Government sees as deserving. For which, read labor voters.

Heard something on a clip the other day with one of our leading economists talking about Labor destroying business, which they have been exactly what l've been saying buttt. He then said the Gov wants to own Australians again and that's one reason they are destroying business. Any idea at all what he meant by that, owning us again? Did he mean they want everything Gov owned or us all working for the Gov or wth ? Prob a long shot question without the full vid, sorry should've saved it.

Which allows the worst to get away with more.

Unfortunately the cynics among us have become so disillusioned that they/we have stopped looking for good motives in our leaders. The worst of the worst have tainted the better ones.

Isn't it amazing how the Information Highway has led us to a destination where we have contempt for those who tell us that they are working for our benefit?

They are all puppets, left included. Some party's hide it better then others and some are more transparent, not necessarily the ones that say they will be. Most are straight out liars as we have recently seen!