Jerry_Atrick

Don't mention ze war!!! (It took me all of 5 hours to learn that in Frankfurt. Not invited back, yet)

I don't disagree, but ironically, prrivate enterprise is subject to much stricter rules than the government - and those rules are provided by the government - usually through tax disincentives, but also now conduct rules, etc. So unless private enterprise want to pay through the nose and the individuals through FBT, they have a much more sparlingly set of allowable expenses then your MPs (this is why the APS won't accept gifts - as well as the conduct rules. You will not believe the rules I had to navigate to accept a vendor dontaing £50 to an authorised charity in my name - in the end I asked them to donate it in their name - I don't need the accolade - and the rules are similar in Australia). The decision to travel is different to the cost of travel. The question of whether deliveing a 6 minute speech was value for money is not the same question as whether the cost of the travel and allowable expenses is accceptable or not. The minister won't usually unilaterally decide to trot off to the UN and make a speech; it will be done in consultation with the cabinet/PM office because there will be some political objective. Was it literally jump off the plane, walk in, give a 6 minute speech, walk out and jump on a plane back? Or was there some sort of unofficial meetings taking place. We tend to look at these things in isolation, but often there are tactics in play to reach an objective - one of the many battles to win the war. Even if it were literally off the plane, speak, on the plane and nothing else, it may have been part of some tactics to demonstrate to allies or partners a commitment to further negotiate for the benefit. It will all depend on the objective and whether or not that contibuted to/achieved the objective. Those questions will determine whether the trip - regardless of the cost, which has to include the minister and their staffers' time that could be spent doing something else productive was value for money. But once it is decided a trip is requied, then the quetion of cost/allowable expenses of the trip being excessive comes into play. Apart from obviosuly excessive cases, that is a subjective matter of judgement. I personally didn't think the $100K (was it) for Wells to go to NY with however many staffers given the nature of the work, etc was excessive Yes, it could have been cheaper, but these are not jollies and they should be afforded the facilities that allows them to be effective working in almost diametrcially opposed timezones where they don't have the luxury of time to adjust for jet lag. On the assertion that they are paid enough for their families, I have two points to make. Firstly when pollies have to suffer the lurks of the job - harassment, houding by the press, public admonishment, threats to life, etc,. we all say that is part and parcel of the job, they knew it before they entered it, and we have no sympathy. The perks are also part and parcel of the job - so why are we criticising them for utilising them? Maybe if you can't take your family with you, on the salary you can get, it may dissuade those that have a modicum of competence and you will only be left with the SFMs of the world. Of course we know most pollies at the top aren't the best, but to be honest, compared to the last lot, I will take these ones any day. Secondly, to you or I, $400K is a lot of money. But don't forget, these are really CEOs of large national organisations. If we are going to compare the expenses to large national private enterprises, how much do CEOs of equivlnet sized with equivalent responsibilites in the private side earn? Maybe we should just bump up ministers' salaries accordingly and not let their families travel be on the public purse? As I recall the APS scoundrel who was in charge of one of the government department (Human Services, I think) at the time of Robodebt was on something like $900K/year... And that person reports to a minister! If that were private enterprise, the minister would be earaning more than the officer reporting to them - normally. Sincerely, Devil's Advocate, Esq.

Well, I think Chumpo is the bees knees... (I am planning on visiting a sick friend in the USA... ) Amazing how theiy're about protecting free speech no matter how divisive - only when it is theirs... And how they are so indifferent to people with their own views... and not the snowflakes they like to assert others are.

I sort of agree with Kev on this.. Wells is the minister for communications and sport. So what the news isn't telling is is whether she is at the sporting events in an official capacity or not. If she is in an official capacity, it is understandable, for instance, that the commonwealth cars are waiting for her (it's not like they can discharge the driver for the day and then have them come back, I wuld guess - they aren't a taxi company). And if two tickets are given - then it is sort of natural her husband comes along.. Sort of... The trip to New York were for her and her two staffers. I am not sure how long they were for, but it is $33K for each, on average. So, flights are likely to be at least business class.. say $10 - $15K each. First class, which one would expect a minister to travel will be c. $20K (they should get a discount, but lets just go with the numbers). That is between 30 and $60K gone. Do we know the number of nights she and her staffers were there? Grand Hyatt hotel web lookup starts from USD $272/night. No doubt the rooms for the staffers can be the more basic room, but the minister should have a decent room, woth probably a separate living/working room to her bedroom for some privacy. So that won't be am Air BnB.. That is, of course, unless there are suites in the embassy - but the embassy (or highh commission) is probably in Washington DC. Now, before you fellas shout, yeah, she can go cattle like the rest of us, and why shoudl dhehave a fancy suite, as someone who extensively travelled for business, the aircraft and hotel rooms are like mobile offices. You do work in them. I have written a whole budget paper between London and Prague; prepared for meetings, presentations, and the like; after leaving the office and usually some dinner with clients/colleagues, there is the recapping the days events and preparing for the next day. At the same time, you have to deal with things back at the office and other sites/clients you deall with. It seems glamorous and a jolly to many, but a proper business trip (I don't mean attending conventions - and I have never done them) is hard graft, or yakka in the Aussie vernacular. However, I do miss it. So, so what if she had a few chateau de Hoity Toity wines or something else.. But that is for her only. We used to get (and give) tickets for 2 to events - I would always take a work colleague. They also worked for the firm and did a lot - so it was only fair. And I can't recall ever paying for my family to go on a holiday - even if it was to bring them along with me for the ride. That shold not happen, unless it is exceptional.. like a carer relationship or come extraordinary circumstance. In fact, I used to bring my partner along with me for business trips and pay for the flight - the company poicked up the hote because the room was the same price whether it was one or two people. Occasionally it was more for two, in which case I paid the difference. I did use frequent flyer miles for her sometimes, but, these are a perk, not used by the company and thankfully here, not fring benefits taxed. But that is the thing. Real business travel is taxing, you can't get a lot done with your personal life that you can at home. Some perks should be tolerated - it is a question of proprotionality.

Didn't Bronwyn Bishop's career end over a helicopter jolly?

Defo not a good look. What happens will depend on her influence in him retaining power

Live stream

Well, I didn't get to commute on the motorbike in this week just gone, which is a pain. The weather was OK, and ithe rain had passed through, but the plate for my top box is too narrow for the luggage rack. Of course, lazy bones here decided to wait for the Sunday right before returning to work to try and mount the plate and top box, and found out too late to aget an adaptor kit (I searched through all sorts of shrapnel I have at home but nothing quite fit. Back at work, there is little time to research, but this morning, after teasing some locals about another Ashes crumble, I found an adapter kit on eBay, so hopefully it arrives by Tuesday as I am not going in until early Wednesday morning. And, at the moment, the weather gods are telling me Wednesday and Thursday there is a moderate chance of rain. Of course, at the moment, Tuesday is forecast to be raining (something like 95% chance of rain)... all day. I haven't yet had a chance to clean the bike and was going to do it Tuesday morning when I was taking a little time off for some errands.. not so.. I guess.. But, on the bright side, the weather is unseasonably warm with forecasts of 9 degrees C @3amon Wednesday morning where I live and 11 degrees in London at 6am (ETA). 10 degrees by 18:00 in London, and say 10pm when I get back to Halse, it should be 9 degrees still. Rain is forecast. Wind will be c. 12 mph for the two days, but forgivingly will be a tailwind both days. I will try andd get a quick ride in tomorrow or Tuesday to check all is OK with the Bike. Oh, and it looks like the man child will get a Honda CG125 for Chrissie. 2005 model, cheap as chips, to practice for his license course and test.

Using the Contact Us page on their new website

From what I read, it wasn't reneweables that caused the issue, but they certainly didn't help the issue because there are no ruddy biug flywheels to take the load. There is a lot more to go wrong, as are a lot of technologies that advance. But, as thorughout technological development through history, somethinng goes wrong and we learn from it, adjust the design and move one. There are other ways to stabilise a grid than relying on spare capacity of conventional power stations. The reality is the generation side is changing and the transmission/distribution side has to adapt to meet the changes. That really depends on how the generation, transmission, and distirbution network is developed. I would say the generation plant is awfully expensive when it is not in use. However, due to the distributed nature of renewables, I find it poretty inconceivable using a mix of generation technologires, there would be no generation going one somehwere in a regional area. No sun, no wind at the same time over various microclimes probably happens. Batteries come in, and they can be distributed; there can be a place for a much smaller fossil or wood-burning generation networ. or nuclea to pick up the slack Also, remember, when a facility goes down, the total generation capability of that facility goes down - that is expensive. You can lose a panel/cell or an array of them, but the rest of the facility will still generate. When plants go down, and they do with alarming regularity, the cost is huge. In the nuclear days, if we could save a day of an outage, way abck then, it s was £1m/day saved. When you have the infrastructure there, yes, it is economic But, how much does, say, $650,0000 get you up and running fairly quickly with renewable generation? You can then say, yeah, but youhave to upgrade the grid.. Well, the grid is being upgraded anyway, but even with renewables, it is continually being upgraded, so grid upgrade costs aren't really relevant. But, lets say they are.. How much will your nuclear facilities cost. At last count, local facility here is up to USD$45bn projected and years late. Australia doesn't have the experience at nuclear builds.. TYhat buys an awful lot of generation for whatwe have experience in - renewables. I am not sure about Australia, but taxpayers money is used here to prrop up all generation so the consumer doesn't have to pay the full price of it. I am sure I read somewhere Australia does to. This is usually through tax credits, contracts for difference, guaranteed loans, low-interest givernment loans, grants and the like. So why shoudl renewables be excluded from the list? On that basis, yeah, I would be happy for out taxpayers funds supporting it (and I am in no way connected to the industry at all, anymore). In addition, the benefit of lowest CO2, even compared to whole of life nuclear, is good for the planet, as well as, in the case of nuclear, not having to have the cost of waste storage and maintenance, etc, which are rarely refleted in the costs of the CO2 equations. To me, the good it can doe far outweighs the need to subsidise it in its maturing stage. The UK is importing wood chips for two reasons. First, although I think it is a fallacy, to reduce emissions. In fact, per kw. coal prodices lower CO2 emissions because of its energy density, except in he theortetical perfectly managed forestry - which it isn't. But secondly, an on island 1/33 the size of Australia and with twice the population, it is hard to put caol plants too far away from anyone. The toxic pollutants emitted by caol, even considering scurbbing, and miles worse than wood burning pellets, so it is also an air-quality thing. The UK still has good quantities of mineable coal.. but it it still a silent and slow killer of many people with repiratory disorders. So, there is method in what you see as their madness. Again, this is point in time.. But, I agree that Germany was completely nuts to abandon its nucelar generation ihn the wake of Fukishima. I think towards thei end og Merkel's chancellorship, she became a little nuts. Germany have been talking about restarting their nulcear facilities as they were mothballed in generally very good condition. I am not sure what has come of it. The UK dilly-dallied for decades over its energy policy and it is paying for it now. France is predomionantly nuclear powered and has been investing in nuclear since god-knows when. When I last looked, all nuclear generation was, and i think still is owned by EDF. Although quoted on the French bourse, it is something like 90% owned by the French government. If it had to operate as a real company, and charge eelctricity at commercial rates like the rest of it, there would be another French revolution. And they stick dogmatically to their guns.. The EPRs they are building out are a lemon, but vive le France - they are too proud to change tac. But, these were original nuclear generators when renewables weren't what they are today. If Australia wants to go nuclear, it may pay to wait.. because there are billions being thrown at fusion. Yeah you get the radioactive waste (tritium), but you don't get the quantity, and there is no fallout, outside the containment area in the case of an accident as when you stop the reaction, the radiation stops.

It's a 2017 model. We bought it with 1,000 miles on the clock. We realised that its on condition service schedule was a joke, so I change the oil every 5k miles and service it every 10k miles regardless, and it has been a treat. The enterntainment/sat nav unit was flakey, but a software update developed by an independent maintenance company fixed it. Mini, like Bentley, is owned now by BMW, but still produced in the UK (Oxford, I think). It has great handling, and for the weight of the thing, is quite nippy in sport mode (which does make a decent different). If it get's written off, our funds are sapped a bit by the house, but will try and fins something from behind the sofa cushions to get one of their electric (not hybrid) ones. Though, it will take some time.

This one has been totally reliable.. but yes, the market decides. Still worth about £9k on the 2nd hand market

Darn. I love that car

Yep mini countryman

Both North Melbourne and Hawthorn play a handful of home games, usually at Universityof Tasmania Stadium. With a capacity of 17.5k, one can usually see plenty of empty seats at these games