Jerry_Atrick

Welcome to the dark side if the forums! Others have dealt with Chump wanting the best for his country, which, I guess will depend on what perspective one takes. I don't like the left.right description as it is too rigit; I prefer to consider myself a progressive capitalist.. You can take that as centre right or left - on some things I am definitely left of centre; on others I am right of centre - but to me, some of them are so contradicting, I would prefer not to get drawn into left or right. On that basis, let's look at his policvies and promises - whether or not heis successful on them. Drill baby, Drill - i.e. regress to further reliance on fossil fuels. This may provide some very short term pain relief, except for the war that has been started. But mid and long term, it is bad for the US. First, it locks the US consumer and industry into a fuel source that is subject to the vagaries of the internation markets. Secondly, it locks the US out of international trade in renewables, which is growing compared to fossil fuel. There will always be a need for fossil fuel - at least for the imaginable future, but it will reduce. In addition, the side effects of health and environmental issues (yes, Lithium batteries manufacture cause a lot of CO2, but the improvements in manufacturing are seeing those levels drop and other battery technology is far cleaner - e.g. sodium, etc). What he is doing is handing the international market to the Chinese and the Dutch and creating a reliance on the Middle East, Northern Europe and Russia. West Textas light sweet crude is now largely in shale, which means fracking and a lot of ecological damage, drinking water pollution, etc. Tariffs: The policy of tariffs can be positive, if targeted to support local induustry and there are plans in place to grow and modernise those sectors so they can compete on the international stage, or at least bring domestic prices down. In some sectors, they are setting up plants in the USA to avoid the tariffs. This is sort of good, because it basically means domestic market production will come form the US. So, it will reduce imports and provide some short term boost to employment, and a smaller longer term boost to employment. So, on one hand, it is positive. But, the fliup side is they are inflationary - right at the cost of living crisis. Guess short term pain for long term gain, maybe. Of course, his erratic implementation of them, and using them as "bargaining" or threatening chip brings into question his intention to use them to only improve domestic production. On the other hand, his appoach has been also negative. He has directly hit USA exporters as countries started boycotting goods - so too did consumers in other countries. In addition, his antics have resulted in reduced travel demand to the USA - which is a big export earner. He has incentivised his trading partners to look elsewhere, and they have. The BRICS countries have had some benefit - though not universal. China and India have been the bigger winners in that order. The USD as a reserve currency is now under threat. This will mean it will be more susceptible to devaluations and that will increase prices enormously. His reduction of taxes for the wealthy, which have been opposed by a suprising number of wealthy people, and the enormous additional debt he is generating for no prodcutivity gains, The long term debt, increase,coupled with other factors such as an ageing population, etc, will see debt rise to up to 200% of GDP by 2050. This is clearly unsustainable and not very good for the country. His policy of dissolving the federal education department, whcih provides funds and oversees education to poorer demographics (ironically those most likely to vote for him) without a replacement that does it better is in no way good for the country. It widens the social gap in a country that already has a mass murder issue with ubuiuitous distribution of firearms. It holds the poorer back, and as such, holds ociety back. Taking a chainsaw to something may save some cash in the very short term - but this is definitely a short term gain, long term excrutiating pain policy. The dismantling of medicaid and replacement of a much better, but unspecified public health initative... well, it is just hot air. In the mean time, more and more people fall through the safety net, and a sicker population = a sicker and less productive workforce.. not very good for the country as productivity is hit. This reduction of illegal immigrants and the reprartriation of thosein the USA, I think is short term pain for longer term gain. The problem is that the US economy is built on the use of cheap, non-documented labour. You can pay them next to nothing (slavery); they have no access to publoc resources, so the government doesn't need to look after them . Win-Win. Do they take jobs of the locals? Most people say no, because the locals aren't willing to do the work. I would add, for the rate of pay that the illegal immigrants are willing to work. So, there would be short term food shortages and/or food inflation, but, in theory, as the wages rose to attract staff, so would local workers arrive. That wold decrease unemployment, increase salaries, and yeah, increase prices. This may impact their agrciltural exports longer term, but things would eventually normalise, and the farms would modernise as well. Maybe they may even start producing uality beef to compete? Again, the execution is shambolic, and deporting those that havce been in the country for a long time, settled with families, and contributing positively to the community and economy may be a bit of an own goal. Bit generally, yeah, should be better for the country. I agree we have gone too far in the push for globalisation. There are structral reasons why we have done so, but i think we were sold out in the globalisation push. . But I take umbrage on the claim the current government are taking us down the shit chute. On your own measure, this government seems to be doing OK. Australia has never had a consistent surplus in the balance of trade. Our exports are largely primary goods supplimented with secondary goods (machinery, for example). We have lately had some isolated successes with tertiary goods - bottled wine, some foods (Tim Tams - yay!), and the odd gadget (Rode audio being one such thing). Of course, can't forget Gippland Aviation and Jabiru. But these are , unfortunatley, small fry compared to what our agriculture was and our resources are. Our car exports were heavily subsidsed by local pricing, so I would hardly call that a success story - and how many mass car manufacturers does Australia have now, and how many were local owned? The chart below shows our balance of trade historically has been small and oscillated between positive and negative, and it being consistently negative since the Fraser years. The second resources boom started in 2015 and didn't pick up export steam until 2019. But since Albo took over and repaired relations with our biggest trading partner, China, our exports have boomed far more than under the Morrison and Turnbull government (and whoever was before Turbull): That is not to say the current people are doing a great job, but I think they are doing OK-ish. Which is probably why I give Shump a bigger roasting than Albo, but Albo is not spared. Of course, there is more that can be done, and should be done,. For example, they should have pulled the pin on Aukus or mandated the subs and the tech are built here under licence. Better still, we could take that $38bn, which doesn't guarantee one sub, and start a domestic owned defence contractor here. We have (or had) the uality engineering education to drive graduates, and there are many Aussie engineers employed with forieng companies in foreign places that are experienced enough to lead a new government sponsored startup. Yes, we do have a handful of Aussie owned defence contractors/manufacturers, but most og the big stuff goes to foreign owned countries. I would still liekto see a real buy Australian policy; the Foreign Investment Review Commission do a proper job, and maybe have a policy where foreign companies wishing to start up offices in Australia need to partner with local business or provide for new local owned euity in that business. I am sure I could thing of many more things.. The point is, yep agree with your general sentiment, but the biot about Chump wanting the best for his country doesn't entirely wash.

The indemnity ceases at the end of the term. Each year, your inusrance expires and that, say $400, has paid for the indemnity for that period of time. Then when you renew, it is a new indemnity for all intents and purposes. I will try and explain it for a 5 year old. When you drive, you have a contingent liability - that is, while you are driving, you are accepting that should you have an accident that is your fault and you injure someone (physically or mentally), then you will be liable - or responsible - or be required to pay the injured party for their medical treatment - for how long that will take, any lost income, and potentially damages for pain and suffering (ex Vic, I think). That means, if you cause an accident and a severe injury to someone else, your liability will kick in and the costs of medical treatment (think chronic and continuing) can easily run into the millions. And the loss of include can easily also run into the hundreds of thousands and if long enough - even milltions. Clearly, all but a very few drivers in society can afford that sort of liability. And clearly, this will only happen to a few drivers out of the population, So, rather than be in a position where you cause someone a severe injury that bankrupts you and means the victim does not get the treatment or compensation they deserve, the government, with good judgement has deemed that this risk must be transferred to an insurer that can pool the premiums of many drivers and therefore have enough to pay for the likely number and cost of claims that will arise as a result. This is common to virtually every western government/society, because these societies have decided that it is a high priority that the person is protected as much as possinle in an activity which has a fairly high chance of something going wrong. This to me is a sound decision, because it means the victim can get the treatment, lost income, and compensation that would be right for them to receive as a resuilt, and the driver is not bankrupted at the same time. Everyone is happy (as much as they can be in these citcumstances). So, the $400 you pay gives you unlimited protection - you can kill and maim as many people as you want as long as it was accidental, and you won't pay a cent for their compensation nor costs. You can literally run up 10s of millions of dollars in long term liability over the duration of your insurance coverage - which is one year, never pay another penny as you decide it is time to hang up the car keys, and that is it. $400 to me seems a bargain. Of course, it is a furphy to say in most of Australia it is your choice to drive - especially in the sticks. The reason is that Australia is so heavily dependent on cars - even the big cities really do require them - especially in the outer suburbs. But because cars (and motorbikes, and trucks, and vans, etc) can be quite lethal, a part of the cost is ensuring that you asre covered in the case of you causing an accident and personal injury as a result. You need a car- they aren't free. You need petrol (or electricity) - that isn't free (well, for some, sort of is, but lets assume depreciation of solar cells). You have to register the car to pay for things like the roads; that isn't free; and insuring your car, even if you don't claim, isn't free. You have to accept it as a cost of driving. Note, you don't have to have third party property or comprehensive insurance. The goivernments have said, in the priority of things, they have left this totally up to the driver. If you do not want to transfer that contingent obligation to an insurer and protect what assets you have, that is entirely your business. At the end of each year, your insurance expires. The indemnity provided to you has to be renewed. As I said, you don't have to renew it if you don't want to drive. You may have in the last year caused an accident that has led to someone needing a large amount of care over a long time, list $150k.year salary, and is in constant pain and suffering. Because you stop renewing your premium, does not stop the liability of the insurer (although sometimes there is a big one off payout to cover for the years of assistance, lost income and pain and suffering, it is rarer these days, where the costs cannot be predicted accurately). But, you may not have an accident that is your fauit. Which means no liability of the insurance company (or more accuately no liability to you, which is indemnified by the insurance company) arises. OK.. that is why you are paying only $400 for the year and not $1milliion or $10m. That is because, insurance is about pooling contingent obligations and paying out when the events that give rise to those obligations occur. Still with me? I assume you are. In that way, it does share the burden across people, but make it a lot smaller than a massive and usually unable to be met burden across a much smaller number of people. This makes driving accessible to all, including you. The government, and most of society I would hope, would deem ensuring every driver has sufficent means to pay for any accident they cause that results in personal injury. If you don't want to pay someone else to take the risk on for you, then I would suggest the government would want some form of security from you that you could cover any likely oblligation if it arose from you causing an accident and injuring someone. That would mean they would a) take a lein over your house.. But it is unlikely most peoples' properties would cover what can be likely to arise int he obligation. So, don't worry, they will give it back to you when you stop driving, but they will take a $1m+ sureity deposit from you. Now, you may be able to cough up that amount of money and let the government hold it on your behalf, but most wouldn't and not too many people would be able to drive - legally. So, yeah. you are paying for something where you may never give rise to an obligation, but that is the cost to make it accessible not only to you, but to all. But, why can't you just pay the prevoium and get it back if you don't make a claim? Well, it wouldn't take too much brain usage to work that one out. ChatGPT tells me there is no relianle stats that say what percentage of drivers in australia cause an accident that results in personal injury. But using statistical extrapolication methods, it calculates up to 0.5% of the population. So, for every 200 drivers out there, 1 will cause such an accident. The average cost of compensation will is around $118,000; some are low, and some are very high. Again, according to ChatGPT, so pls take it as, at best a guide. So, given for every 200 drivers there will be, on average, 1 driver that causes 1 accident and the cost per accident per year will average $118,000.. Let's not even bring the per-annum dimension into this. So, assume the CTP insurance premium for all 200 drivers is over their life time, $35,000. Let's assume they all start and end their driving at the same time. Now, all the drivers that didn't have a claim will get there money back, which is what your asking for That leaves the money of the driver - $35,000 - in the scheme. However, the one accident has cost the scheme $118,000. Now, take into account all of the drivers, and all of the accidents, and the range of costs, and the fact this is an annual number not the life of a scheme number, and you can see it will take all of a year for the scheme to go bust or be a massive drain on the public purse. Which means more taxes, or rego to cover it.. What you are suggesting is a complete folly - in other words BS. Here is the hcart of the average cost of the personal injury claims from accidents by age group. Guess which age group has the highest. Yet, your policy price is the same as those with the lowest. If you have been driving all your adult life, you're about even. Up to about 30, and above 60, you are costing more than between 31 and 59 - on average. Therefore at the moment, almost all those younger than you are paying more to cover your risk. Yes, you may be the bestest driver at your age, so you may wualify for a small discount. But the risk assesment tells the insurers you aren't a great risk, buit better to slug those younger than you than make you pay more. I honestly don't understand what you are complaining about. Imagine if the insurers had to make a profit. You'd be paying as much, if not more than the UK and US folks do.

No.. You're not paying for a claim. You are paying for an indemnity shoud there be a need to make a claim against you - even by yourself. In other words a guarantee should you need it. That is what insurance is. To say what you say is, from an insurance perspective, say, "I am going to prepay a claim that will be made. If I make no claim, I want my money back". Think about it, the insurance company would then have specify the type of claim and value it is willing to shell out. That third party claim, say for dismembering a leg, may be worth, I dunno, say $1M. That woudl be yuour payment.. because they will pay your claim. If at the end of your driving, you don't make that one claim for dismembering someone's leg, then yiouget your $1M back, minus some margin for admin + profit. Now, if you make the claim because you do dismember someone's leg, there goes your $1M. That is a lot more expensive than the $35K that you paid in indemnities or guarantees - which is what insurance is. It is a small fee to protect you from a much larger cost. But, if you, say, I dunno, cause someone brain damage, then you have not paid for that type of claim - you are on your own. Or maybe the prepaid claim service will pay to the value of any claim up to the amount you have prepaid. In which case, that person who has brain damage may claim $10m. You have pre-paid your $1M claim, but they bankrupt you (or take another $9M if you have that available in realisable assets at current value). That is what you are describing in the above, As an analogy, in trade finance, we will provide letters of guarantee on behalf of clients who are importers. It is a bank guarantee to their suppliers overseas that once the goods are shipped to the point of delivery, we will release the funds to the exporter regardless of whether or not we have those funds. We charge our client (the importer) a fee for this service on the understanding that they will have the funds, and if they don't they also have an interest fee that accrues until the funds are provided to us. If, as they normally do, have the funds available at the right time, we don't give a refund on the guarantee we wrote. We provided them a service which allowed them to purchase the goods/services in return for the risk that we took on - i.e. transferred from the exporter to us. You clearly do not understand what insurance. It is not an intangible - it is a promise backed my a tangible promissory note being your insurance certificate. As long a you have that and it is within its insurance period, it s able to be touched and relied upon. Under international accounting standards, regulated insurance certificates sit on the tangible assets of the balance sheet and decreases from the balance sheet on a monthly basis and is charged to expense. You have lost notning. You have paid for a tangible service and you have received it. You are not paying for a claim itself. That is a conditional obligation of the insurer under the terms of the indemnity. Whether it is privatised or a state administered insurance scheme, it doesn't change. Whether it is volunatry or not, it doesn't change. At the end of the insurance period, you do not get your money back for making no claim. If CTP were not compulsory, and you decided to take out TP Insurance, in order for you to claim for losses of uninsured drivers, your premium would skyrocket (assuuming they offered the choice just for your policy to protect others and you be on your own if an uninsured). By being voluntary, you may decide you don't need the insurance and I have to protect myself against you. No matter how good you are i the past, if you do me damage, I would have to have some form of comprehensive 3rd party insurance to cover my personal injuries from uninsured drivers like you. Now you're aslking me to pay for you. Now, ask yourself, who is likely not to take up 3rd party insurance if it were not compulsory. I may be stereotyping here, but I am thinking it would be the ones more likely to cause injury than not - those less responsible in their outlook, etc. All that will happen is for you to protect against the thrid party risk is that your third party premiums will increase as a result. Well done, ol' chap. What you describe is not a negotiation. It forms part of the risk assessment. All this is taken into account. The states licensing agencies already have most of the information, and I am afraid a road safety course in 1972 is probably not going to be considered terribly relevant today. As I explained, the underwriting risks do not vary a lot between even the worst drivers and the best in terms of premium. That is because the risks they insure are generally likely to be caused by anyone with a momentary lapse in concentration. Also, they are looking at future risks, and given you were driving in 1972, I would say you are entering, if not already in a high risk zone. You can't do a simple bell curve of number of accidents per age group due to the difference in the number of drivers per band, but I got Chat GPT to do the heavy lifting and scale the nubmer of accidents per age band relative to the population of drivers in each age band: You can see, as you get older, the number of accidents per population increased from 60 onwards. So, GON, you are not in good future risk territory straight away. But, also the severity per accident increases: In your age group, it is also the severest, which means probably the highest payout per claim, which means, you can try and negotiate. Good luck! There's a reaon its hard to hire cars when you're under 25 and over 75: You can privatise it all you like, but unless, as I mentioned earlier, you're in the sweet spot of driving, you are likely to be paying more, and in your case, given your demographic's elevated risk of causing an accident, and then even higher than the youngan's in the severity and likely cost of the claims, you may want to be careful what you ask for.. you may get it.

GON, I don't know if you are serious of just ship styirring. If the former, you clearly don't understand what insurance is: The promise is very tangible. It means a) if you hit someone and you are at fault, you are protected from any claims they have on your property. More importantly, the non voluntariness of it means that if someone hits you and it is their fault, because it is government guaranteed, you are guaranteed to get the treatment and compensation for your injuries and I believe loss of income, but owuld have to check. This is a very tangible promise and as absolute as it can be. Of course, if the driver doesn;t have insurance to cover property damage (i.e. your car's damage), then because that is a voluntary form of insurance, you may have to go for them, if they have anything, to recover yuor costs. But CTP is only personal insurance and the state (and community, I dare say) agree that this is a vital protection to protect the interests of the community in gerenal. In addition, it helps to pay for the even worse drviers who drive cars without current reg and CTP, who, if they hit you, would not have any way to pay for your treatment or lost income.. But, hey, if that is your preference, then I guess you can find somewhere in the world to live where it is optional. Not too many western countries, USA included, don't require CTP insurance. I think you are mixing up insurance with investment products, where you earn a return on your money. With insurance, you p[ay a premium for protection for a specific period of time. They work out the expected cost of the scheme, which, apart from admin, is the cvost of the claims they expect, how many policies they will have to write, and to cover for oninusred people (where participation and payouts are compulsory). Yes, you will be covering someone who has a worse record than you, and there are others, such as Octave that are likely to drive a lot less than others, and he is covering some of your expense (on the assumption you drive materially more than 5k kms a year). You are not paying for the claim.. otherwise, there would be noo point to insurance. Now that I am composed.. When was the last time you haggled with car insurance? I think you mean you can shop around. And yes, you could. But, you;re mixing up voluntary insurance with privatisation. The UK and the US have privatised CTP, but it is still mandatory. There is a theoretical argument for privatised CTP as it shoudl intorduce competition and it should lead to more competitive pricing. But the reality is sort of. The isurance market is made up of brokers, reinsurers, and underwriters. Most of the insurers you see on TV/hear on radio are brokers/agents or reinsurers. Some, such as AAMI are direct underwriters. A broker is a commissioned agent - they receive a comission for each policy sold. A reinsurer accepts some of the risks but transfers the vast majoprity of the risk to underwriters. The nature of the risks adopted by reinsurers are the long term catastophic risk that occurs really infrequently. The everyday and common stuff is transferred to the underwriter. If you go to the underwriter direct (e.g. AAMI), they take on all the risk and cost. They calculate you premium as if you went to a reinsurer. So, for every insurance policy, regardless of where you go to get it (ie. haggle for it - that still cracks me up), it will involve an underwriter's premium plus a reunsurers premium what what they call the long tail risk, polus the brokerage commission (it is rare an underwriter or reinsurer will discount the broker fee in the same way wholesalers generally don't stff their retailers. Yeah - I know there are some do it, but their marketing approach is to not use brokers or price comparison sites - which are also just self-service brokers). What will tend to happen is that you will find there ae very strict regulations around the provision of CTP insurance because the government have to be comfortable that the private insurers can meet their obligations - especially since it is a compulsory insurance - otherwise there is no point to the insurance. So, there is this thing called regulatory capital they have to hold based on their forecast obligations over different time horizons, because their revenue is not guaranteed. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it is possible to have a future liabillity for which you are no longer receiving a premium payment. For example, if you were iwth insurance company X at the time you hit a pedestrian because you didn't see them, that claim and associated cost could go on for years, but you may switcvh insurer because insurance company X just jacked up your premium. They still have to pay the claim for years, while you are now with insurance company Y. And it does happen quite a lot, so the private insurer has to cover a cost that a government insurer doesn;t have to as much (yes, they can - you can move interstate, or you can stop driving, but the numbers are far less than a priovatised multi-provider industry). The other thing is, it is not a fully competitive market. First, there are really high barriers to entry as you have to have a lot of money to be able to meet all your regulatory requirements - which are there to ensure sovency of the insurers so they can pay out (interestingly, the UK prudential regulations are called Solvency, with the current regs being Solvency III, I think). Then you have to have enough liquid assets to pay the claims when they fall due. Not only that, but each underwriter and insurer has to duplicate the administration and operations of the insurance sheme they operate.. More actuaries, quants, admin staff, claims staff, etc., medical teams/panels and the like that are not able to be utilised by curernt insurers as they don't have those liabilities today. The number of underwriters is small - according to Google, there are only 4. I think they have missed a couple - so lets say 6. Ironically, 1 per state, and none for the territories. First, you;re not going to get much competition, but since they are all subject to the same rules and have to cover the main risks, and because this is a compulsory insurance, they will ultimately have to cover some for uninsurd risk - where you will make a claim against your policy even though you are not at fault, you won't get too much competition in this space. Even though you may never had had an accident that is your fault, they are looking at the likelohood of you causing an accident, and as they saying goes, past performance is only a guide. You're getting older, your refelxes aren';t as good as they were, you're eyesight not as good as it was, etc. You probably don't want to hear it, but you could be entering the age where you are more likely to cause an accident and have a claim that a fit 40 year old who is mildly aggressive at the wheel. I think that is a reason why we tend to slow down as we get older. Be that as it may, they will work out an average cost per insured and then apply a small discount or premium for your future probability of risk, of which your past will come into it, but not the only, and in some cases, definitive factor. Then you go to the reinsurance premium. This is where your risk profile has much more of an impact on your premium. Also, your no claims years is likely to be taken more account of here than in the underwritten part of the risk because, although they hold the more catastophic risk here, it tends to be the very low probability stuff. Therefore, driver behaviour will more affect thei likeihood of a claim against this risk than a pure mishap that can give riske to claims under the risk the underwriter holds. The BMW plouhing into the beer garden in Dayesford is an example of that. Teh damage to the pub and the claims by people in the beer garden will probably fall on the reinsurer. But how often does that type of event happen? Very rarely in comparison to the fun of the mill hit and run, or bingle from failing o stop at a give way sign, I would guess. The reinsurer will has to cover losses of an uninsured driver doing the same as the BMW driver as well. So, that gets added eually to all premiums. The brokerage is immaterial, as it will usually be the same regardles of who the insured is. But, yes, you will be able, thankls to reinsurance, get a discount compared to higher risk drivers on your CTP. Well done. Except, there is one problem under a privatised model. And you only have to look at the USA and UK to find it. You get huge discrepancies as a result. The 18 year old in a Ford Focus (so not too powerful. but no slouch) is paying, say £1500 for CTP alone, which you may be getting it for £150. You havbe to have at least CTP to regisster your car or transfer ownership. So, he musters the £1,500 and pays it, registers the car, and the very next day cancels his insurance and gets all of it back. He is now uninsured. There are no ongoing checks (although with ANPR, they are bing picked up more often than they used to). So, now you are more likely to be hit by an uninsured driver. To get your treathment/compensation, you don't go to your insurance company, because they pay a premium to a fund that covers uninsrued accidents (third party being the operative term in CTP). You go to your insurance company and they will handle the claim for you (you pay for that as part of your premium, by the way), but they don;t administer the claim. And, because your uninsured driver may have done a runner, it coiuld be a long time before you see any of it, because they need to satisfy themselves it wasn't your fault before they accept an unisured liability. In the mean time, you could be in pain, lose your income, you job, etc for a very long time before you can get any money or treatment beyond the very basic, etc. Not only that, but because the number of uninsured drivers is higher and they are, for reinsurance purposes, in the higher risk category, thes uninsured fund will demand more premium form the insurers. And that will mean more premiumn to you - remember we are talking mandatory/compulsory insurance here. Which will mean, you probably won't save as much as you think. You're older, so you;re more of a risk whether you like it or not; you've still got to cover at least some of those that aren't as good a driver as you thanks to the underwriting component. And thanks to the privatised component and not hooking it up to your rego, you now have to cover an unisured fund as well as the need to make profit that will drag that difference to a lot lower than you think. Australia (or the states) have got it right. Just check out how much we actually pay for a private CTP insurance is in the US or the UK (and yes, for the US, you have to take into account the ridiculous sums of compenation they pay - so not entirely apples with apples).

Did I hit a nerve? Where on earth did I mention corruption about the dropped Commonewealth Games? Again, putting words onto my keyboard, FFS. Why wasn't anyone else taking on the games - Andrews chose it when it was well on its way to not happening? Because there was sod all interest in them and no one was getting a sponsor. Was the intention of doing the communty good a noble one? Yes, but that alone does not make it a good decision. Imagine how much better for the community that money would have been spent. Not corruption - but incompetence - from a government I have also defended.. But hubris did sort of set in on that one. What - because I don't live in Australia, I can't opine on things in Australia? Hmmm. As an Aussie born, Aussie citizen who still pays tax in Australia - I can bleedin' well opine. As I recall it is a free world that we live in, right?

I am not saying pulling out was the wrong thing. The decision to buy in as a knight in shining armour to the games that were about to be abandoned was a bad decision that almost everyone saw at the time (i.e. no hindsight). At least the SA govenment were trying to make something that hopefully likely had a shot at working for the sustained betterment of the community (disclaimer - I don't know too much about the background of that particualr H2 plant, so it oculs well have been a con job).

I am no fan of the death penalty, but it doesn't seem a fait a compli that because there would be a death penalty, they will kill the victom, anyway. Rape is more often about exerting control than gratifying a sexual urge; and given the punishment can be severe (usuallky, not enough IMHO), if a parist is partial to killing the evidence, they will do so anyway. The US position on death penalty for non-death offences is far from settled, but it would be more difficult than not to see such a law passed held to be valid under the 8th Amendment: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-8/non-homicide-offenses-and-death-penalty FWIW, which is not much, my opinion is that the death penalty in these cases is more about trying to remove the perpetratrors from the gene pool than any real deterrent.

I get that his government won't please everyone and of course, like alol governments, there will be failures. But, at least as far as the news that comes out of SA is concerned, he and his government seem to be working out for more than less of the population, so, on balance, I would suggest, compated to others, he is doign a good job, Is this the plant you're referring to: https://www.indailysa.com.au/news/just-in/2025/10/15/cost-to-taxpayers-revealed-over-failed-hydrogen-plan In comparison, the withdrawl from hosting the 2026 Commonwealth Games cost Victoria close to $600M.. more than twice the cost of the failed h2 palnt as of the above report: https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/victoria-govt-exaggerated-commonwealth-costs-on-withdrawal-says-auditor

Can you please point to anywhere I I state you write something regardless of the facts? For the record, this is what I wrote: In the context of the post, it was a general statement asd to what is the motivation behind my point of view and posts.. i.e. it is not a whole hearted non-critical support of Netanyahu, which is what you perceive my position to be. Again, can you please read the posts and not put words into my mouth (or keyboard). I am a strong supported on Israel's right to exist and live in peace. I am also a strong supporter of a Palestinian state where Palestinians can live in peace as well. I am not a supporter of a Palestinian state founded and ruled through terror. Notice, I don;t use the word Netanyahu in any of that. I don't subscribe to the notion that it is Israel that is denying that to the Palestinians (unless of course, people think that Palestine should be all of what is now Israel, Gaza and the West Bank). I agree that a Palestinian state at the moment - when it is ruled by terrorists is not the right time, unuil a more peaceful and pragmatic leadership and government (on a sustained basis) is installed. If Israel now never want a peaceful Palestinian state, then I would obviously be very critical of Israel.. I am sure there are people, and organisations in Israel that do not want to ever see a Palestinian nation, but that does not mean Israel and the vast majority of Israelis don't want to. I think I understand what you mean here (I know typing isn't easy for you - I can't talk - my typos are far worse), so pls forgive me as I take ot to mean many jews agree that Netanyau should be criticised. I also agree.. But many Arabs also support the Israeli action and that of Netanyahu as well. You don't see it reported much, but looking around the internet, it is not hard to find such support. In fact, the son of a Hamas founder, is very vocal of his support.. And I would suggest he knows more about Hamas than most Jews outside of Israel. But there are many more as well. Interestingly, both the Iranian and Iraqi who work for me (the latter being a Muslim) have similar views to me on this war. My support may seem strong, but that is because there are far more people that see the headlines and the horror and automatically attrinute it wholly to Israel - just look at the protests against Israel when they were dragged into the war - some even before a shot was fired. And look at the protests when the IRGC killed almost as many in a few weeks as Israel did in a year. Oh - what protests? No Jews, no news. Also, on here, allegations of Israel that are not substantiated, and when I challenge them with facts, they are never responded to. For the record, I am not referring to you, Nev. So you can tell me a lot of the vitriol, ahem, criticism against Israel is not driven by anti-semestism, but you will have to permit me to have drawn a different conclusion. Not all of the criticism is anti-semetic, and I would suggest not the majority on this forum. But I am referring to outside the forum on a lot of occasions as well. Oh, and for the record, you will find me pushing back on Islamophobia and other forms of discrimination. And in pushing an agenda with only part of the facts (again, I am not asserting yourself, specifically). And I am sure I, too, submit to confirmation bias.. But at least I will admit it (usually). @Marty_d - I started tooking into the issue wiuth Journalists.. Ironically, finding objective resources seems difficult, but I will get back to it. Again, if II was deficient in the facts I had, I will happily admit I was wrong. No one is perfect, not even me! 🙂

Hit the wrong button, but may as well addreess this now. Can you pls point to where I provide non critical support of Netanyahu? Firstly, Israel is bigger than its PM. But even then, when have I offered unconditional support of Israel? What I do is push back on is what I perceive to be abject attribution of blame and crticism if Israel, regardless of the facts. I think you need to read what I write, and not perceive what you think I mean on this subject. [Edit] andfyou may want to change your "Agreed" response, which came before I finished the post 😉

Is that ON, Libs, or both? Although, arguably Libs have imploded. Libs are the official oppo by one seat; there are seats held by the other opposition than the opposition.. Farq.. I think Malinauskas is doing a pretty good jobm as does many SA people, I guess. But there is a real danger that hubris through a perceived untouchability may seep in. Australia as a whole needs a decent opposition.

Yeah - I have to restart drinking... 😉

I will keep it short this time. I don't ignore the daily reports - I know that the media has to sell and there is nothing like sensationalism nor whipping up hatred that sells. We seem to accept that on the reporting of the local issues with Muslim population, but accept blindly what is reported about Israel. So, I try and look behind the reports amd find the context. Even the "killing a country's civilians until the terrorists are disarmed" is very simplistic and ignores many other things, IMHO. I didn't say criticisng Israel's invasion was anti-semetic. I would ask you read what I wrote again. I said a lot of people hide behind criticising Zionism as being anti-semetic (or holding Israel to a different/higher standard than others is anto-semetic). They are two very different things. If you can tell me why actos of other countries you mention or those that were far worse (I provided the numbers) don't generate the same backlash as Israel (not on these fora, but more across the population) who that is not anti-semitc, I am happy to be wrong.

Now you fellas have got me on a rant 🙂 Not because I am some blind supporter of Israel - I hope the post above where I agree, there probably has been part motiviation to punish and agree that israel should be accountable to that extent. But. let's go. OK.. what war has not seen civilian casualties - especially where military assets being targeted are purposely hidden behind civilians? I'll get to proprotionality later. I absolutely agree that any government should be criticsied and held accountable for war crimes. What I am not seeing is anywhere near the eleve of criticism heing directed to other regimes for the same thing and worse. Stats given in other threads. Nor the level of criticism for Hamas inviting and wanting this conflict to kill their own civilians. Yet, everyone seems willing for the free pass to Hamas, or the Iranian government, or teh then Syrian giovernment, Saudi, Afghans, Oman, Libya, etc. Only appears to be the Israeli government that gets the criticism for far less. It doesn't excuse the justified criticism, but isf Israel does something, it is as if almost whetever that was done to provoke them into it is not even taken into account. DO you havbe inside information of why a normal enemy's intelligence was a) provided; b) the accuracy of that intelligence, and c) why Israel decided to ignore it. Are you insinuiating it was willing to let 1500 people die so it could invade Gaza and colonise it. I see no evidence there is a plan to colonise it even now (Chump;s plan doesn't give Israel control of Gaza). Before October 7, there were no attacks or plans for attack; Israel privided Gazans work in Israel, medical services to Gazans not available in Gaza, etc. All while Hamas was attacking it.. That doesn't sopund like a regime that wants to take it over by force. The question of proportionality is an interesting one. If you are saying is the cost of 70,000 lives a propritionate response to the loss of 1,500 lives? Clearly not. But is that the measure for proprotionality? Or is the pursuit of destruction of military capability poropritionalte to the ongoing attacks that well preceded October 7 and those that would continue after this war? Well, that is a different question? Of course, the cost of civilians lives has to be taken into account relative to the objective and imprtantly the ongoing threat to life. But why should Israel live under constant threat by those not willing to negotiate nor seek peace and have to constantly disproprtionately invest in defences to protect their people ? And should Hamas not be held at least equally, if not more responsible for the deaths of their civilians in a war they perpetrated and which they use their civilians as defences? Do I think the nuetralisaton of Hamas military capability is proprotionate? Yes, I do. Do I think it should be pursued at all costs? As a non-Israeli and not under the threats they live in, no I don't, but in the absence of anything coming to the peace table, I understand why those who live under threat may have a different opinion. I don't think it was all about that. Israel is more of a democracy than most; not the highest in the world, but top quartile or third by this index: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu And, so I would expect that while that is certainly part of his motivation, if that was all of it, but didn't accord with the rest of his government, it wouldn't be happening. I'm really sorry; these two situations are so far apart, it isn't comparing apples with oranges, but IMHO, apples with the moon. You are comparing a lone murderer who commits an act of terrorism on his own behalf or the behalf of some obtuse and random right wing nut job group, whee there is no state sponsored terrorism and there is no historical or continuous threat that Australia itself is not actively working to thwart to the response of an attack from a coordinated government and military of a region, that is part of a wider regional state backed military with the sole intention of not only eradicating your country (NZ in this case) but the total genocide of your people (that Hamas, Hezboll, Houtis and Iranian regine have openly stated many times and is part of their documented charter - as close to a constitution as they can be), where they, and their predecessors, often with other states involvement have consistently attacked, killed, and threatened you and will continue to do so unabated given the first opportunity. Well, if Australia, or an Australian backed milita did that to NZ and of course, that milita or Australias defence assets were hidden under Australian hospitals, schools, and other civilian areas, would I be surprised if NZ attacked after this milita broke though NZ's defences and many Aussies civilians were killed as a result? Probably not; and I would siggest there would be few who would be surprised nor think it was unfair. Another Pauline moment - can you please explain to me a) the similarity of your analogy to Hamas and b) how you're not holding Israel to a totally different standard to others?

From the fountain of truth - youtube - there are many Israelis calling for Netanyau to go now the war is "over". They see some big failings. Maybe he wants to take Gaza because he and the country are sick of the constant attacls for years - not just one day - we can only speculate. I am going to do a Pauline. Can you please explain how Israel is expansionist?

To be honest, I think it is throughout the western world.

I don't disagree that Netanyahu would want to see the end of the Palestinians. After the October 7 attacks, I would suspect a growing number of the Israeli population are aligning more that way as well. And yes, I am sure that the relentless attacks that have taken place have been part motivated by a desire for retribution and growing hate of the Palestinians in Gaza (and probably Ramallah). But that is what a lot of wars are borne from. But, I would also contend that growing hate is as a result of the relentless attacks on them, and no desire to seek peace (Hamas, and others - not necessarily the Palestinian people themselves not wanting to seek peace). I think part of it is motivated by a desire by Netanyau to stay in power as he was increasingly unpopular again and was facing corruption charges. But, I think in part. And while Netanyau is the boss, it is stilla democracy and he does not ruule alone. Of course, he does have his share of right wingers that are keeping him in power and I think he is doing some of their bidding. But there are moderates, too. But also, remember, Hamas, Hezoboilla, & Co. have been attacking Israel on a daily basis. Mainly through rockets, which, due to the investment by Israel in protecting its citizens, rarely gets past their iron dome or whatever it is called. There are foiled terrorist.ground attacks on a too regular basis, and October 7, which on a military planning and execution scale seemed a rag-a-muffin scale, got through. And I think atonement for that embarressment (sp?) is also a motivator for retribution and if not targetting civilians, at least even being less concerned about their plight. But, having been proven the might of the Israeli military is not 100% able to guarantee the safetly of a large number of its civilians, and I am only speculating, the prime motivation is not a relentless attack on their civilians, but a relenteless pursuit to completely dismantle Hamas military capability regardless of the Palestinian civilian cost. It would make sense that they would go to destroy the capability, as it would be impossible to kill all Hamas combatants and not have people take their place or create a new militia. But if you destroy their military assets and capability, your threat - at least fore many years - is greatly reduced. The question is whether that disregard for civilian life is justified, even when the action is legal, is a moral one and not a legal one. And I think the answer will depend on the morals of people, but also the nuances around what is happening. As I mentioned, it makes sense to destory the military capability and not even Hamas, nor the doctors in hospitals under which Hamas has built its assets (as one example) deny that these assets exists in strategically civiliant areas. I think it was more a relentless pusuit of Hamas' military assets regardless of the cost. There are a couple of reasons. First, as I have mentioned, Israel warn civilians. This is a minimum 10 minute warning but they have given much longer warnings when they were going to obliterate whole areas. It may only be a token gesture to give some semblance of not targeting citizens - that is a judgement we have to make for ourselves. Secondly, Gaza is not big and the Hamas milttary assets were spread out underground. It is pretty had to attack all their military assets without creating the amount of damage that they have done to Gazan property. Again, you could assert they were targetting civilians/their property and I think there may be some truth in it. But I think their prime motivator was to destroy Hamas military assets, and the by-product is what we see - which plays into Hamas narrative. That is my opinion, but why else would you hide behind your civilian assets? Thirdly, Netanyahi has said from very early on.. they will end the war immediately on the two conditions of returning the hostages and Hamas disarm. The former is out of religious beliefs with respect to returning the dead to god in a timely manner - a belief which is shared by Muslims. The second seems pretty obvious to me, and would not entirely achieve wha I think is one of the aims - destruction of the military capability - so maybe my assumpotion is wrong. But no one in the international community tried to assert the same type of pressure on Hamas to accede and at least call Netanyahi#ss bluff. Instead, they called on a ceasfire, which really meant for Israel to stop. The logistics of disarming are nto easy, I get it, but thinking about it, the international community could have proposed a solutiuon that probably would have worked,. A UN backed peacekeeiping force overseeing the dismantlement of Hamas and guaranteeing protection of the Palestinian territory (along with the return of the bodies). Hamas would have to guarantee they would disarm and show signs of it before the peacekeeping force entered; and of course, Israel would have to back away from Gaza and accept the UN would enforce any violations from either side. Naturally, the devil is in the detail, but I am sure there could have been a compromise - on the basis Hamas was willing to stop attacking Israel.. which I am not so sure of. But because such an attempt was not made, we will never know - at least until next time. But the international community were just calling on a ceasefire which ultimately meant Israel stopping. Maybe a call for a circuit breaker would have been more appropriate - but again, there would need to be an enforcement mechanism. So, yes, I agree, Israel has not cared about the Palesinian civilians and there was some malice, if not motivation towards Palestinian civilians. But, I agree with both Biden and Chump - a ceasfire without any conditions on Hamas would have been handing Hamas a victory for terrorism. But, I don't beleive Hamas and its predecessor, the PLO has the Palestinian civilians interests at heart - this to me looks like a religious war, not territorial. The poor Palestinian civilians are pawns in this. In terms of genocidal intent, Hamas has made clear its intent. Israel's actions outside of this war would suggest anything other and I am not convinced, although I understand why others would think, there is a bordeline genocide in this war. Note, the International Criminal Court, which is frequently cited as wanting Netanyau on charges of genocide, want him for crimes against humanity and targeting civilians, but not genocide, which is a very different criminal charge: https://www.icc-cpi.int/defendant/netanyahu

Even if it were true, by that definition most of the middle eastern states are engaged in some form of terrorism. Haven't heard anyone call Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc a terrorsist state yet? Or is Israel held to a higher standard than anyone else? In other words (and this is not to yourself in particular, Nev), even if Israel did do everyting they are alleged to have done, they receive a lot of venom when there are others that do much much worse, and nary raise an eyebrow. I call it anti-semitism.. You can hide behind "I am criticising a Zionist government", but even that is anti-semetism.. Because since when is the belief in a Jewish state a problem when there are numerous Christian, Muslim, Hindi, etc states. Maybe people should have to live - not just visit or layover or attend business meetings in some of these places. And then form a judgement.

Hmmm.. quite a strong statement.. But... I think you mean the other states. Hamas attack Israel's defenceless citizends when they can identify military targets and rely on theiur defenceless citizens as human shields. Israel seek to destroy their military capability, which is a reasonable response. But Hamas proffer up as their defences - their own defenceless citizens.. Israel even warn of when they are going to attack and where (albeit not enough notice to mobilse a lot of citizens). Who exactly is the murderous state? I don't recall Israel wantonly going into war without being attacked or in the case of 1967, the obvious mobilisation of an attack on Israel. But if you can name one, I will happily take it back. Also, for your reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_casualties_of_war Now I haven't done the maths lately, but it represents around 1,000 Palestinians per year ex the current war, but even if you looked at the last 2 year war in isolation, it is 35,000 Palesinians with no sepaation between Hamas and citizens. But lets assume citizens.. And by the way - numbers provided by Hamas, and were once reduced by them. Syria - Civil war - Around 11 years from 580 thousand to 656,00.. Minimum 50,000 year - brutally with barrell bombs and the like. Yemen/Oman - in 6 years, 377,000: https://caat.org.uk/data/countries/saudi-arabia/the-war-on-yemens-civilians/ That makes it around 63,000/year. All Yemenis. .Yet hardly anyone even knows about this war - and there wasn't much about it at the time. Iraq/Iran 300,000 civilians including targtetting 200,000 Kurds.. I could go on.. Nary a word from anyone. I guess that saying, No Jews, no news.. holds true? Back to Israel. Answer me this: What killings has Israel perpetrated that were not the result of a threat or an attack? And I am not talking about rogues, for which Israel at least did hold accountable? https://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-02/21/c_136074394.htm And I quote the Israeli judge: ""There was no reason for shooting the terrorist, certainly not at his head," (my bold). Say the roles were reversed.. Would there even be a trial? Or would it be considered an automatic tribulation. Now to Hamas (and the Palestinians that support them): I suggest you dig out the videos that Hamas took on their attacks. I understand they are available on platforms such as Telegram. I have to admit, I haven't seen them, but the commentary is not one for the squeamish. Remember, these people targetted civilians and murdered them in brutal ways. And according to the commentary, rape in front of their families before behading, heading in front of their families, etc. And it was systematic of the attack (I am sure not all were doing this, but there was enough). And of course the famous soundbyte of a Hamas militant calling his mother celebrating he killed Jews.. Now, who is murderous?

Maybe because they are living under constant threat, historically from all of their neghbours and if they lose, its curtains. Read the Hamas Charter - specifically article 7.. It leaves no doubt there is no intention to spare any Jew... anywhere. Remember, they are a proxy of Iran.. and yes, there are still a few Jews in Iran. Funny.. if that were in the constiution of Israel - but in reverse - how much attention that would get?

Begore I call BS, show evidence. - and that it is systematic. Even Australia has its eveil people - Roberts Smith hasn't even been tried while the whistleblower languishes in prison. Doesn't mean Australia is systematically war criminals 9but it seems to harbour their own, anyway). You think consant firing of rockets at civilians over the years.. and then breaking through and brutally killing 1500-ish people and taking hostages is throwing stones? So far peacepul Palestinian protestors? And now that? Give me a break about no antisemetism

I appreciate that and there can be the perception of a blind spot given what I wrote. Working now, but will respond more fully later. I wasn't aware of the Turkish journalist attack, but will do some research on it (Wilipedia can't be taken at face value and one event does not necessarily mean a systematic targetting). I am not saying Israel is perfect or should not be held to account.. I am saying there seems to be a lot levelled at it which is more based on belief than fact.

Sorry - I tend to post long as I try and give the background as to why I take a position, and these areas are rarely simple.. I also think, if you strip away the Israel thing, and the fact I don't think Labor (and Labour here) are doing enough for the people the purport tp represent although concede there are pratical challenges in doing so - we are probably more closely aligned than you think.

There have been as many white people in Aus, and nore in the US committing terrorism as Muslim. Sadly, any anti-solcial behaviour is not the preserve of one or a subset of nationalities or religions.

Allowing no reporting - by Israel? Are you serious? Journos were killed.. Were they actually targetted as journalists? How much reportng do you get from Iran once the protests started and before the war? What evidence do you have that journalism is systematically suppressed where it is physically safe (i,e, they are not going to be directly in the line of fire) by Israel? I have to admit, I am flummoxed by these assertions.. But if you can provide evidence to support that position, I am fine.. otherwise, are they not rabid? Re essentials of life - it is the UN who had decided not to enter Gaza nor allow the other organisation to distribute their supplies.. on what premise? As I understand, it is alleged what UN essentials were being distribnuted were ending up in Hamas' hands largely and not the people. Of course, that could be wrong because the press don't report these things all the time. But, that is my point.. A lot of aspersions are cast with scant evidence, and sensationalistic reporting by the very journos Israel are supposed to suppress. The default position is Israel is wrong, and I will challenge it if the facts don't fit (on anything). Sorry. I am an argumentative SoB. BTW, we all criticise the Iran war, and rightly so given the US objectives. But so far, the one Iranian I know (and it is only one) is still supportive of it. And I prefer to take people with their experience of it on the ground than us armchair experts. Oh, and by the way, she thinks Israel has gone too far on accoasions, but is generally supportive of Israel. They give her reiligion a home free of prejudice, which cannot be said of the Iranians, where the religion was born.