Jerry_Atrick

That should read Monday back in England is going to be fun. I was on a phone at the time, so I can only plead autocorrect (from a typo, anyway)

Hey babe; take a walk on the wild side.

I haven't seen his whole press conference, but everything in that snippet made sense at least to me. Of course, I would go for a complete and radical overhaul of how taxation would work...

Here is someone who has a plan to help people. I haven't seen the whole press conference, but we need more people in politics thinking like this: Note, it is mainly foreign shareholders that really benefit from the current arrangements and yes, business won't like it, but when there's enough money still to be made, they will stay Norway, Qatar, and a host of others have proved it.

I am not meaning to be a sinophobe, but China is positioning itself to be a global superpower like no other. Like the many countries but more recent stark examples such as Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, they start with a cheap labour force and other factors of production and start manufacturing the basic goods.. almost commoditised types of goods. It is cheap, breaks and generally OK to throw away after a while But then they invest in technology and manufacturing processes and their cheap goods soon become durable and relatively high quality. You only have to look at the Chinese car manufacturing industry to see how that has come leaps and bounds in a very short period of time - about 10 years in major exports (yes, they have had a domestic car industry for much longer time and they have been exporting cars for a longer time, too.. but not at mass scale as today). Certainly in my life time, Australia never really enjoyed comparatively lower costs of labour or other factors of production. So we are always going to struggle to compete. Although there was a vibrant manufacturing sector, it was largely domestic.. Now, China is advancing into the high tech manufacturing and doing a good job of it. But unlike the other countries named, there are two major differences: the population and size of the economy as its wealth from exports increases.. and the government still has largely autocratic control and it decides on the allocation of resources, unlike western type economies where managers focusing on the short term share price and bonuses as a result decide the allocation of resources. And the Chinese government plans for the long term. With a cashed up government thanks to exports and control over industry, China is perfectly placed rise to be the (not a) global superpower. That is a little dramatic but not improbable. Sorry for the thread drift.

No so good for union apparently https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-11-09/live-updates-england-vs-wallabies-nations-championship/107351328?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other And according to the article, England have beaten Australia 12 of yhe last 14 times. Money back in England is not going to be fun

Old time rock and roll

Yep and the LNP continued to grow it at the same rate from 2013 to 2019.. switch looks very different to what the curve looks like since Albo came to power.. But that was my point.. Albo's government in real terms has flat lined debt - actually reduced it; yet the press are blaming him for the high debt levels caused by previous governments both LNP and ALP

Ahhh.. Blame the current bloke for the previous guy's failings. In the current value of money, here is Australia's debt curve... Adjusted for inflation of course.. So, the total debt in today's money has reduced slightly since 2022 not long after Albo had taken over. The graph steadily increases since the previous ALP government, continues during the LNP (we'll excuse the rate of increase over the 2 year COVID period).. Albo gets in and it steadily reduces, with a slight increase but still below the levels he took over. Yep, I agree.. with pollies, it's other people's money. But it clearly isn't Albo's debt - it is the previous guys.. the ones a lot of people think are the safe pair of hands with the economy because that's what the media owners want them to think. He could do his bit to reduce the debt further - property tax gas exports, reduce corporate welfare, etc. But the press don't like that.

Aren't those Christmas lights in a certain section of Amsterdam?

A lot of news seems to point to the Republicans finally realising that Chump is... a chump and the electorate have cottoned on. A lot of Republican congress people are apparently very concerned about what he will get up to over the next couple of years and how it could further erode their jobs come next election. Whilst it won't be easy, there is talk that he may well not make it for much longer.. The problem is, who will replace him?

This was my route Wednesday and Thursday (with the obligatory overnight stop at Tocumwal): It was a very pleasant drive. Back in July, it was straight up and back.. There were potholes on the Hume and the Golbourn Valley Highway.. Not a lot, but enough, and certainly big enough to cause some real problems (I did hit one.. it thankfully did no discernible damage, but it gave me a bloody decent jolt.. And I wasn't going fast - maybe 70km/h. This time there were no potholes for most of the same route to Tocumwal. In fact, when you turn onto the Newell Highway that road is in bloody good condition, and makes the NSW roads look decidedly unmaintained. The route form Tocumwal via Echuca and Bendigo was a bit differnt, but to be honest, not much worse for most of it than I recall when I lived here over 30 years ago. Quite bumpy in places and dips galore. There were clearly areas where if they weren't attnded tom potholes would form in the not too distant future. There was a town - I can't recall which - maybe Rochester or Huntly - where there were a disproportionate number of potholes and I do recall two potholes on the Murray Valley which happened to be the width of my wheelbase as I did hit them before getting to Echuca - but they weren't deep and not terribly bumpy. Of course if cars/tricks keep hitting them it won't be long before they are bumpy. You could see lots of repaired potholes - some looked very temporary. I am not sure why they attacked only the holes though - some areas of road were visibly damaged around the holes and they should have repaired the whole section. But, I guess there is a need to get the holes plugged ASAP. I came off the Calder/Tulla freeway at Bell Street to Bulleen Road then back on myself a bit to Burke Road and then onto Moorabbin airport via the South Eastern and Warragul road. I absolutely agree with this: The amount of what look like B-Doubles compared to when I last lived in Melbourne rolling through suburban roads (I don't recall any when I last lived here) is amazing. I understand the economics to the companies operating transport businesses and that use them, but it was a bit of a brain fart on many levels to increase the weight on all but very specific routes (I am sure they are not allowed down streets, but some roads didn't seem designed for them).

According to Google, at the moment, from public records, the government is currently committed to around $2bn in spend under AUKUS. Of course, this is from what information is available publicly. But, these contracts will have escape clauses just like that of the French - especially since the US and the UK are under no obligation to deliver anything.. So, yes, it is likely we will lose some as we did with cancelling the French contract.. some $3.5bn in the end.. But even if we are on the hooks for say $10bn, it is still < 3% of the total budget of the program, so I would be happy t cut that cheque to be rid of it. And yes, I still pay tax in Australia.. The last guy setting it up excuses the cost of abandoning it; it doesn't excuse the continual accrual of a white elephant of a project to Australia committing that much money to it. Remember c. $5bn is allocated to uplift US shipbuilding capacity

It will solve the fuel price crisis

I guess it depends on ow you look at things. If you are Chump, his family or his sponsors (e.g. tech bros), you have done very well indeed and there is a lot to thin he has done well.

Sitting at the Tocumwal Hotel/Motel enjoying a VB, and it absolutely bucketed down , inclusive of hail! I know it's not the best beer in the world... but this VB has no bons in it today.

The above answers are definitely some of the reason. Also, the UK debt is 96% if GDP and Australia's is around 33%. A small interest rate bump will compound UK's fiscal woes, while a small bump won't have the same marginal impact on Australia's. However, the BoE meet tomorrow and are expected to raise the rate anyway. Note, the UK and Aus inflation rate are about the same, so you can argue the UK have been kicking the can down the road. On the other hand, I am not sure in the current state of the economy, putting up interest rates is necessarily correct, either as energy inflation is probably putting the brakes on spending in other areas.

Are you sure about that.. or are you confusing the them with the Republicans? What are the lot of good thing he has done, exactly.. And what about the lot of ship stuff he has done this time around. I'd be interested in how you square the ledger.

It has been very quiet on the forums lately. Are we holding our collective breaths for the results?

I shot the sherrif

Just another grasp at straws to try and discredit renewables

I agree on industrial relations to an extent; The Fair Work Act is a minefield and extends well beyond what would normally be the employer/employee relationship. The CGT reform was needed; and I get a lot of people are going to be affected as a result. But the distortion in the property market was palpable, and now asset classes are all treated equally. Of course, real estate is not a liquid asset, and he probably could have used transitional arrangements. But that would probably have had worse political ramifications. Looking at his performance against the G20 for the period he has been in office and it's a mixed bag; Better on growth; kept peak inflation less than his peers, but inflation is stubborn (probably a facet of an importing heavy nation). Unemployment is significantly lower than his peers: Pre COVID, the LNP did slightly better: But, there were some structural challenges Albo has that they didn't: The LNP governed through ultra-low interest rates the whole time. This is very good for economic growth. And so did most of the rest of the world, which means the money globally was flowing more freely. By the time Albo got in, the interest rates were already rising globally, and the brakes were on. The LNP enjoyed a global environment of low inflation. When Albo took office, the cost of living crisis had already started. The above graph goes until 2019 (so ex COVID). For the whole time the LNP was in, there was a resources boom that contibuted very nicely to the Aussie economy. It is picking up now, but Albo's government didn't quite have that luxury.. and that was a product of mainly Chinese demand and not the Aussie government. There was no geopolitical issues of note during the LNP period, and of course, none off the fuel shocks we are having now. I want to be clear.. I think there is a lot of room for a lot of improvement. But to call him our worst PM since Whitlam is a bit of a stretch.

Should answer your question.. My comparison with SFM is tp show he ain't worse (nor better) than the next one. Am I accepting it? In so much as there isn't anyone too much better to lead at the moment, IMHO. It's not great for me to admit it, but, as you say because of a lack of quality political leaders, is a sad state of affairs and cutting one's nose off to spite their face seems counterproductive given the benefit the change has already had. In terms of picking and choosing promises - I am not sure what you're referring to; all I did was regurgitate stats and I did qualify by saying by itself is not a good comparator. It is meant to be illustrative to Brenden mostly that not only Albo lies. I have to admit, I don't quite understand this comment.. Who was referring to the last government. Didn't Albo take action to stabilise (and return to normal levels) the housing market.. for now and in the future? What have I missed. Yep, he did like - well I believe he did.. And yes, he is paying for it politically at the moment. He timed it so (for him) the correction was swift and more people could afford homes and by the time the next election came around they would be thanking him in the ballot box resulting in a notching up of the price so those affected by the price correction could see the upside. I have to admit, he is not the master of political timing and trying it when there were geopolitical tensions that were likely to spill over and result in a global fuel price shock was not the smartest thing to do, politically. Is that the best you can do. Let me stoop to your level.. if you think the others are better, then your head is firmly wedged in a place where your torso has to form a semi-circle to get your head to. Quite, tightly wedged, too.. And part of my job is to research economies and economic performance. So, here is a graph for you.. It's the 10 year Aussie Federal Government Bond Futures Index: What it is saying is that basically, that 10 year bonds issued by the Federal government are likely to increase in price, meaning a lower yield (interest rate). This is the Standard & Poors index, which is an industry benchmark: https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/fixed-income/sp-asx-australian-10-year-treasury-bond-futures-index/#overview In other words, a lot of highly qualified people who are much better than your and I put together at assessing current and likely future economic performance are putting bets on Australia as they think the current government and the RBA are doing a pretty good job managing the finances and economy. These are futures contracts rather than the bonds themselves and they represent an agreement to deliver a certain number of 10 year Aussie bonds for the stated price at the maturity of the futures contract. These are exchange traded and there is a very liquid market in 10 year Aussie bond futures. The markets are effectively saying, at the moment, we think the cost of borrowing for Australia will come down. That will be predicated by good economic management; otherwise, the riskier the loan, the more interest you will pay. The fixed income market (bonds) is the canary in the coal mine of economic performance- it responds much earlier to economic activity than the stock markets. And the futures market is the early warning system of that canary. At the moment, Australia is looking very good, indeed. Sorry to rain on your parade. Ironically, you may want to bet against the Aussie dollar because as the price rises, the yield drops and investors will look for better returns.. However, the RBA always intervenes to ensure Australia remains competitive in the investor market. What would happen to the curve if any of the others got in? The reality is I don't know. But, as the election gets closer, we should take a look at the curve against who is the favourites and see what it has to show us. Just remember that.. the people who are risking large sums of their money (for many, their livelihoods) are banking on the Australian government and RBA doing a good job managing the economy. Futures are a zero sum game; you bet the wrong way, and you lose it all; they're not like equities where unless the company goes broke, you can extract some value from each share you hold. And, it's not the only thing we could use to measure performance, but it is a good first cut.

All nice fleeting statements, but can you back it up with hard evidence?

This is where you should do a little more research before cherry picking. Every PM or political party has broken some promises. I touched on CGT already.. The reality is, as Albo said, something had to be done... It was getting worse and worse for the average Australian and that is not a good place to be. But, as I said, every political party/PM breaks promises.. some will definitely be intentional and some will be responding to conditions. For the record, I think the CGT promise as a lie and they had every intention of overhauling it. And, yes, while I agree with the outcome, he should have been more upfront about it.. Or maybe less upfront and vague about it. But, for the record, I looked up the number of broken promises between Albo and SFM. I have not validated these, but as a guide: [Edit] This is the result of an ABC/RMIT Fact Check.. In all honestly, there is not too much to draw from these as there is a big number in progress for the current government - some may fail for valid reasons and some may fail for political reasons. But my point is there is 20% of the SFM promises failed. All leaders/political parties lie or break promises. And quite materially by the looks (not calibrating size/importance of the promise). You can prattle on targetting the side you don't like and think the sun shines out of the posterior of the side you do like.. That is your prerogative. But don't be surprised if others take a different point of view and come back at you. I wouldn't worry too much about it.. If it isn't already a defence to defamation, a half witted lawyer could probably successfully persuade the court that a statement claiming fact is so devoid of truth that no average person could believe it to be true. (That is not legal advice by the way... )