Merged Australian Politics / Australian election

Norman Alexander said:
Not so sure about that. I think Mr Potato Head's star is waning.
Click to expand...
It sounds more like wishful thinking at this stage. The betting is currently running at nearly 2:1 in favour of a Coalition government (though the bettors are split on whether this will be a minority or a majority government).
 
I hope so. I'm not counting on it.
Click to expand...
I'm not counting Dutton out - he is still very dangerous because he is not entirely stupid.

You recall Dutton hitched his wagon to the Trump-train over recent months, at least until 20-Feb. Now the Trump administration is obviously heading way down the political ◊◊◊◊-chute globally, Dutton is certainly wising up to distance himself from similar errors. And that means at least being suddenly rather quiet about previously Trump and fash-adjacent policies. He's having a rethink - doesn't really want to go down on the Bismarck with Kapitan Von Musk.
 
Getting to see ads on Facebook for nuclear energy from people like Get Clear On Nuclear. They are trying to say it is "misunderstood". However the comments are extremely critical. Expensive and unsafe. Not to mention it will take a long time to build.
 
Well, modern gen 5 fast breeder reactors aren't particularly unsafe, they can use the spent fuel from older reactors as more fuel because they more efficiently get energy from it, and until recently I was a wholehearted supporter of nuclear power. But today, compared to renewables and battery storage, nuclear is just far too expensive and it will take too long to be useful.
 
arthwollipot said:
But today, compared to renewables and battery storage, nuclear is just far too expensive and it will take too long to be useful.
Click to expand...
Not to mention (which I believe has been done before) that the real agenda is to prolong the fossil fuel industry while the reactors are being built. The plan is also to not buy electricity from root top solar users if it might overload the grid. IE Dutton is declaring war against solar users.
 
arthwollipot said:
Well, modern gen 5 fast breeder reactors aren't particularly unsafe, they can use the spent fuel from older reactors as more fuel because they more efficiently get energy from it, and until recently I was a wholehearted supporter of nuclear power. But today, compared to renewables and battery storage, nuclear is just far too expensive and it will take too long to be useful.
Click to expand...
This was me also, in about the 1980's with some of the newer nuclear designs. I envisaged small nuclear stations desalinating and pumping seawater inland to relieve our constant droughts. Ah, my young hippie-dippy pipe-dreams! :balloon:

If Australia was ever going to go nuclear, it should have started 50+ years ago. Then, if we could ever afford it, we just might have been geared for it to meet power demands for the early 21st century. But that ship has sailed so long ago that it is not even faint smoke on the horizon. From a standing start today, it will take decades to start-up and cost the country everything.

For Australia, solar-based renewables are the obvious power technology first choice now, followed by wind. Pumped hydro looks to be our batteries ATM.
 
www.abc.net.au

'There is not a silver bullet': Insurance sector dismisses Dutton carve-up plan

Peter Dutton used multiple interviews over the weekend to float the idea of extending the Coalition's existing plan to carve up supermarket and hardware chains to the insurance industry.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

Dutton blames insurers for the fact that it's not profitable to insure a lot of houses up North.

Andrew Hall, the chief executive of the Insurance Council of Australia, said more than 200,000 homes had a 2 to 5 per cent chance of flooding every year — an above-average number for a developed economy.

"To normalise flood insurance for people in high-risk flood zones, we're going to need to find a way to spread that cost across the community more broadly. And it's a difficult discussion to have," he told Radio National Breakfast.

"I wish it was as simple as divestiture — there is not a silver bullet here for this problem."
Click to expand...

Global warming just might be a part of the reason.
 
a_unique_person said:
www.abc.net.au

'There is not a silver bullet': Insurance sector dismisses Dutton carve-up plan

Peter Dutton used multiple interviews over the weekend to float the idea of extending the Coalition's existing plan to carve up supermarket and hardware chains to the insurance industry.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

Dutton blames insurers for the fact that it's not profitable to insure a lot of houses up North.



Global warming just might be a part of the reason.
Click to expand...
As well as insisting on building on flood plains……..
 
Interest rates cut leading to an election in March or April.

Curbing inflation has been a major achievement for Labor and I remain confident of a minority Labor government.
 
RBA Chief Bullock remains power drunk, lecturing mortgage holders not to expect more cuts lest inflation kick off. You don’t run the economy Michele, and if government can bring inflation down to 2%, cuts will occur. And please dump the bogus “underlying inflation” ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. It’s discredited by virtually everybody but the RBA.
 
arthwollipot said:
Please explain it like I'm five. Is cutting interest rates good?
Click to expand...
It’s certainly good in these economic circumstances. Interest rates have always been a very poor tool to manage the economy. The idea, which used to work, was that businesses were very sensitive to interest rate rises and that when they rose, unemployment increased which reduced inflation.

But this is not the case for the past decade or two. As Treasurer Chalmers has pointed out many times, it is possible to have low unemployment and low interest rates. As we have now.

My main problem with the RBA is they delayed the rate cut unnecessarily by clinging to the old paradigm. And it looks like they still clinging to it.

The “underlying inflation rate” is where the RBA decides that government action to support consumers should be ignored when looking at inflation. The board decided that energy subsidies should be part of “underlying inflation” as if the government didn’t pay the subsidies they would show up in “ real” inflation. It’s as if this intervention was economically unsound, which is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

As far as I can tell other reserve banks only look at inflation, not the confected “underlying” inflation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom