OT: The election...

[lindsay]

I'm getting old... most shit on media that i observe, (television,
radio) doesnt really faze me.... But when you're force fed political
*SHIT*, that we have to pay for, I draw the line.

In the last 10 mins, I've heard "there's a hole in your budget...) 4
times on prime time tv, , I heard it 4 times in 30 mins on TTFM this
morning before I punched the clock radio in the face and swapped to
digital.... I believe they actually changed it to a more modern track
today, but I havent heard it...thankfully.

I'm nearly happy, I voted early, so I dont have to stand around in a 45
minute queue with all the dirty fucks without a mask... I could lie, and
say I dont care who wins... I do.. but find the cunt who came up with
"theres a hole in your budget", and "put him in the curry" ffs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0n88tZQc4Q

put 'em *ALL* in the curry....

[Noddy]

On 18/05/2022 7:56 pm, lindsay wrote:
>
> I'm getting old... most shit on media that i observe, (television,
> radio) doesnt really faze me.... But when you're force fed political
> *SHIT*, that we have to pay for, I draw the line.

It's certainly getting over the top, and I'll be glad once Saturday is
done and dusted.

> In the last 10 mins, I've heard "there's a hole in your budget...) 4
> times on prime time tv, , I heard it 4 times in 30 mins on TTFM this
> morning before I punched the clock radio in the face and swapped to
> digital.... I believe they actually changed it to a more modern track
> today, but I havent heard it...thankfully.

I listen to digital all day in the workshop, and thankfully it's
remarkably add free. So much so that when I have to go back to regular
FM in the car or so I can't stand it.

> I'm nearly happy, I voted early, so I dont have to stand around in a 45
> minute queue with all the dirty fucks without a mask... I could lie, and
> say I dont care who wins... I do.. but find the cunt who came up with
> "theres a hole in your budget", and "put him in the curry" ffs.
>
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0n88tZQc4Q
>
> put 'em *ALL* in the curry....

Same. I usually do a postal vote so I don't have to bother going to the
polling booth and putting up with all the fucktards trying to shove "how
to vote" crap in your face. I've already voted, and it's probably no
secret who for.

Tip: It ain't any of these cunts :)

> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEAKIZ2



--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Oliver Closeoff]

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:56:54 +1000, lindsay posted:-

> I'm getting old... most shit on media that i observe, (television,
> radio) doesnt really faze me.... But when you're force fed political
> *SHIT*, that we have to pay for, I draw the line.

You don't pay for the advertising, the parties raise funds for that.

>
> In the last 10 mins, I've heard "there's a hole in your budget...) 4
> times on prime time tv, , I heard it 4 times in 30 mins on TTFM this
> morning before I punched the clock radio in the face and swapped to
> digital.... I believe they actually changed it to a more modern track
> today, but I havent heard it...thankfully.

Going full bore on SBS tonight, but so is the ALP about ScoMo.

>
> I'm nearly happy, I voted early, so I dont have to stand around in a
> 45 minute queue with all the dirty fucks without a mask... I could
> lie, and say I dont care who wins... I do.. but find the cunt who
> came up with "theres a hole in your budget", and "put him in the
> curry" ffs.

Huge crowd at the early booth I went to; doubt if we would get a true
result Saturday night. I notice the electoral staff all have laptops
now, why can't we vote electronically FFS? Instead of this tedious hand
counting nonsense. And why should voting be compulsory, and why
should we have preferential? First past the post shows the will of the
people.

[Daryl]

LOL, know what you mean:-)
United Australia Party ads are even worse and I see many more of those
even on YouTube.
When I voted I noticed that the Liberal how to vote card for both houses
had UAP as their second preference so it looks like a vote for the UAP
is effectively a vote for the Libs, if the Libs win I wouldn't be
surprised if it was mostly due to UAP preferences.


--
Daryl

[Daryl]

LOL, me either, my theory is we need to make our electorate as marginal
as possible so way would I vote Labor.

--
Daryl

[Noddy]

On 18/05/2022 10:46 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 18/5/2022 7:56 pm, lindsay wrote:

>> I'm nearly happy, I voted early, so I dont have to stand around in a
>> 45 minute queue with all the dirty fucks without a mask... I could
>> lie, and say I dont care who wins... I do.. but find the cunt who came
>> up with "theres a hole in your budget", and "put him in the curry" ffs.
>
> LOL, know what you mean:-)
> United Australia Party ads are even worse and I see many more of those
> even on YouTube.

Do you read the Herald-Sun? If I see one more full page ad showing a
picture of that fat fuck Craig Kelly under the banner of "Australia's
next Prime Minister" I'm going to tear it out, wipe my arse on it and
then post it to the retarded sack of shit.

[Noddy]

Yep. Fuck them right off.

[Oliver Closeoff]

On Wed, 18 May 2022 23:38:34 +1000, Noddy posted:-

> Do you read the Herald-Sun? If I see one more full page ad showing a
> picture of that fat fuck Craig Kelly under the banner of "Australia's
> next Prime Minister" I'm going to tear it out, wipe my arse on it and
> then post it to the retarded sack of shit.

LOL same ad in Financial Review FFS.

[alvey]

No change in your posting habit there Fraudster. You're just posting your
shit somewhere different...



alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Xeno]

On 19/5/2022 7:21 am, alvey wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2022 23:38:34 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>
>> On 18/05/2022 10:46 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 18/5/2022 7:56 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm nearly happy, I voted early, so I dont have to stand around in a
>>>> 45 minute queue with all the dirty fucks without a mask... I could
>>>> lie, and say I dont care who wins... I do.. but find the cunt who came
>>>> up with "theres a hole in your budget", and "put him in the curry" ffs.
>>>
>>> LOL, know what you mean:-)
>>> United Australia Party ads are even worse and I see many more of those
>>> even on YouTube.
>>
>> Do you read the Herald-Sun? If I see one more full page ad showing a
>> picture of that fat fuck Craig Kelly under the banner of "Australia's
>> next Prime Minister" I'm going to tear it out, wipe my arse on it and
>> then post it to the retarded sack of shit.
>
> No change in your posting habit there Fraudster. You're just posting your
> shit somewhere different...
>

Same shit, sprayed in different directions.
>
>
> alvey
>


--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

[Xeno]

And in the Sydney Morning Herald.

In fact, that ad, plus those from Harvey Norman and Domayne, are the
only commonality between, say, the SMH and the Telegraph. In every other
way they are worlds apart.

[Clocky]

On 18/05/2022 5:56 pm, lindsay wrote:
>
> I'm getting old... most shit on media that i observe, (television,
> radio) doesnt really faze me.... But when you're force fed political
> *SHIT*, that we have to pay for, I draw the line.
>
> In the last 10 mins, I've heard "there's a hole in your budget...)

The "budget emergency" and "debt and deficit" bullshit a few years ago
was endless. Intolerable especially since it was a blatant lie. The
"budget emergency" is now several times worse and completely blown out
by their Lieberal party's own measure.

It's a case of pick your poison but that happy clapping used car
salesman needs to go IMO.

[Clocky]

On 19/05/2022 5:21 am, alvey wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2022 23:38:34 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>
>> On 18/05/2022 10:46 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 18/5/2022 7:56 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm nearly happy, I voted early, so I dont have to stand around in a
>>>> 45 minute queue with all the dirty fucks without a mask... I could
>>>> lie, and say I dont care who wins... I do.. but find the cunt who came
>>>> up with "theres a hole in your budget", and "put him in the curry" ffs.
>>>
>>> LOL, know what you mean:-)
>>> United Australia Party ads are even worse and I see many more of those
>>> even on YouTube.
>>
>> Do you read the Herald-Sun? If I see one more full page ad showing a
>> picture of that fat fuck Craig Kelly under the banner of "Australia's
>> next Prime Minister" I'm going to tear it out, wipe my arse on it and
>> then post it to the retarded sack of shit.
>
> No change in your posting habit there Fraudster. You're just posting your
> shit somewhere different...
>
>
>

LOL :-)

[Daryl]

On 18/5/2022 11:38 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/05/2022 10:46 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 18/5/2022 7:56 pm, lindsay wrote:
>
>>> I'm nearly happy, I voted early, so I dont have to stand around in a
>>> 45 minute queue with all the dirty fucks without a mask... I could
>>> lie, and say I dont care who wins... I do.. but find the cunt who
>>> came up with "theres a hole in your budget", and "put him in the
>>> curry" ffs.
>>
>> LOL, know what you mean:-)
>> United Australia Party ads are even worse and I see many more of those
>> even on YouTube.
>
> Do you read the Herald-Sun?

NO.

If I see one more full page ad showing a
> picture of that fat fuck Craig Kelly under the banner of "Australia's
> next Prime Minister" I'm going to tear it out, wipe my arse on it and
> then post it to the retarded sack of shit.
>
>

LOL, he's very annoying.


--
Daryl

[John_H]

Hope you didn't put a major party at 1 which gets them $3 or so for
your vote (in spite of what others may say it's the taxpayer who pays
for their shit).

Also hope you never drew a prick on your ballot paper as one got
elected last time (as I heard somewhere recently). :)

--
John H

[Clocky]

LOL :-)

[Daryl]

I saw a sign on the hwy not far from here which says "Put the majors
last", not a bad idea but my electorate is a Labor stronghold so I vote
Liberal mostly in an attempt to weaken Labors hold on the electorate and
to make it more marginal.
At the last State election there was a significant swing away from Labor
here so hopefully the same thing will happen at the Federal election.

--
Daryl

[Trevor Wilson]

**A vote for the COALition ensures:

* That the smirking, religious fool, Scummo and his sidekick, Joyce will
be returned to power. Don't forget: Joyce runs the country when Scummo
is somewhere else.
* That zero progress on reducing CO2 emissions will occur.
* We will not have a Federal ICAC.
* There will be unrestrained spending on useless car parks, sports rorts
and all the other shit.

[Noddy]

He's a fucking imbecile, just like most of the people in the UAP. Still,
as fucked up as they are, they're not anywhere near as bad as the Greens :)

[Daryl]

As opposed to the Albanese dimwit?

> * That zero progress on reducing CO2 emissions will occur.

Since Australia's contribution to world emissions is a smidge over 1%
anything we do including if we went to zero overnight will make sfa
difference to the world.
Not saying we shouldn't or can't do things better but it needs to be put
into perspective, see above.
I also think that whilst Labor will make a lot more noise about reducing
emissions the result won't be any different regardless of which party is
in Govt because in the end its the general public and business who spend
their own money on actually doing something and they will make their
decisions based on what suits them rather than what any Govt wants.
An example of how Govt meddling in renewable energy failed is the Vic
Govt solar rebate, the very significant extra costs in administering the
rebate fell to the solar suppliers and the costs were passed on to the
customers resulting in price increases similar to the value of the
rebate so its better if Govts don't get involved, they just fuck it up.

> * We will not have a Federal ICAC.

I support an ICAC if I thought that it would be effective, if it was we
wouldn't have any Govt, Labor or Liberal because they are all equally
corrupt.

> * There will be unrestrained spending on useless car parks, sports rorts
> and all the other shit.

You mean like Gillards school hall/gym projects?
Both parties are guilty of pork barrelling, it has always been so and
always will be.

None of above is relevant in my electorate since its a Labor stronghold,
Labor do nothing because they know the wood ducks will always vote for
them no matter what and the Libs do nothing because they know that its a
Labor area, only way to make change is for it to be a marginal seat, I
would say and do the same if it was a Liberal area.

--
Daryl

[Noddy]

On 19/05/2022 12:07 pm, Daryl wrote:

I hope so, as I have a lazy hundred on at 7 to 1 with Sportsbet that the
Coalition will retain office :)

In all seriousness I think it will be close, but not as close as some of
the polls seem to be tipping. I think Albanese scares people as he has
completely failed to get his economic message across, and the idea of
releasing your policy costings 2 days out from polling day is the kind
of sketchy bullshit that retards like Tony Abbott tries on.

He's dangerous.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Points:

* I agree that Albo was a poor choice as leader and I am profoundly
disappointed that Labor dumped all of Shorten's excellent policies.
* We KNOW exactly how corrupt and how dumb Scummo (I believe in
miracles) is.
* We don't know how badly (or goodly) Albo might perform as PM.
* We know EXACTLY how badly and corruptly Scummo and Joyce are.

>
>> * That zero progress on reducing CO2 emissions will occur.
>
> Since Australia's contribution to world emissions is a smidge over 1%
> anything we do including if we went to zero overnight will make sfa
> difference to the world.

**You fucking moron. Stop using that pitifully idiotic bullshit claim.

EVERY SINGLE HUMAN ONE THE PLANET must act to reduce CO2 emissions.
Every American, Every Chinese citizen, every German and every Australian.

> Not saying we shouldn't or can't do things better but it needs to be put
> into perspective, see above.

**Yes, it does. EVERYONE has to act to reduce CO2 emissions. We are
INCREASING ours under the COALition government.

> I also think that whilst Labor will make a lot more noise about reducing
> emissions the result won't be any different regardless of which party is
> in Govt because in the end its the general public and business who spend
> their own money on actually doing something and they will make their
> decisions based on what suits them rather than what any Govt wants.

**And yet, the last time Labor was in power, Australia REDUCED it's CO2
emissions by a very impressive 7%.

> An example of how Govt meddling in renewable energy failed is the Vic
> Govt solar rebate, the very significant extra costs in administering the
> rebate fell to the solar suppliers and the costs were passed on to the
> customers resulting in price increases similar to the value of the
> rebate so its better if Govts don't get involved, they just fuck it up.

**I see. So you are happy with The National's insistence that the
GOVERNMENT put taxpayer funds into coal fired power stations and that
fucking idiot, Scummo's promise to put taxpayer funds in gas fired power
stations?

I suggest you look up the term: 'Stranded asset'.

And, since taxpayer funds are being used, it is taxpayers that will foot
the bill for these clowns and their idiotic ideas.

>
>> * We will not have a Federal ICAC.
>
> I support an ICAC if I thought that it would be effective, if it was we
> wouldn't have any Govt, Labor or Liberal because they are all equally
> corrupt.

**And that is what an ICAC is designed to deal with. Regardless of who
is in power. ANYONE who dodges implementing an ICAC (like Scummo has
done) has something to hide.

>
>
>> * There will be unrestrained spending on useless car parks, sports
>> rorts and all the other shit.
>
>
> You mean like Gillards school hall/gym projects?

**You mean Rudd's? And, here's the thing: For the most part, those
building projects were useful and they kept the economy bubbling along.
Sports rorts and car parks were either useless or were just plain old
pork barrelling.

> Both parties are guilty of pork barrelling, it has always been so and
> always will be.

**The COALition has elevated it to an extreme degree, but I do agree.
Pork barrelling must end. Voting for Scummo/Joyce will mean that we will
get more pork barrelling, not less.

>
> None of above is relevant in my electorate since its a Labor stronghold,
> Labor do nothing because they know the wood ducks will always vote for
> them no matter what and the Libs do nothing because they know that its a
> Labor area, only way to make change is for it to be a marginal seat, I
> would say and do the same if it was a Liberal area.

**Think of the big picture, not your own backyard.

[Noddy]

On 19/05/2022 2:28 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 19/5/2022 1:35 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>
>> * That zero progress on reducing CO2 emissions will occur.
>
> Since Australia's contribution to world emissions is a smidge over 1%
> anything we do including if we went to zero overnight will make sfa
> difference to the world.
> Not saying we shouldn't or can't do things better but it needs to be put
> into perspective, see above.

Absolutely. We are completely kidding ourselves if we think that
anything we do here will have any effect as far as the planet is
concerned. Big effect on the cost of the way we live, but zero impact on
the planet's health.

> I also think that whilst Labor will make a lot more noise about reducing
> emissions the result won't be any different regardless of which party is
> in Govt because in the end its the general public and business who spend
> their own money on actually doing something and they will make their
> decisions based on what suits them rather than what any Govt wants.

Agreed.

> An example of how Govt meddling in renewable energy failed is the Vic
> Govt solar rebate, the very significant extra costs in administering the
> rebate fell to the solar suppliers and the costs were passed on to the
> customers resulting in price increases similar to the value of the
> rebate so its better if Govts don't get involved, they just fuck it up.

Exactly.

>> * We will not have a Federal ICAC.
>
> I support an ICAC if I thought that it would be effective, if it was we
> wouldn't have any Govt, Labor or Liberal because they are all equally
> corrupt.

If the current goings on in Victoria are any indicator as to how
effective any federal "corruption watchdog" would be, then I'm not the
slightest bit bothered if we never have one. Neither side wants it, and
they will *both* do whatever they can to water it down and make it
completely ineffective.

Just like it currently is in Victoria.

>
>> * There will be unrestrained spending on useless car parks, sports
>> rorts and all the other shit.
>
>
> You mean like Gillards school hall/gym projects?
> Both parties are guilty of pork barrelling, it has always been so and
> always will be.

Yep. Sadly neither party has a monopoly of common sense and they are
both equally guilty when it comes to squandering public money to buy votes.

> None of above is relevant in my electorate since its a Labor stronghold,
> Labor do nothing because they know the wood ducks will always vote for
> them no matter what and the Libs do nothing because they know that its a
> Labor area, only way to make change is for it to be a marginal seat, I
> would say and do the same if it was a Liberal area.

Same. Living in a safe constituency is the worst thing you can ever
endure from a political perspective, because it means you get treated
like shit.

[Noddy]

On 19/05/2022 3:17 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 19/05/2022 2:28 pm, Daryl wrote:

>>
>> Since Australia's contribution to world emissions is a smidge over 1%
>> anything we do including if we went to zero overnight will make sfa
>> difference to the world.
>
> **You fucking moron. Stop using that pitifully idiotic bullshit claim.

What's idiotic about it? Australia's contribution to the planet's
problems in infinitesimally small. And please, while you're on the
subject of "pitifully idiotic bullshit", don't start with the "per
capita" nonsense.

> EVERY SINGLE HUMAN ONE THE PLANET must act to reduce CO2 emissions.
> Every American, Every Chinese citizen, every German and every Australian.

Hey Trev, when are you going to stop with the rhetoric and start leading
by example? You know, sell your fossil fuel burning cars and buy an EV?
Bulldoze your old horribly inefficient house and build a new supper
efficient one? cut down the sun blocking trees around your place and
install a big solar array with a battery back up?

Why is it that the bloke who makes more noise about environmental
responsibility around here than anyone *also* seems to be the bloke who
does jack shit himself?

Other than talk about it of course :)

[Trevor Wilson]

On 19/05/2022 4:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/05/2022 3:17 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 19/05/2022 2:28 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Since Australia's contribution to world emissions is a smidge over 1%
>>> anything we do including if we went to zero overnight will make sfa
>>> difference to the world.
>>
>> **You fucking moron. Stop using that pitifully idiotic bullshit claim.
>
> What's idiotic about it?

**It's idiotic on several levels:

* Every human must work to reduce CO2 emissions. That includes every
Australian.
* If we add up the CO2 emissions from every nation that emits less CO2
than Australia, we come to around 50% of human CO2 emissions.
* If Australia doesn't work to reduce CO2 emissions, then Australians
can hardly tell the US, China, Saudi Arabia and the others to reduce
theirs.

Australia's contribution to the planet's
> problems in infinitesimally small.

**And yet, every nation that emits less than Australia could claim the
same thing. Added together, all those nations (including Australia) can
make a significant difference.

And please, while you're on the
> subject of "pitifully idiotic bullshit", don't start with the "per
> capita" nonsense.

**Per capita is the only measure that matters.

>
>> EVERY SINGLE HUMAN ONE THE PLANET must act to reduce CO2 emissions.
>> Every American, Every Chinese citizen, every German and every Australian.
>
> Hey Trev, when are you going to stop with the rhetoric and start leading
> by example?

**I already do.

You know, sell your fossil fuel burning cars and buy an EV?

**As soon as we get a government that makes buying EVs attractive. The
COALition has no interest.

> Bulldoze your old horribly inefficient house and build a new supper
> efficient one?

**How is my house inefficient? Be precise in your response. FWIW: I have
the most efficient inverter air cons available. They are used around 10
days per year. I have no other heating or cooling. My next door
neighbour has a modern, efficient home and they've used their air con
every day for the past couple of months.

cut down the sun blocking trees around your place and
> install a big solar array with a battery back up?

**ALL my electricity is obtained from renewable sources.

>
> Why is it that the bloke who makes more noise about environmental
> responsibility around here than anyone *also* seems to be the bloke who
> does jack shit himself?

**You have no idea what I do, or don't do.

>
> Other than talk about it of course :)

**Like I said: You have no idea.

[Daryl]

That's the problem, why take the risk, if he is a dim as he appears we
are even more screwed than we are now.

> * We know EXACTLY how badly and corruptly Scummo and Joyce are.
>
>>
>>> * That zero progress on reducing CO2 emissions will occur.
>>
>> Since Australia's contribution to world emissions is a smidge over 1%
>> anything we do including if we went to zero overnight will make sfa
>> difference to the world.
>
> **You fucking moron. Stop using that pitifully idiotic bullshit claim.

Its the only measure that makes any sense.

>
> EVERY SINGLE HUMAN ONE THE PLANET must act to reduce CO2 emissions.

OK then, I have 11.2kw of solar panels, solar hot water and a new energy
efficient house, tell us again what you have done?

> Every American, Every Chinese citizen, every German and every Australian.
>
>> Not saying we shouldn't or can't do things better but it needs to be
>> put into perspective, see above.
>
> **Yes, it does. EVERYONE has to act to reduce CO2 emissions. We are
> INCREASING ours under the COALition government.

See below, you are wrong.
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/climate-change-qa/sources-of-ghg-gases#:~:text=Australian%20emissions&text=According%20to%20the%20December%202020,contributor%20to%20Australia's%20carbon%20emissions.

>
>> I also think that whilst Labor will make a lot more noise about
>> reducing emissions the result won't be any different regardless of
>> which party is in Govt because in the end its the general public and
>> business who spend their own money on actually doing something and
>> they will make their decisions based on what suits them rather than
>> what any Govt wants.
>
> **And yet, the last time Labor was in power, Australia REDUCED it's CO2
> emissions by a very impressive 7%.

What does 7% of next to nothing (1% of the worlds emissions) equal?
Answer, 7% of 1% equals fuck all.
What effect on the world would there be if overnight Australia's
emissions dropped to zero?

>
>> An example of how Govt meddling in renewable energy failed is the Vic
>> Govt solar rebate, the very significant extra costs in administering
>> the rebate fell to the solar suppliers and the costs were passed on to
>> the customers resulting in price increases similar to the value of the
>> rebate so its better if Govts don't get involved, they just fuck it up.
>
> **I see. So you are happy with The National's insistence that the
> GOVERNMENT put taxpayer funds into coal fired power stations and that
> fucking idiot, Scummo's promise to put taxpayer funds in gas fired power
> stations?

Since Govt will not fully fund those projects in the end it will be
business who decides whether or not such projects go ahead and its their
investors who have the most say in it, its business who is shutting down
coal fired power simply because they know its a bad investment, they do
that despite what Govt wants so you can bleat all you like but the Govt
has a lot less influence on the outcome than you think.

>
> I suggest you look up the term: 'Stranded asset'.
>
> And, since taxpayer funds are being used, it is taxpayers that will foot
> the bill for these clowns and their idiotic ideas.
>
>>
>>> * We will not have a Federal ICAC.
>>
>> I support an ICAC if I thought that it would be effective, if it was
>> we wouldn't have any Govt, Labor or Liberal because they are all
>> equally corrupt.
>
> **And that is what an ICAC is designed to deal with. Regardless of who
> is in power. ANYONE who dodges implementing an ICAC (like Scummo has
> done) has something to hide.
>
>>
>>
>>> * There will be unrestrained spending on useless car parks, sports
>>> rorts and all the other shit.
>>
>>
>> You mean like Gillards school hall/gym projects?
>
> **You mean Rudd's? And, here's the thing: For the most part, those
> building projects were useful and they kept the economy bubbling along.
> Sports rorts and car parks were either useless or were just plain old
> pork barrelling.

Same as car parks etc, any and all can be claimed by someone to be
needed, pork barrelling is just normal politics no matter who does it,
get over it.

>
>> Both parties are guilty of pork barrelling, it has always been so and
>> always will be.
>
> **The COALition has elevated it to an extreme degree, but I do agree.
> Pork barrelling must end. Voting for Scummo/Joyce will mean that we will
> get more pork barrelling, not less.

LOL, only a very naive one eyed person can't see that they are all as
bad as each other in that regard.

>
>>
>> None of above is relevant in my electorate since its a Labor
>> stronghold, Labor do nothing because they know the wood ducks will
>> always vote for them no matter what and the Libs do nothing because
>> they know that its a Labor area, only way to make change is for it to
>> be a marginal seat, I would say and do the same if it was a Liberal area.
>
> **Think of the big picture, not your own backyard.
>

That would be dumb, I only vote in my electorate, what happens elsewhere
is beyond my control.
Even if I did vote Labor or Green it wouldn't make any difference to the
overall result, as much as I hope that my vote will result in a marginal
electorate we will most likely end up with another useless Labor MP.

--
Daryl

[Daryl]

On 19/5/2022 2:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/05/2022 12:07 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 19/5/2022 10:23 am, John_H wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Also hope you never drew a prick on your ballot paper as one got
>>> elected last time (as I heard somewhere recently).  :)
>>>
>> I saw a sign on the hwy not far from here which says "Put the majors
>> last", not a bad idea but my electorate is a Labor stronghold so I
>> vote Liberal mostly in an attempt to weaken Labors hold on the
>> electorate and to make it more marginal.
>> At the last State election there was a significant swing away from
>> Labor here so hopefully the same thing will happen at the Federal
>> election.
>
> I hope so, as I have a lazy hundred on at 7 to 1 with Sportsbet that the
> Coalition will retain office :)

Nothing would surprise me, UAP have spent a mint on advertising and as
far as I can tell their preferences are going to the Liberals so
anything is possible.

>
> In all seriousness I think it will be close, but not as close as some of
> the polls seem to be tipping. I think Albanese scares people as he has
> completely failed to get his economic message across, and the idea of
> releasing your policy costings 2 days out from polling day is the kind
> of sketchy bullshit that retards like Tony Abbott tries on.
>
> He's dangerous.
>

I think he's too dumb to be dangerous, its the ones pulling his strings
that I worry about.


--
Daryl

[Trevor Wilson]

**Scummo is the worst PM we've seen in quite some time. He can not and
should not be rewarded for lying, pork barrelling and fucking up. You
have kids. Did you reward them when they fucked up?

Of course you didn't. Don't reward Scummo now.

>
>> * We know EXACTLY how badly and corruptly Scummo and Joyce are.
>>
>>>
>>>> * That zero progress on reducing CO2 emissions will occur.
>>>
>>> Since Australia's contribution to world emissions is a smidge over 1%
>>> anything we do including if we went to zero overnight will make sfa
>>> difference to the world.
>>
>> **You fucking moron. Stop using that pitifully idiotic bullshit claim.
>
> Its the only measure that makes any sense.
>>
>> EVERY SINGLE HUMAN ONE THE PLANET must act to reduce CO2 emissions.
>
> OK then, I have 11.2kw of solar panels, solar hot water and a new energy
> efficient house, tell us again what you have done?

**ALL my power is derived from renewable sources. Every single Watt.

>
>
>> Every American, Every Chinese citizen, every German and every Australian.
>>
>>> Not saying we shouldn't or can't do things better but it needs to be
>>> put into perspective, see above.
>>
>> **Yes, it does. EVERYONE has to act to reduce CO2 emissions. We are
>> INCREASING ours under the COALition government.
>
> See below, you are wrong.
> https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/climate-change-qa/sources-of-ghg-gases#:~:text=Australian%20emissions&text=According%20to%20the%20December%202020,contributor%20to%20Australia's%20carbon%20emissions.

**Flattened out, but it must be reduced.

>
>>
>>> I also think that whilst Labor will make a lot more noise about
>>> reducing emissions the result won't be any different regardless of
>>> which party is in Govt because in the end its the general public and
>>> business who spend their own money on actually doing something and
>>> they will make their decisions based on what suits them rather than
>>> what any Govt wants.
>>
>> **And yet, the last time Labor was in power, Australia REDUCED it's
>> CO2 emissions by a very impressive 7%.
>
> What does 7% of next to nothing (1% of the worlds emissions) equal?

**Irrelevant. If every nation adopted the same tactics, then total world
emissions would have been cut by a similar amount.

> Answer, 7% of 1% equals fuck all.

**And yet, 7% of 100% is quite a bit.

> What effect on the world would there be if overnight Australia's
> emissions dropped to zero?

**And once more: EVERY SINGLE HUMAN ONE THE PLANET must act to reduce
CO2 emissions.

>
>>

>>> An example of how Govt meddling in renewable energy failed is the Vic
>>> Govt solar rebate, the very significant extra costs in administering
>>> the rebate fell to the solar suppliers and the costs were passed on
>>> to the customers resulting in price increases similar to the value of
>>> the rebate so its better if Govts don't get involved, they just fuck
>>> it up.
>>
>> **I see. So you are happy with The National's insistence that the
>> GOVERNMENT put taxpayer funds into coal fired power stations and that
>> fucking idiot, Scummo's promise to put taxpayer funds in gas fired
>> power stations?
>
> Since Govt will not fully fund those projects

**Bullshit. They have already stated that they are prepared to fund them
fully with YOUR money.

Stranded assets anyone?

in the end it will be
> business who decides whether or not such projects go ahead and its their
> investors who have the most say in it, its business who is shutting down
> coal fired power simply because they know its a bad investment,

**Exactly and the government wants to build coal fired generators and
gas fired generators, precisely because business wants nothing to do
with something that is bad business. Your wonderful Scummo wants to
throw YOUR money at stranded assets. He is a fucking idiot.

they do
> that despite what Govt wants so you can bleat all you like but the Govt
> has a lot less influence on the outcome than you think.

**And, once more: The government has indicated that they will build
them, if business won't.

>>
>> I suggest you look up the term: 'Stranded asset'.
>>
>> And, since taxpayer funds are being used, it is taxpayers that will
>> foot the bill for these clowns and their idiotic ideas.
>>
>>>
>>>> * We will not have a Federal ICAC.
>>>
>>> I support an ICAC if I thought that it would be effective, if it was
>>> we wouldn't have any Govt, Labor or Liberal because they are all
>>> equally corrupt.
>>
>> **And that is what an ICAC is designed to deal with. Regardless of who
>> is in power. ANYONE who dodges implementing an ICAC (like Scummo has
>> done) has something to hide.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> * There will be unrestrained spending on useless car parks, sports
>>>> rorts and all the other shit.
>>>
>>>
>>> You mean like Gillards school hall/gym projects?
>>
>> **You mean Rudd's? And, here's the thing: For the most part, those
>> building projects were useful and they kept the economy bubbling
>> along. Sports rorts and car parks were either useless or were just
>> plain old pork barrelling.
>
> Same as car parks etc, any and all can be claimed by someone to be
> needed, pork barrelling is just normal politics no matter who does it,
> get over it.

**School buildings were spread across the nation, regardless of which
electorate they were in. Not pork barrelling.

Why do YOU support pork barrelling?

>>
>>> Both parties are guilty of pork barrelling, it has always been so and
>>> always will be.
>>
>> **The COALition has elevated it to an extreme degree, but I do agree.
>> Pork barrelling must end. Voting for Scummo/Joyce will mean that we
>> will get more pork barrelling, not less.
>
> LOL, only a very naive one eyed person can't see that they are all as
> bad as each other in that regard.

**Wrong. The COALition is much worse than Labor:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/sep/12/-sp-pork-barrelling-whos-worse-the-coalition-or-labor

>>
>>>
>>> None of above is relevant in my electorate since its a Labor
>>> stronghold, Labor do nothing because they know the wood ducks will
>>> always vote for them no matter what and the Libs do nothing because
>>> they know that its a Labor area, only way to make change is for it to
>>> be a marginal seat, I would say and do the same if it was a Liberal
>>> area.
>>
>> **Think of the big picture, not your own backyard.
>>
> That would be dumb, I only vote in my electorate, what happens elsewhere
> is beyond my control.

**Wrong. You have a senate vote as well.

> Even if I did vote Labor or Green it wouldn't make any difference to the
> overall result, as much as I hope that my vote will result in a marginal
> electorate we will most likely end up with another useless Labor MP.

**So, instead, you vote for an even more useless COALition MP.

[alvey]

On Thu, 19 May 2022 14:31:08 +1000, Noddy wrote:


>
> I hope so, as I have a lazy hundred on at 7 to 1 with Sportsbet that the
> Coalition will retain office :)

Well that's bullshit.

1. Fraudster is too tight to be a punter.
2. Fraudster is an habitual liar.
3. Sportsbet currently have the Tories @ $2.65.

[alvey]

On Thu, 19 May 2022 16:26:35 +1000, Daryl wrote:

snip pabulum

>
> I think he's too dumb to be dangerous, its the ones pulling his strings
> that I worry about.

Jaysus! Deryl calling someone "dumb"! Next thing Fraudster will be calling
someone a lying, hypocritical coward.

[alvey]

On Thu, 19 May 2022 16:23:05 +1000, Daryl wrote:


Deryl puts forward a compelling case. For the abolition of universal
suffrage that is.

"Yes, the bloke that's lived next door for 10 years is a wife-beater. But
he's never done me wrong and if I dobbed him in then I'd only get someone
just as bad".

[Noddy]

On 19/05/2022 4:20 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 19/05/2022 4:07 pm, Noddy wrote:

>  And please, while you're on the
>> subject of "pitifully idiotic bullshit", don't start with the "per
>> capita" nonsense.
>
> **Per capita is the only measure that matters.

Per capita is completely nonsensical. The *only* figure that makes any
difference to the planet is the global total.

>> Hey Trev, when are you going to stop with the rhetoric and start
>> leading by example?
>
> **I already do.

Do you? How?

>
>  You know, sell your fossil fuel burning cars and buy an EV?
>
> **As soon as we get a government that makes buying EVs attractive. The
> COALition has no interest.

Oh. So "doing your bit" is only okay if it's financially attractive to
you. Is that how it works?

>
>> Bulldoze your old horribly inefficient house and build a new supper
>> efficient one?

> **How is my house inefficient? Be precise in your response.

If memory serves, and I'm happy to stand corrected, you live in a house
that's quite old. 1960's vintage or possibly older. Compared to a modern
house it would be extremely inefficient, even if you'd gone to some
trouble to counter that.

> FWIW: I have the most efficient inverter air cons available. They are used around 10
> days per year. I have no other heating or cooling. My next door
> neighbour has a modern, efficient home and they've used their air con
> every day for the past couple of months.

Which says nothing about the differences about the homes, and everything
about the personal preferences.

>  cut down the sun blocking trees around your place and
>> install a big solar array with a battery back up?
>
> **ALL my electricity is obtained from renewable sources.

So what? If you had a decent solar system you'd make more available for
others to use.

>> Why is it that the bloke who makes more noise about environmental
>> responsibility around here than anyone *also* seems to be the bloke
>> who does jack shit himself?
>
> **You have no idea what I do, or don't do.

I've got some, based just on what you've said here :)

>> Other than talk about it of course :)
>
> **Like I said: You have no idea.

Okay. So, just for shits and giggles value, what's the "attractiveness"
thresh hold that needs to be met before you'd consider dumping your
fossil fuel burning cars and moving to an electric one, and given your
highly pro-active stance on climate change which is something you've
been passionate about for many years, do you see it as selfish that you
put your own financial interests *ahead* of action you clearly consider
to be for the greater good of all mankind?

[Noddy]

On 19/05/2022 4:55 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> **Scummo is the worst PM we've seen in quite some time.

Only if you don't count this utter fuckwit :)

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApCwoj35d3M

[Noddy]

He's very left, which is what I was referring to about being
"Dangerous". We simply can't afford him and his socialist ideals.

[alvey]

On Thu, 19 May 2022 17:56:16 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> On 19/05/2022 4:20 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 19/05/2022 4:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>  And please, while you're on the
>>> subject of "pitifully idiotic bullshit", don't start with the "per
>>> capita" nonsense.
>>
>> **Per capita is the only measure that matters.
>
> Per capita is completely nonsensical. The *only* figure that makes any
> difference to the planet is the global total.

In exactly the same way that the unadjusted ticket prices of cars is the
only way to compare their real cost across the decades....

snip rubbish

>> **How is my house inefficient? Be precise in your response.
>
> If memory serves, and I'm happy to stand corrected, you live in a house
> that's quite old. 1960's vintage or possibly older. Compared to a modern
> house it would be extremely inefficient, even if you'd gone to some
> trouble to counter that.

lol! An instant classic.
Tell that to anyone who has lived in Qld for more than 20 minutes and
they'll immediately call for the men with the big net. The things they
build up here as 'houses' now would *literally* be uninhabitable without
a/c.

Enough! snip unread

[lindsay]

Yep. As i've said in here before, Voting in Australia is like looking a
a freshly laid dog turd on the nature strip, and trying to decide which
end to pick it up from, without gloves.

And the day preferential voting is given the arse will be a great day.....

And I'm also wondering *if* labour win, who will be PM this time next
year? Albo? Wong? Marles? Pliebeseck? They may bring back Kevvie again!
Lots to choose from this time round.....!!

> but that happy clapping used car
> salesman needs to go IMO.

Lower the lot into a decent tree shredder, and put it on utube.

[lindsay]

Bwahahahahahahahaha

Elections in this household...> no-one tells anyone else how to vote,
Saturday nite we will watch Don's Party on Netflix, (Jeanie Drysdale?
ohhh err...) and Sunday morning I pray to hear the result: a "hung
parliment' . I'd pay to see 'em all swinging in the breeze. At least let
me pay for the rope!!!

>

[Xeno]

On 19/5/2022 4:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/05/2022 3:17 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 19/05/2022 2:28 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Since Australia's contribution to world emissions is a smidge over 1%
>>> anything we do including if we went to zero overnight will make sfa
>>> difference to the world.
>>
>> **You fucking moron. Stop using that pitifully idiotic bullshit claim.
>
> What's idiotic about it? Australia's contribution to the planet's
> problems in infinitesimally small. And please, while you're on the
> subject of "pitifully idiotic bullshit", don't start with the "per
> capita" nonsense.

Because you don't understand the concept. It's that concrete thinking of
yours again. You were supposed to leave that behind roughly around
completion of grade 6, not carry it into advanced adulthood.

>
>> EVERY SINGLE HUMAN ONE THE PLANET must act to reduce CO2 emissions.
>> Every American, Every Chinese citizen, every German and every Australian.
>
> Hey Trev, when are you going to stop with the rhetoric and start leading
> by example? You know, sell your fossil fuel burning cars and buy an EV?

An EV, at this point in time, is not a viable CO2 reduction option when
most of our electricty is fossil fuel generated. Best to buy a hybrid
and use the fossil fuel direct and in a much efficient manner.

> Bulldoze your old horribly inefficient house and build a new supper
> efficient one? cut down the sun blocking trees around your place and
> install a big solar array with a battery back up?

Even *new* homes in Australia are horribly inefficient.

>
> Why is it that the bloke who makes more noise about environmental
> responsibility around here than anyone *also* seems to be the bloke who
> does jack shit himself?
>
> Other than talk about it of course :)

Yes, that would be you driving gas guzzlers way larger than your needs
dictate.


--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

[Xeno]

You are preaching abstract concepts to a concrete brain. In short, you
are pissing into the wind.

>
>>
>>> EVERY SINGLE HUMAN ONE THE PLANET must act to reduce CO2 emissions.
>>> Every American, Every Chinese citizen, every German and every
>>> Australian.
>>
>> Hey Trev, when are you going to stop with the rhetoric and start
>> leading by example?
>
> **I already do.
>
>
>  You know, sell your fossil fuel burning cars and buy an EV?
>
> **As soon as we get a government that makes buying EVs attractive. The
> COALition has no interest.
>

And gets rid of fossil fuel generators and ramps up renewable alternatives.

>
>> Bulldoze your old horribly inefficient house and build a new supper
>> efficient one?
>
> **How is my house inefficient? Be precise in your response. FWIW: I have
> the most efficient inverter air cons available. They are used around 10
> days per year. I have no other heating or cooling. My next door
> neighbour has a modern, efficient home and they've used their air con
> every day for the past couple of months.
>

Our RC AC is the *least used appliance* in our house. It helps we live
in a macro climate that is neither hot nor cold.

>
>  cut down the sun blocking trees around your place and
>> install a big solar array with a battery back up?
>
> **ALL my electricity is obtained from renewable sources.
>
>>
>> Why is it that the bloke who makes more noise about environmental
>> responsibility around here than anyone *also* seems to be the bloke
>> who does jack shit himself?
>
> **You have no idea what I do, or don't do.
>
>>
>> Other than talk about it of course :)
>
> **Like I said: You have no idea.

[Xeno]

On 19/5/2022 4:57 pm, alvey wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 14:31:08 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I hope so, as I have a lazy hundred on at 7 to 1 with Sportsbet that the
>> Coalition will retain office :)
>
> Well that's bullshit.
>
> 1. Fraudster is too tight to be a punter.

Nah, Darren is *too stupid* to be a punter!

> 2. Fraudster is an habitual liar.

100% agreement on that.

> 3. Sportsbet currently have the Tories @ $2.65.
>

Dropped a little, it was, I thought, $3.xx a day or two back.
>
>
>
> alvey

[Trevor Wilson]

On 18/05/2022 7:56 pm, lindsay wrote:
>
> I'm getting old... most shit on media that i observe, (television,
> radio) doesnt really faze me.... But when you're force fed political
> *SHIT*, that we have to pay for, I draw the line.
>
> In the last 10 mins, I've heard "there's a hole in your budget...) 4
> times on prime time tv, , I heard it 4 times in 30 mins on TTFM this
> morning before I punched the clock radio in the face and swapped to
> digital.... I believe they actually changed it to a more modern track
> today, but I havent heard it...thankfully.
>
> I'm nearly happy, I voted early, so I dont have to stand around in a 45
> minute queue with all the dirty fucks without a mask... I could lie, and
> say I dont care who wins... I do.. but find the cunt who came up with
> "theres a hole in your budget", and "put him in the curry" ffs.
>
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0n88tZQc4Q
>
> put 'em *ALL* in the curry....

**Yes. Here's ONE of the reasons I won't vote for those arseholes in the
COALition. This is how their decisions have affected my life and that of
my loved ones:


Several years ago, my mother rapidly developed dementia. Like many, I
was bewildered and had no clear idea of what to do. I cared for my
mother as much as I could, but I was fortunate to be in contact with the
local medical people who dealt with such matters. My mother's
geriatrician was amazing. She spent 6 weeks under close observation at
my local hospital, where the geriatrician assured me that she would
advise where I could best place my mother. I visited her suggested aged
care facility. I thought it was a bit ordinary and suggested that I
would be happy to pay more to allow my mother to receive better care.
The geriatrician assured me that I should not focus on the 'furniture'.
Focus on the care and that the place she suggested was very good indeed.
Sure enough, the care was excellent. At least one nurse on duty 24/7
(unusual for a small facility) and a high carer to resident ratio. The
food was fabulous, prepared and cooked on the premises. I know it's a
little thing, but even the ice cream was Street's Blue Ribbon.

Anyway, when my sister became too much for my brother-in-law to care
for, I suggested that he place her there as well. He did so. All was
good for a couple of years. I met the other of the facility (he owned 3
other small aged care places). I admired his AMG63 Benz. He was able to
buy one every three or four years. So, despite the facility being low
cost, it was profitable.

The government oversight mob caused forced him to sell the facility to a
much larger organisation. Within one week, they had:

* Sacked 30% of the carer staff.
* Eliminated 24/7 nurses.
* Freighted all food from a central location, frozen.

My mother died a few months later. She was 92 years old, so it was
likely natural causes.

Last year, I had a 'phone call from my brother-in-law and he told me to
meet him at Sutherland hospital in the palliative care wing. My sister
(64 years old) was dying. I asked the doctor what was going on. Her
doctor explained that my sister had a bed sore (exposed bone) around
160mm across and that there was no possible treatment. She lasted 27
days without food and water. It was horrific. I've never seen nurses in
tears, but I saw them in tears when they came into my sister's room.

Had the cunts running the aged care facility keep staff levels high and
nurses on duty, my sister may have been treated in a timely manner.

If this rotten bunch of cunts in the COALition acted like human beings
and made certain that ALL aged care facilities had nurses on duty 24/7
and a reasonable level of carers, then my sister may well be still alive
today.

Labor is promising to bring nurses into aged care 24/7 and increase
carer levels. The COALition is not. The COALition doesn't give a shit.

You better hope you don't end up in aged care under the COALition.

Aged care is all about greed. It should not be so. The COALition assists
the greedy cunts who run these operations. They do not oversee the aged
care system.

Don't get me started on in-home care. That is a complete joke. Again:
The COALition doesn't give a shit.

[Noddy]

On 19/05/2022 8:18 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 18/05/2022 7:56 pm, lindsay wrote:

> If this rotten bunch of cunts in the COALition acted like human beings
> and made certain that ALL aged care facilities had nurses on duty 24/7
> and a reasonable level of carers, then my sister may well be still alive
> today.

Trevor, you've mentioned this before and as I said at the time I'm sorry
for your loss. But your angst seems to be directed towards the wrong people.

The government doesn't run aged care facilities. They just subsidise
them. The facilities themselves are run by private companies, and while
they're obliged to offer a minimum standard of care there is no maximum.
The companies themselves are free to do as much as they like over and
above the expected minimum, and if they wish to provide the kind of
staff you're talking about here there is nothing stopping them from
doing so.

But some don't. Some exist for no reason just to milk the system for all
they can get out of it, and it sounds a lot like the the people who ran
the facility where your sister was located was one of those. The company
who ran the facility was responsible for the level of care they provided.

Not the government.

[Yosemite Sam]

nope. if you're in a safe labor seat your vote is worthless

> Don't forget: Joyce runs the country when Scummo is somewhere else.
> * That zero progress on reducing CO2 emissions will occur.
> * We will not have a Federal ICAC.
> * There will be unrestrained spending on useless car parks, sports
> rorts and all the other shit.
>

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

Q:When is noddy not lying?
A:Anytime his lips aren't moving!

FUCK PUTIN!!

[Daryl]

Why should any Govt anywhere help well off people to buy new cars?
In the long run how much difference do you think EV's in Australia will
make to the worlds CO2?
I'm seriously doubting the overall benefit long term of EV's, battery
warranty is around 8yrs on most so most likely many batteries will need
to be replaced at great cost to the owners on an average of every 10yrs
and the batteries will need to recycled and so far no one is doing that.
Add the massive amounts of extra mining for the raw materials needed to
produce EV's and I seriously doubt that in the long term the environment
will be better off.
If Govts really want to reduce CO2 emissions and help all of the
population instead of just the well off that can afford new cars they
should be spending money on low or zero emission public transport which
is sadly lacking in all but the inner areas of major cities, I only live
53km from Melb CBD and the public transport is woeful.

>
>
>> Bulldoze your old horribly inefficient house and build a new supper
>> efficient one?
>
> **How is my house inefficient? Be precise in your response. FWIW: I have
> the most efficient inverter air cons available. They are used around 10
> days per year. I have no other heating or cooling. My next door
> neighbour has a modern, efficient home and they've used their air con
> every day for the past couple of months.
>
>
>  cut down the sun blocking trees around your place and
>> install a big solar array with a battery back up?
>
> **ALL my electricity is obtained from renewable sources.

Or so they told you when they took your money and fell for that scam,
you really have no way of knowing where it comes from.

>
>>
>> Why is it that the bloke who makes more noise about environmental
>> responsibility around here than anyone *also* seems to be the bloke
>> who does jack shit himself?
>
> **You have no idea what I do, or don't do.

Except that you told us you don't have solar.
Does your house have double glazed windows, insulation in the walls as
well as the ceiling?
Is it "passive solar" designed to reduce heating and cooling needs?



--
Daryl

[Daryl]

Read what I wrote, I voted in the vain attempt to make my electorate
marginal, no hope of a Liberal being elected anywhere near here, I
really don't give a damn who wins but the difference it will make to
mine or anyone else's life is minimal, in the 69yrs I've been around we
have had plenty of Govts of either color yet life goes on.
You are delusional if you think any Govt is going to do much to make
your life better or worse.
I get that you don't like the PM and that's your choice but unless you
have meet him in person you really have no idea what he's like.
I've told the story a few times of my brothers experience having lunch
one on one with Kevin Rudd when he was PM, at first he thought that Rudd
was an utter arsehole but after spending an hour with him he changed his
mind and in the end he thought that he was a decent bloke, point is its
not clever to condemn someone you really don't know.





--
Daryl

[Daryl]

How can "The government oversight mob" force anyone to sell their business?
Sounds like there is more to it.

Sorry for your loss but do you seriously think that Labor will do any
better?
I don't think that a change of Govt will make much difference unless
they either borrow shit loads of money or take the money from some other
just as needy area.
My mother died in a nursing home Dec 2020 at 91yrs old, she loved where
she was and had nothing but praise for the place especially the staff,
same Govt different result.


--
Daryl

[Daryl]

That certainly seemed to be the case where my mother was, she was at
Estia Health in Benalla and she was always happy there right up until
she died in Dec 2020.
One of my sisters looked after all of mum's finances and care and I
didn't get involved in any of the details, I know we had to sell her
house so she could pay a "deposit" of some sort to help pay for her care
which was refunded after her death, AFAIK part of her pension was also
paid to the nursing home.
Same Govt different result so is the Govt to blame for poor standard of
care or the owners/managers of the nursing homes?
Bit of both?

--
Daryl

[Trevor Wilson]

**I did my best to get to the bottom of what happened, but met a stony
silence. The aged care facility my mother and sister were in was hit
with 'sanctions'. The sanctions involved a few, relatively minor issues.
Like other carers, I attended a meeting with the government people, who
explained what the issues were. NONE of the carers (around 60 of us)
expressed any concerns with the facility. We all felt that the facility
provided an excellent level of care. Nonetheless, sanctions were issued.
This, essentially, meant that the facility was unable to accept new
residents for a period of time (6 months, as I recall). IOW, without
income, the place was going to gradually go bankrupt. The owner had no
choice but to sell the facility. One of his other facilities was also
sanctioned, so he just sold all four that he owned.

When the new owner took over, staff were sacked, nurses eliminated, food
quality fell dramatically and complaints rose. And my sister died from
an entirely treatable condition. Many phone calls, emails and official
communications resulted in - nothing. Despite the dramatic fall in care,
the new owners were not sanctioned. One fellow I met there would visit
his wife every single day (such a hero) for the 10 years she had lived
there. He told me that prior to the new owners taking over, he made ONE
complaint in 9 years. Since the new owners had taken over, he had made 7
complaints. And counting. I haven't seen him since my sister left this
planet. I imagine he has made many more.

Now, the cynic in me might suggest that someone in the government is
coddling the larger aged care organisations and deliberately destroying
small owners for some reason. Payola? Maybe. Something more sinister?
Dunno. The system is completely fucked and the COALition has zero
interest in making a difference. Labor has promised to make a difference.

You'd better hope like Hell you don't end up in the system under a
COALition government.

**They could not do any worse. They've promised to do better. If they
win government, then they can be held to account at the next election.
We know that in the past 10 years, the COALition has done NOTHING to
improve things.

Here's just one thing they've fucked up on:

Food is a real problem in aged care. Facilities are like private
prisons. They are driven to keep costs low. To do this, they employ as
few people as possible, no nurses and food is the cheapest quality they
can get away with. The fucking morons in the COALition finally realised
that food is a problem and they spent (I can't recall the precise
figure) $10 billion by giving money to aged care facilities and telling
them to improve food. There is no oversight mechanism to ensure that
YOUR money is being spent on decent food. Many of the facility owners
just pocketed the money. That is still going on.

Good economic managers? Not fucking likely. YOUR tax Dollars are being
spent with zero oversight.

> I don't think that a change of Govt will make much difference unless
> they either borrow shit loads of money or take the money from some other
> just as needy area.

**Read my words again. The facility my mother and sister were in, under
the old owners, enjoyed a very high level of care, excellent food and
24/7 nursing. Yet, despite the low cost of the facility, the owner made
enough money to keep him in AMG Mercs and Italian suits. The new owners
wanted more money. They cut nurses, staff and food quality, because
there is no government requirements in those areas. Now, don't get me
wrong: I do not begrudge a company making a profit. I don't begrudge the
previous owner making enough to buy fancy cars, PROVIDED minimum levels
of care are met. The COALition refuses to implement minimum standards
for aged care.

> My mother died in a nursing home Dec 2020 at 91yrs old, she loved where
> she was and had nothing but praise for the place especially the staff,
> same Govt different result.

**Sure. Before we placed my partner's parents into aged care, we visited
27 (twenty seven) facilities, before we found two places that met our
requirements. You were lucky. ALL 27 facilities should have met our
requirements - staffing levels, nurses and food. Due to the fucked
attitudes of the COALition, finding a suitable facility is quite
difficult. And trust me: I KNOW what to look for. Most places are
hopelessly inadequate. I was lucky when I first started this journey, as
my mother's geriatrician guided me. Since then, I've educated myself and
the system is completely fucked. The COALition have had ten years to
address the problems and have done absolutely nothing.

In-home care. IS A JOKE. My partner's parents qualified for level 4
in-home care. The maximum care level available was level 2. The
government makes a certain number of levels 3 and 4 each year. We had no
choice but to place them in an aged care facility.

Here's the kicker/s: In-home care is much cheaper for the taxpayer (the
taxpayer stumps up billions of Dollars for aged care facilities each
year), but, since there is not enough high level in-home care available,
thousands of people are forced to enter aged care facilities. YET THAT
COSTS TAXPAYERS MORE! It is fucking insane. A cynic might suggest that
the government is in cahoots with the aged care industry to funnel as
many people into aged care facilities as possible.

Good economic managers my arse.

You keep voting for these cunts. Anyone who votes for the COALition
deserves to end up in the aged care system. The system is fucked. The
COALition has done nothing. They are promising to do nothing. At least
Labor has stated that they will do something.

[Trevor Wilson]

**I am in that fucking moron, Craig Kelly's electorate. I can't wait for
him to be booted out. It's worth voting Liberal to see him go.

However, I should remind you that it was Scummo who insisted that Kelly
be retained at the last election. The Libs had better choices, but that
fucking idiot, Scummo saved Kelly. I hope that act bites him in the arse.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 19/05/2022 9:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/05/2022 8:18 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 18/05/2022 7:56 pm, lindsay wrote:
>
>> If this rotten bunch of cunts in the COALition acted like human beings
>> and made certain that ALL aged care facilities had nurses on duty 24/7
>> and a reasonable level of carers, then my sister may well be still
>> alive today.
>
> Trevor, you've mentioned this before and as I said at the time I'm sorry
> for your loss. But your angst seems to be directed towards the wrong
> people.

**Bullshit.

>
> The government doesn't run aged care facilities.They just subsidise

> them. The facilities themselves are run by private companies, and while
> they're obliged to offer a minimum standard of care there is no maximum.

**And the minimum level of care is hopelessly inadequate. At the very
minimum, nurses should be on the premises 24/7, minimum carer to
resident ratios MUST be established and food quality must be rigidly
specified. The COALition has steadfastly refused to implement any of
these things. EXCEPT food. The gave money to aged care facilities in the
hope they would improve food. However, the brilliant economic managers
that the COALition claims to be, have failed to implement any oversight
mechanism to ensure the money is not spent on mew Ferraris for the owners.

Fucking morons. You keep voting for them.

> The companies themselves are free to do as much as they like over and
> above the expected minimum, and if they wish to provide the kind of
> staff you're talking about here there is nothing stopping them from
> doing so.

**Correct. The COALition has refused to specify decent minimum standards
for aged care. They just don't care.

>
> But some don't. Some exist for no reason just to milk the system for all
> they can get out of it, and it sounds a lot like the the people who ran
> the facility where your sister was located was one of those. The company
> who ran the facility was responsible for the level of care they provided.

**Who RUNS the facility. It's a large (Victorian) company, who cut
staff, fired nurses and cut back on food quality. Because they could.
Because the COALition refuses to implement decent standards for aged care.

>
> Not the government.
>

**The COALition has refused to specify decent minimum standards.

[Noddy]

On 20/05/2022 6:39 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 19/05/2022 9:52 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> Trevor, you've mentioned this before and as I said at the time I'm
>> sorry for your loss. But your angst seems to be directed towards the
>> wrong people.
>
> **Bullshit.
>
>>
>> The government doesn't run aged care facilities.They just subsidise
>> them. The facilities themselves are run by private companies, and
>> while they're obliged to offer a minimum standard of care there is no
>> maximum.
>
> **And the minimum level of care is hopelessly inadequate. At the very
> minimum, nurses should be on the premises 24/7, minimum carer to
> resident ratios MUST be established and food quality must be rigidly
> specified. The COALition has steadfastly refused to implement any of
> these things. EXCEPT food. The gave money to aged care facilities in the
> hope they would improve food. However, the brilliant economic managers
> that the COALition claims to be, have failed to implement any oversight
> mechanism to ensure the money is not spent on mew Ferraris for the owners.
>
> Fucking morons. You keep voting for them.

I'm sorry but I can't see how any of this is the fault of the government.

>> The companies themselves are free to do as much as they like over and
>> above the expected minimum, and if they wish to provide the kind of
>> staff you're talking about here there is nothing stopping them from
>> doing so.
>
> **Correct. The COALition has refused to specify decent minimum standards
> for aged care. They just don't care.

"Decent" being the subjective term in this context. Some probably think
the current minimum standard is decent enough, while others such as
yourself disagree. Still, none of this changes the fact that the company
who runs the facility has the freedom to provide the level of care they
see fit.

>> But some don't. Some exist for no reason just to milk the system for
>> all they can get out of it, and it sounds a lot like the the people
>> who ran the facility where your sister was located was one of those.
>> The company who ran the facility was responsible for the level of care
>> they provided.
>
> **Who RUNS the facility. It's a large (Victorian) company, who cut
> staff, fired nurses and cut back on food quality. Because they could.
> Because the COALition refuses to implement decent standards for aged care.

A line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere, and no matter where you
draw it you'll never please everyone. Like the current argument about
medicare rebates for example. A lot of doctors are arguing that the
rebate doesn't pay them enough and unless it's raised they will either
have to cut back on services or stop bulk billing.

You'll never please everyone.

>> Not the government.
>>
>
> **The COALition has refused to specify decent minimum standards.

The government has set minimum standards, and in fact they have been in
place for a very long time. In fact it is the facilities *themselves*
who fail to set standards you'd be happy with as their owners are more
interested in the number of Ferrari's they own than the welfare of the
people who occupy their beds. No amount of government interference would
ever change that, and if you're unhappy with the service on offer then
you have the right to pack up and leave.

Just out of curiosity, if your sister wasn't happy with where she was,
why didn't she move?

[Noddy]

Give it a try, but he'll probably be safe.

> However, I should remind you that it was Scummo who insisted that Kelly
> be retained at the last election. The Libs had better choices, but that
> fucking idiot, Scummo saved Kelly. I hope that act bites him in the arse.

Who were the better choices?

I don't think anyone in the Liberal party had any particular love for
Craig Kelly, but he was already the incumbent MP and Morrison's interest
in "saving" him was for no reason other than for him to remain a Liberal
bum on the seat in Parliament. It's not like the Libs have an
overwhelming majority and could afford to lose a few.

But it raises an interesting point about politics in this country that
I'd like to see changed.

If you stand as a candidate on a particular ticket, be it party or
indipendent, and get elected on that ticket only to later change your
allegiance and become a member of some other party or independent stance
which was *not* what the electorate voted you in for then your position
as an MP in parliament should be immediately suspended and a by-election
should be held to see if the electorate supports your stance.

It's simply not good enough for candidates to be elected on the promise
of appealing to a particular group of voters only to run off and do
whatever the fuck they like once they get elected.

[John_H]

>be returned to power. Don't forget: Joyce runs the country when Scummo
>is somewhere else.

>* That zero progress on reducing CO2 emissions will occur.

>* We will not have a Federal ICAC.

>* There will be unrestrained spending on useless car parks, sports rorts
>and all the other shit.

Are you aware that Greens policy (you've previously claimed to be
familiar with) is specifically directed at thermal coal as opposed to
coking coal which is an essential component of steel making, at least
into the forseeable future?

Bob Brown certainly wasn't when he took his convoy to Clermont Q in
2019, with the nearest mine (coking coal) less than 20km away and at
least 2 hours drive from the Adani site (thermal coal). Coking coal,
comprising most of Queensland's output, is mined in the Bowen basin,
whereas thermal coal is Galilee basin.

In vilifying the entire industry you're giving the LNP another free
kick, just as Bob Brown did!

--
John H

[John_H]

Daryl wrote:
>On 19/5/2022 10:23 am, John_H wrote:
>>
>> Hope you didn't put a major party at 1 which gets them $3 or so for
>> your vote (in spite of what others may say it's the taxpayer who pays
>> for their shit).
>>
>> Also hope you never drew a prick on your ballot paper as one got
>> elected last time (as I heard somewhere recently). :)
>>
>I saw a sign on the hwy not far from here which says "Put the majors
>last", not a bad idea but my electorate is a Labor stronghold so I vote
>Liberal mostly in an attempt to weaken Labors hold on the electorate and
>to make it more marginal

Someone once put one near my local polling booth that read "DON'T
VOTE IT ONLY ENCOURAGES THE BASTARDS" but I reckon the culprit was
misguided! That was at the time when I always put the sitting member
from a major party last in the hope it would make us difficult to rule
over. Nowadays that position is reserved for Clive's lot... not that
it matters a shit since Bob Brown and his convoy converted a marginal
electorate to a safe LNP seat and I suspect his legacy lives on.

>At the last State election there was a significant swing away from Labor
>here so hopefully the same thing will happen at the Federal election.

I can live with either at a pinch but neither have policies for some
of the things that matter most to me. Albanese comes across as a
bumbling fool and Morrison is a lying arsehole who'd make a better
used car salesman than PM, so take your pick. I also have serious
doubts about an entrenched two party system (take a look at the US).
In spite of the Happy Clapper's claim that independents cause chaos
he's never had a majority government. If Labor doesn't support him he
needs independents to pass his legislation which is a bloody good
thing in my book.

--
John H

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/05/2022 7:53 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/05/2022 6:39 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 19/05/2022 9:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Trevor, you've mentioned this before and as I said at the time I'm
>>> sorry for your loss. But your angst seems to be directed towards the
>>> wrong people.
>>
>> **Bullshit.
>>
>>>
>>> The government doesn't run aged care facilities.They just subsidise
>>> them. The facilities themselves are run by private companies, and
>>> while they're obliged to offer a minimum standard of care there is no
>>> maximum.
>>
>> **And the minimum level of care is hopelessly inadequate. At the very
>> minimum, nurses should be on the premises 24/7, minimum carer to
>> resident ratios MUST be established and food quality must be rigidly
>> specified. The COALition has steadfastly refused to implement any of
>> these things. EXCEPT food. The gave money to aged care facilities in
>> the hope they would improve food. However, the brilliant economic
>> managers that the COALition claims to be, have failed to implement any
>> oversight mechanism to ensure the money is not spent on mew Ferraris
>> for the owners.
>>
>> Fucking morons. You keep voting for them.
>
> I'm sorry but I can't see how any of this is the fault of the government.

**Asked and answered.
* Nurses on duty 24/7
* Mandatory carer to resident ratios
* Decent, nutritious food

Whilst the government refuses to mandate such things, aged care
providers will cut costs, staff and food quality.

You should hope that you don't end up in aged care under a COALition

government.

>>> The companies themselves are free to do as much as they like over and
>>> above the expected minimum, and if they wish to provide the kind of
>>> staff you're talking about here there is nothing stopping them from
>>> doing so.
>>
>> **Correct. The COALition has refused to specify decent minimum
>> standards for aged care. They just don't care.
>
> "Decent" being the subjective term in this context.

**It's not fucking subjective to provide nurses for frail people, or
adequate staffing levels or decent quality food. NONE of that is
subjective. It's all measurable and achievable. Sadly the owners of the
aged care facilities may have to settle for a low end Ferrari.

Some probably think
> the current minimum standard is decent enough,

**Nope. No one does.

while others such as
> yourself disagree.

**The only ones who think it's good enough are:

* The COALition government
* The owners of most aged care facilities.

EVERYONE else knows there are problems. Unless, like you, they have
their heads in the sand.

Still, none of this changes the fact that the company
> who runs the facility has the freedom to provide the level of care they
> see fit.

**Which needs to be adequately specified by the government, since
taxpayers foot a large chunk of the bill.

>
>>> But some don't. Some exist for no reason just to milk the system for
>>> all they can get out of it, and it sounds a lot like the the people
>>> who ran the facility where your sister was located was one of those.
>>> The company who ran the facility was responsible for the level of
>>> care they provided.
>>
>> **Who RUNS the facility. It's a large (Victorian) company, who cut
>> staff, fired nurses and cut back on food quality. Because they could.
>> Because the COALition refuses to implement decent standards for aged
>> care.
>
> A line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere, and no matter where you
> draw it you'll never please everyone.

**Get real. Shit food, inadequate staffing levels and no medical
professionals is the minimum that any reasonable person can expect.
Unless you happen to not give a shit.

Like the current argument about
> medicare rebates for example. A lot of doctors are arguing that the
> rebate doesn't pay them enough and unless it's raised they will either
> have to cut back on services or stop bulk billing.

**I note your attempt to change the topic.

>
> You'll never please everyone.
>>> Not the government.
>>>
>>
>> **The COALition has refused to specify decent minimum standards.
>
> The government has set minimum standards, and in fact they have been in
> place for a very long time.

**The minimum standards are:

* Inadequate. There are no minimum standards for staff to resident ratios.
* Not policed.

In fact it is the facilities *themselves*
> who fail to set standards you'd be happy with as their owners are more
> interested in the number of Ferrari's they own than the welfare of the
> people who occupy their beds.

**And, once more: TAXPAYERS foot the bill for this shit. TAXPAYERS are
entitled to demand more and better oversight.

No amount of government interference would
> ever change that, and if you're unhappy with the service on offer then
> you have the right to pack up and leave.

**Spoken like someone who has no experience with the system. It ain't
that easy.

>
> Just out of curiosity, if your sister wasn't happy with where she was,
> why didn't she move?

**My sister was non-communicative. She was totally reliant on her
carers, who failed her miserably. Due to COVID restrictions, my
brother-in-law was unable to visit her.

And, for the record: When she was admitted to the palliative care
section of the local hospital, we had a discussion about moving her to a
dedicated palliative care facility. Her doctors determined that she was
so weak, that the 5km trip would have killed her. My sister was
extremely ill. She looked worse than those people who spent their days
in Nazi concentration camps.

If the COALition had bothered to implement the changes promised by
Labor, my sister may still be alive today.

I'll say again: Avoid entering aged care while the COALition is running
things. The COALition acts to protect the companies that run aged care
facilities. They do not act for residents.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Of course.

>
> Bob Brown certainly wasn't when he took his convoy to Clermont Q in
> 2019, with the nearest mine (coking coal) less than 20km away and at
> least 2 hours drive from the Adani site (thermal coal). Coking coal,
> comprising most of Queensland's output, is mined in the Bowen basin,
> whereas thermal coal is Galilee basin.

**Bob Brown has not been a Greens leader for many years.

>
> In vilifying the entire industry you're giving the LNP another free
> kick, just as Bob Brown did!

**"Vilifying"? How so? I am simply stating fact. Using coal for power
generation is a dead-end business. Everyone involved in that business
should be well aware of that fact. Using coal to generate power is
expensive and polluting.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/05/2022 8:04 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/05/2022 5:43 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 19/05/2022 10:12 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>>> nope. if you're in a safe labor seat your vote is worthless
>>
>> **I am in that fucking moron, Craig Kelly's electorate. I can't wait
>> for him to be booted out. It's worth voting Liberal to see him go.
>
> Give it a try, but he'll probably be safe.

**The most recent figures I saw were roughly:

Lib: 37%
ULP: 9%
Lab: 18%
Ind: 28%
Green: 8%

The Lib candidate looks to be a shoo-in, given Palmer directs
preferences to the COALition. Kelly will, thankfully, be gone.

>
>> However, I should remind you that it was Scummo who insisted that
>> Kelly be retained at the last election. The Libs had better choices,
>> but that fucking idiot, Scummo saved Kelly. I hope that act bites him
>> in the arse.
>
> Who were the better choices?

**A ficus. ANYONE else.

>
> I don't think anyone in the Liberal party had any particular love for
> Craig Kelly, but he was already the incumbent MP and Morrison's interest
> in "saving" him was for no reason other than for him to remain a Liberal
> bum on the seat in Parliament. It's not like the Libs have an
> overwhelming majority and could afford to lose a few.

**Scummo is a moron, as exemplified by his choice in the Warringah
candidate. Deves is so desperately unpopular, that the Liberal
volunteers have deserted her and are assisting candidates in other
electorates. NO ONE wants her, except Scummo.

>
> But it raises an interesting point about politics in this country that
> I'd like to see changed.
>
> If you stand as a candidate on a particular ticket, be it party or
> indipendent, and get elected on that ticket only to later change your
> allegiance and become a member of some other party or independent stance
> which was *not* what the electorate voted you in for then your position
> as an MP in parliament should be immediately suspended and a by-election
> should be held to see if the electorate supports your stance.

**I am inclined to agree, despite the fact that there have been some
positive developments in that system. Lambie, et al.

>
> It's simply not good enough for candidates to be elected on the promise
> of appealing to a particular group of voters only to run off and do
> whatever the fuck they like once they get elected.

**Like pretty much everyone in Palmer's party.

[Daryl]

Agree neither is a great choice but I hate that elections have become a
leaders popularity contest rather than a vote about policy.
Decent political leadership has been sadly lacking for decades.

I also have serious
> doubts about an entrenched two party system (take a look at the US).

Know what you mean, its far from ideal but it is what it is, not much
can be done to change it.

> In spite of the Happy Clapper's claim that independents cause chaos
> he's never had a majority government. If Labor doesn't support him he
> needs independents to pass his legislation which is a bloody good
> thing in my book.
>

Agree if independents are truly independent which is something we can
never be 100% sure of.

--
Daryl

[John_H]

Indeed, he was the one responsible for voting down Krudd's original
carbon pricing because it didn't include a ban on coal mining (nice
bloke but politically inept). Nowadays not even Labor supports a
carbon tax after they beating they copped at the end of their last
stint in office.

>> In vilifying the entire industry you're giving the LNP another free
>> kick, just as Bob Brown did!
>
>**"Vilifying"? How so? I am simply stating fact. Using coal for power
>generation is a dead-end business. Everyone involved in that business
>should be well aware of that fact. Using coal to generate power is
>expensive and polluting.

Always looks to me that you're happy to vilify anyone connected with
the coal industry same as anyone who doesn't accept *your* view on
climate change. Trouble is the mine workers see things exactly the
same way..

Following Bob Brown's visit even the local CFMEU branch withdrew its
support from Labor.

--
John H

[Trevor Wilson]

**Points:

It's not _MY_ view on climate change. I simply listen to the climate
scientists. There can be no alternative. Burning fossil fuels is really
dumb.

Mine workers are a different problem. I recognise that, in many areas of
Australia, there are few jobs other than mining (coal). That must
change. Politicians must deliver programmes so that mine workers can
re-train in careers that will serve them for the next few decades.

However, ANY mine worker who has entered the industry in the past few
years (personally, I would say the past two decades), expecting a long
term employment is just a moron. They deserve what they get -
unemployment. There is no long term future for thermal coal. I would
also add that, as mechanisation increases, then the number of jobs
decreases. BTW, coal mining employs less than 38,000 Australians:

https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/how-many-coal-jobs-check-the-facts/

A truly insignificant number of workers.

>
> Following Bob Brown's visit even the local CFMEU branch withdrew its
> support from Labor.

**I don't care for most unions. Some are OK. some are not. Most are run
by dickheads. They are equivalent to our politicians.

[Noddy]

On 20/05/2022 8:19 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 20/05/2022 7:53 am, Noddy wrote:

>> I'm sorry but I can't see how any of this is the fault of the government.
>
>
> **Asked and answered.
> * Nurses on duty 24/7
> * Mandatory carer to resident ratios
> * Decent, nutritious food

Yep, and there is nothing stopping a *single* facility from ever
supplying these things.

> Whilst the government refuses to mandate such things, aged care
> providers will cut costs, staff and food quality.

And yet you see the negligent actions of unscrupulous facility owners as

the fault of the government.

> You should hope that you don't end up in aged care under a COALition
> government.

I've already made arrangements with my wife that if the day comes where
I ever reach the point where I need to be admitted to such a facility
then she's free to lace my dinner with Ratsak and sell my body to the
highest bidder.

Of course, having granted her such licence, I need to be especially
careful whenever we have an argument in the mean time :)

>>> **Correct. The COALition has refused to specify decent minimum
>>> standards for aged care. They just don't care.
>>
>> "Decent" being the subjective term in this context.
>
> **It's not fucking subjective to provide nurses for frail people, or
> adequate staffing levels or decent quality food. NONE of that is
> subjective.

It is *precisely* subjective Trevor. Your idea of "quality care" is not
everyone else's. Everyone's needs are different.

> It's all measurable and achievable. Sadly the owners of the
> aged care facilities may have to settle for a low end Ferrari.

Again, you're sticking it to the wrong people. Those you *should* be
blaming are the unscrupulous care facility owners who treat their
clients like a meal ticket, and to be absolutely frank letting them off
the hook because you think the government doesn't provide adequate
funding is an absolute nonsense.

It's like GP's claiming they can't afford to bulk bill patients because
they're only making 170 bucks an hour to write out scripts.

>  Some probably think
>> the current minimum standard is decent enough,
>
> **Nope. No one does.

Right. So you've conducted a poll and found that everyone thinks that way?

>  while others such as
>> yourself disagree.
>
> **The only ones who think it's good enough are:
>
> * The COALition government
> * The owners of most aged care facilities.
>
> EVERYONE else knows there are problems. Unless, like you, they have
> their heads in the sand.

Actually Trev, you should be praising the current government, as they're
the only ones that I can recall in a very long time who has launched an
inquiry into the aged care system, despite the system having been a mess
for *decades* at the hands of many governments from either side of the
political fence.

> Still, none of this changes the fact that the company
>> who runs the facility has the freedom to provide the level of care
>> they see fit.
>
> **Which needs to be adequately specified by the government, since
> taxpayers foot a large chunk of the bill.

So the government should not only foot the lion's share of the bill, but
tell them how they have to run their business?

Why don't we just dispense with the middle man and have the Government
do it all themselves?

>> A line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere, and no matter where you
>> draw it you'll never please everyone.
>
> **Get real. Shit food, inadequate staffing levels and no medical
> professionals is the minimum that any reasonable person can expect.
> Unless you happen to not give a shit.

You understand that you're free to pick and choose where you want to go,
and no one is *forced* into any particular facility, right? There are
better options available that offer better services, but then you'll
have to pay more for those services.

What you generally don't get, and this is usually true with everything,
is the best service at the cheapest price.

>  Like the current argument about
>> medicare rebates for example. A lot of doctors are arguing that the
>> rebate doesn't pay them enough and unless it's raised they will either
>> have to cut back on services or stop bulk billing.
>
> **I note your attempt to change the topic.

Note whatever you like, but the point is that fault of the aged care
industry likes squarely at the feet of the people who run it, and that
is *not* the government.

>  No amount of government interference would
>> ever change that, and if you're unhappy with the service on offer then
>> you have the right to pack up and leave.
>
> **Spoken like someone who has no experience with the system. It ain't
> that easy.

Well, yeah, it is.

You pay for X, but you want Y. But you're not prepared to pay for Y so
you have to settle for X. That's pretty much how it works. The aged care
business is a business like any other.

>> Just out of curiosity, if your sister wasn't happy with where she was,
>> why didn't she move?
>
> **My sister was non-communicative. She was totally reliant on her
> carers, who failed her miserably. Due to COVID restrictions, my
> brother-in-law was unable to visit her.

I think a great many people suffered the same fate.

> And, for the record: When she was admitted to the palliative care
> section of the local hospital, we had a discussion about moving her to a
> dedicated palliative care facility. Her doctors determined that she was
> so weak, that the 5km trip would have killed her. My sister was
> extremely ill. She looked worse than those people who spent their days
> in Nazi concentration camps.
>
> If the COALition had bothered to implement the changes promised by
> Labor, my sister may still be alive today.

There's no possible way you can know that, and as sad as it is given the
comments of the doctors that you've mentioned here it probably wouldn't
have made any difference to her where she was.

> I'll say again: Avoid entering aged care while the COALition is running
> things. The COALition acts to protect the companies that run aged care
> facilities. They do not act for residents.

I can understand you being upset, but rubbish like this here isn't doing
you any favours.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Wrong. Julia Gillard was an excellent leader. She managed a minority
government with great skill and aplomb. As for policies, well Bill
Shorten put a whole stack of excellent policies on the table at the last
election. He was beaten by an ad-man with no policies at all.

>
>   I also have serious
>> doubts about an entrenched two party system (take a look at the US).
>
> Know what you mean, its far from ideal but it is what it is, not much
> can be done to change it.

**Bullshit. We will likely see it at this election. The Greens and
independents will probably end up with the balance of power. We may
finally see some significant changes WRT climate change policies as a
result.

>
>> In spite of the Happy Clapper's claim that independents cause chaos
>> he's never had a majority government.  If Labor doesn't support him he
>> needs independents to pass his legislation which is a bloody good
>> thing in my book.
>>
> Agree if independents are truly independent which is something we can
> never be 100% sure of.

**Correct, which is why we should all vote Green.

[Noddy]

On 20/05/2022 8:35 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 20/05/2022 8:04 am, Noddy wrote:

>>> **I am in that fucking moron, Craig Kelly's electorate. I can't wait
>>> for him to be booted out. It's worth voting Liberal to see him go.
>>
>> Give it a try, but he'll probably be safe.
>
> **The most recent figures I saw were roughly:
>
> Lib: 37%
> ULP: 9%
> Lab: 18%
> Ind: 28%
> Green: 8%
>
> The Lib candidate looks to be a shoo-in, given Palmer directs
> preferences to the COALition. Kelly will, thankfully, be gone.

Hopefully. And if he got hit by a train on the way home from announcing
his defeat that would be a sensational bonus.

>>> However, I should remind you that it was Scummo who insisted that
>>> Kelly be retained at the last election. The Libs had better choices,
>>> but that fucking idiot, Scummo saved Kelly. I hope that act bites him
>>> in the arse.
>>
>> Who were the better choices?
>
> **A ficus. ANYONE else.

Lol :)

I take your point :)

>> I don't think anyone in the Liberal party had any particular love for
>> Craig Kelly, but he was already the incumbent MP and Morrison's
>> interest in "saving" him was for no reason other than for him to
>> remain a Liberal bum on the seat in Parliament. It's not like the Libs
>> have an overwhelming majority and could afford to lose a few.
>
> **Scummo is a moron, as exemplified by his choice in the Warringah
> candidate. Deves is so desperately unpopular, that the Liberal
> volunteers have deserted her and are assisting candidates in other
> electorates. NO ONE wants her, except Scummo.

Lets see how she does, but at the moment there is a *big* movement to
give women a free kick because they think it's the popular thing to do.
Personally I'm all for equality, but my version of it is for things to
be exactly the same for everyone and that's not what people want.

>> But it raises an interesting point about politics in this country that
>> I'd like to see changed.
>>
>> If you stand as a candidate on a particular ticket, be it party or
>> indipendent, and get elected on that ticket only to later change your
>> allegiance and become a member of some other party or independent
>> stance which was *not* what the electorate voted you in for then your
>> position as an MP in parliament should be immediately suspended and a
>> by-election should be held to see if the electorate supports your stance.
>
> **I am inclined to agree, despite the fact that there have been some
> positive developments in that system. Lambie, et al.

Fair point. Lambie is the one example I can think of where I was happy
to see her move away from Palmer's asylum and go out on her own. She's a
dynamic player who does a lot for her constituents and the Senate is a
better place for her presence.

>>
>> It's simply not good enough for candidates to be elected on the
>> promise of appealing to a particular group of voters only to run off
>> and do whatever the fuck they like once they get elected.
>
> **Like pretty much everyone in Palmer's party.

Pretty much. Including the absolute fucking *nutters* who think Covid
vaccinations give you Aids. For fuck's sake. Do they not do *any* kind
of psychological screening before selecting someone as a candidate? :)

[Noddy]

I'm sure every government subsidised aged car facility operator would
happily scream that the government doesn't give them enough, just like
I'm sure that every *other* corporation, business or individual in this
country who receives a government assistance package of some kind would
do. As sad as it may seem the reality is that it doesn't matter *how*
much money the government hands over people will *never* be satisfied
with it, and they will never be able to afford to fund things to a level
that makes everyone happy.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/05/2022 10:44 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/05/2022 8:19 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 20/05/2022 7:53 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> I'm sorry but I can't see how any of this is the fault of the
>>> government.
>>
>>
>> **Asked and answered.
>> * Nurses on duty 24/7
>> * Mandatory carer to resident ratios
>> * Decent, nutritious food
>
> Yep, and there is nothing stopping a *single* facility from ever
> supplying these things.

**Yes, there is: Greed. It is up to the government to control their
greed. Again: Taxpayers fund these bastards. It is up to the government
to exert proper controls over them.

>
>> Whilst the government refuses to mandate such things, aged care
>> providers will cut costs, staff and food quality.
>
> And yet you see the negligent actions of unscrupulous facility owners as
> the fault of the government.

**It is the fault of the facility owners and negligence on the part of
the government to continue to fail to manage taxpayer funds.

>
>> You should hope that you don't end up in aged care under a COALition
>> government.
>
> I've already made arrangements with my wife that if the day comes where
> I ever reach the point where I need to be admitted to such a facility
> then she's free to lace my dinner with Ratsak and sell my body to the
> highest bidder.
>
> Of course, having granted her such licence, I need to be especially
> careful whenever we have an argument in the mean time :)

**Yeah, I've heard that before. When the time comes, you may not take
the same approach.

>
>>>> **Correct. The COALition has refused to specify decent minimum
>>>> standards for aged care. They just don't care.
>>>
>>> "Decent" being the subjective term in this context.
>>
>> **It's not fucking subjective to provide nurses for frail people, or
>> adequate staffing levels or decent quality food. NONE of that is
>> subjective.
>
> It is *precisely* subjective Trevor. Your idea of "quality care" is not
> everyone else's. Everyone's needs are different.

**You're wrong. Those things are FUNDAMENTAL to quality care.

>
>> It's all measurable and achievable. Sadly the owners of the aged care
>> facilities may have to settle for a low end Ferrari.
>
> Again, you're sticking it to the wrong people. Those you *should* be
> blaming are the unscrupulous care facility owners who treat their
> clients like a meal ticket, and to be absolutely frank letting them off
> the hook because you think the government doesn't provide adequate
> funding is an absolute nonsense.

**Of course I blame the owners of the facilities. I also blame the
government for not mandating proper care.

>
> It's like GP's claiming they can't afford to bulk bill patients because
> they're only making 170 bucks an hour to write out scripts.
>
>>   Some probably think
>>> the current minimum standard is decent enough,
>>
>> **Nope. No one does.
>
> Right. So you've conducted a poll and found that everyone thinks that way?

**Tell you what: YOU find someone who thinks that the minimum standards
are good enough and I'll pay attention.

>
>>   while others such as
>>> yourself disagree.
>>
>> **The only ones who think it's good enough are:
>>
>> * The COALition government
>> * The owners of most aged care facilities.
>>
>> EVERYONE else knows there are problems. Unless, like you, they have
>> their heads in the sand.
>
> Actually Trev, you should be praising the current government, as they're
> the only ones that I can recall in a very long time who has launched an
> inquiry into the aged care system, despite the system having been a mess
> for *decades* at the hands of many governments from either side of the
> political fence.

**They launched an inquiry, then ignored the recommendations.

>
>> Still, none of this changes the fact that the company
>>> who runs the facility has the freedom to provide the level of care
>>> they see fit.
>>
>> **Which needs to be adequately specified by the government, since
>> taxpayers foot a large chunk of the bill.
>
> So the government should not only foot the lion's share of the bill, but
> tell them how they have to run their business?

**Abso-fucking-lutely. The ones that can meet decent standards can be
left alone. I will say once more: The government gives these arseholes
BILLIONS of taxpayer Dollars every year. The government SHOULD have a
huge say in how the business is run. If the facilities don't want
government interference, then let them forego the free money.

>
> Why don't we just dispense with the middle man and have the Government
> do it all themselves?

**That would be ideal. Government run facilities are vastly more
efficient. No shareholders to pay.

>
>>> A line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere, and no matter where you
>>> draw it you'll never please everyone.
>>
>> **Get real. Shit food, inadequate staffing levels and no medical
>> professionals is the minimum that any reasonable person can expect.
>> Unless you happen to not give a shit.
>
> You understand that you're free to pick and choose where you want to go,
> and no one is *forced* into any particular facility, right? There are
> better options available that offer better services, but then you'll
> have to pay more for those services.

**No. I already explained to you that my sister and mother were in a
facility with excellent levels of care and food (which, BTW, I'd be
happy to pay for in a decent cafe), yet the profit for the owner was
respectable. I examined facilities that were double the price, yet
didn't offer the same level of care. Money doesn't buy better care.
You'd think it would, but it doesn't. It MIGHT buy you a better view, or
a nice coffee machine in common areas, but it won't, necessarily get you
24/7 nursing staff.

>
> What you generally don't get, and this is usually true with everything,
> is the best service at the cheapest price.

**Wrong. I explained to you before that the facility my mother and
sister were in was a low cost one. Not the cheapest I checked out, but
petty damned close.

>
>>   Like the current argument about
>>> medicare rebates for example. A lot of doctors are arguing that the
>>> rebate doesn't pay them enough and unless it's raised they will
>>> either have to cut back on services or stop bulk billing.
>>
>> **I note your attempt to change the topic.
>
> Note whatever you like, but the point is that fault of the aged care
> industry likes squarely at the feet of the people who run it, and that
> is *not* the government.
>
>>   No amount of government interference would
>>> ever change that, and if you're unhappy with the service on offer
>>> then you have the right to pack up and leave.
>>
>> **Spoken like someone who has no experience with the system. It ain't
>> that easy.
>
> Well, yeah, it is.
>
> You pay for X, but you want Y. But you're not prepared to pay for Y so
> you have to settle for X. That's pretty much how it works. The aged care
> business is a business like any other.

**Read what I wrote. Money doesn't buy better care. It just buys more
expensive furniture. Furniture is cheap. Nurses are not.

>
>>> Just out of curiosity, if your sister wasn't happy with where she
>>> was, why didn't she move?
>>
>> **My sister was non-communicative. She was totally reliant on her
>> carers, who failed her miserably. Due to COVID restrictions, my
>> brother-in-law was unable to visit her.
>
> I think a great many people suffered the same fate.

**She died from complications arising from bed sores. One was 160mm
across and bone was visible. It was horrific and the direct result of
the lack of care from the facility.

>
>> And, for the record: When she was admitted to the palliative care
>> section of the local hospital, we had a discussion about moving her to
>> a dedicated palliative care facility. Her doctors determined that she
>> was so weak, that the 5km trip would have killed her. My sister was
>> extremely ill. She looked worse than those people who spent their days
>> in Nazi concentration camps.
>>
>> If the COALition had bothered to implement the changes promised by
>> Labor, my sister may still be alive today.
>
> There's no possible way you can know that, and as sad as it is given the
> comments of the doctors that you've mentioned here it probably wouldn't
> have made any difference to her where she was.

**Read my words, VERY CAREFULLY.

>
>> I'll say again: Avoid entering aged care while the COALition is
>> running things. The COALition acts to protect the companies that run
>> aged care facilities. They do not act for residents.
>
> I can understand you being upset, but rubbish like this here isn't doing
> you any favours.

**It's fact, not rubbish.

[Noddy]

ROTFL :)

Voting for the Greens is the political equivalent of walking around with
a flashing beacon on your head and a sign around your neck reading "I am
a fucking lunatic".

That's the *only* way anyone could ever think any of their policies make
any sense.

[Clocky]

On 20/05/2022 5:53 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/05/2022 6:39 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:

<snip>

>> **Correct. The COALition has refused to specify decent minimum
>> standards for aged care. They just don't care.
>
> "Decent" being the subjective term in this context. Some probably think
> the current minimum standard is decent enough, while others such as
> yourself disagree.

It's *not* "decent" enough period. Nursing home care is appallingly bad,
demoralising and dehumanised all over Australia everywhere you go.

It's just depressing. Staff are under the pump to "care" for as many
residents as possible in the shortest possible time. These places are
run like the elderly human being are just objects on a fucking
production line to be "cared" for in the fastest and cheapest method
possible to line the pockets of the cunts that run these places.

That fuckwit used car salesman Morrison has done absolutely nothing to
make sure there are checks and balances. Quality and welfare checks
should be done at random, without notice - for a start.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Typical. Read their policy documents sometime. YOu certainly won't
agree with all their policies (I know I don't), but they are consistent
and well thought through. Which is more than can be said of Labor, the
COALition and Palmer's bunch.

[Clocky]

On 19/05/2022 2:23 pm, Daryl wrote:

> That's the problem, why take the risk,

Because he and Labor can't be any worse than the useless mob we have now.

Jesus you are fucking stupid...

[Trevor Wilson]

**Correct. Having visited 27 aged care facilities over the past 5 years,
I know my way around quite well. I can see the stuff that they don't
want casual visitors to notice.

[Daryl]

LOL, they are a political party so therefore far from independent.
I prefer to stay in this century than go back to the dark ages.

--
Daryl

[Daryl]

Seems not:-)
Saw on the news last night that Pauline Hanson has Covid and she made a
funny comment that some people hoped she might die from it.
I got into trouble from SWMBO when I said that I did hope that Hanson
died, apparently I'm very mean:-)

--
Daryl

[John_H]

You're missing the point! Coking coal miners' jobs aren't under any
immediate threat so long as there's no substitute in steel production,
but try telling them that. They're the ones who kept the LNP in power
last time around (thermal coal is but a small part of total production
in Q) and will almost certainly prevent Labor from making any
significant inroads this time. With all due thanks to BB et al.

>However, ANY mine worker who has entered the industry in the past few
>years (personally, I would say the past two decades), expecting a long
>term employment is just a moron. They deserve what they get -
>unemployment. There is no long term future for thermal coal. I would
>also add that, as mechanisation increases, then the number of jobs
>decreases. BTW, coal mining employs less than 38,000 Australians:
>
>https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/how-many-coal-jobs-check-the-facts/
>
>A truly insignificant number of workers.
>
>>
>> Following Bob Brown's visit even the local CFMEU branch withdrew its
>> support from Labor.
>
>**I don't care for most unions. Some are OK. some are not. Most are run
>by dickheads. They are equivalent to our politicians.

Also a significant source of Labor politicians... Julia Gillard being
but one example. :)

--
John H

[Trevor Wilson]

**Nope. It would serve her right.

[Noddy]

On 20/05/2022 11:05 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 20/05/2022 10:44 am, Noddy wrote:

>>
>> Yep, and there is nothing stopping a *single* facility from ever
>> supplying these things.
>
> **Yes, there is: Greed. It is up to the government to control their
> greed. Again: Taxpayers fund these bastards. It is up to the government
> to exert proper controls over them.

I see. So how much control over the running of private businesses do you
think the government should be entitled to?

>>> Whilst the government refuses to mandate such things, aged care
>>> providers will cut costs, staff and food quality.
>>
>> And yet you see the negligent actions of unscrupulous facility owners
>> as the fault of the government.
>
> **It is the fault of the facility owners and negligence on the part of
> the government to continue to fail to manage taxpayer funds.

They're not failing to manage taxpayer funds at all. They hand it out to
the care facility owners who are entitled to receive it, and how they
spend it is *their* responsibility.

>> It is *precisely* subjective Trevor. Your idea of "quality care" is
>> not everyone else's. Everyone's needs are different.
>
> **You're wrong. Those things are FUNDAMENTAL to quality care.

Yeah, but the government isn't in the "quality care" business Trevor.
Their involvement, such as it is, is to subsidise the aged care sector
to make it affordable for those who otherwise can't afford to be placed
at a more upmarket and significantly more expensive facility.

As I said to you. The government doesn't run the aged care sector. It
just subsidises it.

>>> It's all measurable and achievable. Sadly the owners of the aged care
>>> facilities may have to settle for a low end Ferrari.
>>
>> Again, you're sticking it to the wrong people. Those you *should* be
>> blaming are the unscrupulous care facility owners who treat their
>> clients like a meal ticket, and to be absolutely frank letting them
>> off the hook because you think the government doesn't provide adequate
>> funding is an absolute nonsense.
>
> **Of course I blame the owners of the facilities. I also blame the
> government for not mandating proper care.

We can go on like this forever.... :)

>> Right. So you've conducted a poll and found that everyone thinks that
>> way?
>
> **Tell you what: YOU find someone who thinks that the minimum standards
> are good enough and I'll pay attention.

It's not *my* job to prove *your* theories.

>> Actually Trev, you should be praising the current government, as
>> they're the only ones that I can recall in a very long time who has
>> launched an inquiry into the aged care system, despite the system
>> having been a mess for *decades* at the hands of many governments from
>> either side of the political fence.
>
> **They launched an inquiry, then ignored the recommendations.

Actually Trevor the Royal Commission into aged care made many
recommendations, but also created confusion and uncertainty within it's
findings with the commissioners themselves failing to agree on a number
of points.

> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-02/aged-care-royal-commission-final-report-key-takeaways/13203508

The 4 main points of the commission's final report should be adopted,
but the rest of it just seems to make the issue worse.

>> You understand that you're free to pick and choose where you want to
>> go, and no one is *forced* into any particular facility, right? There
>> are better options available that offer better services, but then
>> you'll have to pay more for those services.
>
> **No. I already explained to you that my sister and mother were in a
> facility with excellent levels of care and food (which, BTW, I'd be
> happy to pay for in a decent cafe), yet the profit for the owner was
> respectable. I examined facilities that were double the price, yet
> didn't offer the same level of care. Money doesn't buy better care.

Well then why does everyone concerned seem to be screaming that
inadequate funding is the principal cause for the lack of care?

> You'd think it would, but it doesn't. It MIGHT buy you a better view, or
> a nice coffee machine in common areas, but it won't, necessarily get you
> 24/7 nursing staff.

So what's the answer?

> **Wrong. I explained to you before that the facility my mother and
> sister were in was a low cost one. Not the cheapest I checked out, but
> petty damned close.

If that was the case, and I'm not doubting you, then it would seem to be
the exception rather than the rule.

>> You pay for X, but you want Y. But you're not prepared to pay for Y so
>> you have to settle for X. That's pretty much how it works. The aged
>> care business is a business like any other.
>
> **Read what I wrote. Money doesn't buy better care. It just buys more
> expensive furniture. Furniture is cheap. Nurses are not.

So then it *is* about money.

>>> **My sister was non-communicative. She was totally reliant on her
>>> carers, who failed her miserably. Due to COVID restrictions, my
>>> brother-in-law was unable to visit her.
>>
>> I think a great many people suffered the same fate.
>
> **She died from complications arising from bed sores. One was 160mm
> across and bone was visible. It was horrific and the direct result of
> the lack of care from the facility.

Again, you have no real way of knowing that given the comments of the
doctors. If, as you mentioned, the doctors treating her were of the
opinion that she was in such a frail condition that she was unlikely to
survive a trip of a few km's then it sounds like she was going to pass
away before long regardless of wherever she was.

>> There's no possible way you can know that, and as sad as it is given
>> the comments of the doctors that you've mentioned here it probably
>> wouldn't have made any difference to her where she was.
>
> **Read my words, VERY CAREFULLY.

I did. She was frail. She was on death's door. Her time was extremely
limited. That's what you seemed to be saying.

>>> I'll say again: Avoid entering aged care while the COALition is
>>> running things. The COALition acts to protect the companies that run
>>> aged care facilities. They do not act for residents.
>>
>> I can understand you being upset, but rubbish like this here isn't
>> doing you any favours.
>
> **It's fact, not rubbish.

Trevor, here's the current list of standards that Federally funded aged
care facilities are obliged to comply with:

> https://www.agedcarequality.gov.au/providers/standards

It's fairly extensive, and while I'm sure it wouldn't satisfy everyone,
it *is* the minimum standard that facilities are legally obligated to
provide.

If they're not doing that, then that is *not* the government's fault.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Nominate which of the Greens' policies that will take you back to the
dark ages. Be precise.

[Noddy]

Lol :)

For almost as long as it's existed the Labor party has been the
political wing of the trade union movement, with a host of it's former
heavyweights being union officials who preached their communistic
bullshit to the faithful before moving onto the big stage to preach it
to everyone else.

[jonz@ nothere.com]

On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 17:56:20 UTC+10, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/05/2022 4:20 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > On 19/05/2022 4:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
> > And please, while you're on the
> >> subject of "pitifully idiotic bullshit", don't start with the "per
> >> capita" nonsense.
> >
> > **Per capita is the only measure that matters.
> Per capita is completely nonsensical. The *only* figure that makes any
> difference to the planet is the global total.
> >> Hey Trev, when are you going to stop with the rhetoric and start
> >> leading by example?
> >
> > **I already do.
> Do you? How?
> >
> > You know, sell your fossil fuel burning cars and buy an EV?
> >
> > **As soon as we get a government that makes buying EVs attractive. The
> > COALition has no interest.
> Oh. So "doing your bit" is only okay if it's financially attractive to
> you. Is that how it works?
> >
> >> Bulldoze your old horribly inefficient house and build a new supper
> >> efficient one?
>
> > **How is my house inefficient? Be precise in your response.
> If memory serves, and I'm happy to stand corrected, you live in a house
> that's quite old. 1960's vintage or possibly older. Compared to a modern
> house it would be extremely inefficient, even if you'd gone to some
> trouble to counter that.
> > FWIW: I have the most efficient inverter air cons available. They are used around 10
> > days per year. I have no other heating or cooling. My next door
> > neighbour has a modern, efficient home and they've used their air con
> > every day for the past couple of months.
> Which says nothing about the differences about the homes, and everything
> about the personal preferences.
> > cut down the sun blocking trees around your place and
> >> install a big solar array with a battery back up?
> >
> > **ALL my electricity is obtained from renewable sources.
> So what? If you had a decent solar system you'd make more available for
> others to use.
> >> Why is it that the bloke who makes more noise about environmental
> >> responsibility around here than anyone *also* seems to be the bloke
> >> who does jack shit himself?
> >
> > **You have no idea what I do, or don't do.
> I've got some, based just on what you've said here :)
> >> Other than talk about it of course :)
> >
> > **Like I said: You have no idea.
> Okay. So, just for shits and giggles value, what's the "attractiveness"
> thresh hold that needs to be met before you'd consider dumping your
> fossil fuel burning cars and moving to an electric one, and given your
> highly pro-active stance on climate change which is something you've
> been passionate about for many years, do you see it as selfish that you
> put your own financial interests *ahead* of action you clearly consider
> to be for the greater good of all mankind?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My thoughts exactly. He`s paying lip service to his (loudly) proclaimed *beliefs*.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/05/2022 1:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/05/2022 11:05 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 20/05/2022 10:44 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Yep, and there is nothing stopping a *single* facility from ever
>>> supplying these things.
>>
>> **Yes, there is: Greed. It is up to the government to control their
>> greed. Again: Taxpayers fund these bastards. It is up to the
>> government to exert proper controls over them.
>
> I see. So how much control over the running of private businesses do you
> think the government should be entitled to?

**READ MY LIPS:

* Mandate nurses on duty 24/7.
* Mandate specific carer to resident ratios.
* Mandate proper nutritious meals for all residents.

We, taxpayers, fund these operations. It is not too much to ask that
they act properly.

>
>>>> Whilst the government refuses to mandate such things, aged care
>>>> providers will cut costs, staff and food quality.
>>>
>>> And yet you see the negligent actions of unscrupulous facility owners
>>> as the fault of the government.
>>
>> **It is the fault of the facility owners and negligence on the part of
>> the government to continue to fail to manage taxpayer funds.
>
> They're not failing to manage taxpayer funds at all.

**Oh yes, they are. They hand our money over to these companies and
don't demand that evidence be provided that they spend the money
appropriately (rather than on new Ferraris).

They hand it out to
> the care facility owners who are entitled to receive it, and how they
> spend it is *their* responsibility.

**NO! It's OUR money they're handing over. WE should know precisely how
OUR money is being spent.

>
>>> It is *precisely* subjective Trevor. Your idea of "quality care" is
>>> not everyone else's. Everyone's needs are different.
>>
>> **You're wrong. Those things are FUNDAMENTAL to quality care.
>
> Yeah, but the government isn't in the "quality care" business Trevor.

**It's not "quality care". It's BASIC care.

> Their involvement, such as it is, is to subsidise the aged care sector
> to make it affordable for those who otherwise can't afford to be placed
> at a more upmarket and significantly more expensive facility.

**You don't get it, do you? EVERY aged care facility receives OUR money.
Even the really expensive ones. More importantly, as I have stated
before: More money does not equate to better care.

>
> As I said to you. The government doesn't run the aged care sector. It
> just subsidises it.

**With OUR money. It is perfectly reasonable to want to know where OUR
money is being spent.

>
>>>> It's all measurable and achievable. Sadly the owners of the aged
>>>> care facilities may have to settle for a low end Ferrari.
>>>
>>> Again, you're sticking it to the wrong people. Those you *should* be
>>> blaming are the unscrupulous care facility owners who treat their
>>> clients like a meal ticket, and to be absolutely frank letting them
>>> off the hook because you think the government doesn't provide
>>> adequate funding is an absolute nonsense.
>>
>> **Of course I blame the owners of the facilities. I also blame the
>> government for not mandating proper care.
>
> We can go on like this forever.... :)

**Until you have some experience with this sector, you will never
understand.

>
>>> Right. So you've conducted a poll and found that everyone thinks that
>>> way?
>>
>> **Tell you what: YOU find someone who thinks that the minimum
>> standards are good enough and I'll pay attention.
>
> It's not *my* job to prove *your* theories.

**It's not a fucking theory. It's a fact.

>
>>> Actually Trev, you should be praising the current government, as
>>> they're the only ones that I can recall in a very long time who has
>>> launched an inquiry into the aged care system, despite the system
>>> having been a mess for *decades* at the hands of many governments
>>> from either side of the political fence.
>>
>> **They launched an inquiry, then ignored the recommendations.
>
> Actually Trevor the Royal Commission into aged care made many
> recommendations, but also created confusion and uncertainty within it's
> findings with the commissioners themselves failing to agree on a number
> of points.
>
>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-02/aged-care-royal-commission-final-report-key-takeaways/13203508
>>
>
> The 4 main points of the commission's final report should be adopted,
> but the rest of it just seems to make the issue worse.

**Like I said: WE paid millions of Dollars for a Royal Commission, the
results of which have been ignored by the COALition.

>
>>> You understand that you're free to pick and choose where you want to
>>> go, and no one is *forced* into any particular facility, right? There
>>> are better options available that offer better services, but then
>>> you'll have to pay more for those services.
>>
>> **No. I already explained to you that my sister and mother were in a
>> facility with excellent levels of care and food (which, BTW, I'd be
>> happy to pay for in a decent cafe), yet the profit for the owner was
>> respectable. I examined facilities that were double the price, yet
>> didn't offer the same level of care. Money doesn't buy better care.
>
> Well then why does everyone concerned seem to be screaming that
> inadequate funding is the principal cause for the lack of care?

**Greed.

>
>> You'd think it would, but it doesn't. It MIGHT buy you a better view,
>> or a nice coffee machine in common areas, but it won't, necessarily
>> get you 24/7 nursing staff.
>
> So what's the answer?

**This:

* Mandate nurses on duty 24/7.
* Mandate specific carer to resident ratios.
* Mandate proper nutritious meals for all residents.

>
>> **Wrong. I explained to you before that the facility my mother and
>> sister were in was a low cost one. Not the cheapest I checked out, but
>> petty damned close.
>
> If that was the case, and I'm not doubting you, then it would seem to be
> the exception rather than the rule.

**Nope. My partner's mother is in a medium priced facility (RAD =
$600,000.00) and her father is in a lower cost one (RAD = $450.000.00).
Both facilities have 24/7 nurses. I checked out a couple of placed that
were priced at >$750,000.00. Nurses were not on duty 24/7. Money usually
buys you nice furniture, but not necessarily great care.

>>> You pay for X, but you want Y. But you're not prepared to pay for Y
>>> so you have to settle for X. That's pretty much how it works. The
>>> aged care business is a business like any other.
>>
>> **Read what I wrote. Money doesn't buy better care. It just buys more
>> expensive furniture. Furniture is cheap. Nurses are not.
>
> So then it *is* about money.

**I'll say again: When under the old ownership, my mother and sister had
access to:

* 24/7 nursing care.
* Excellent carer to resident ratios.
* REALLY nice, nutritious food.

The RAD was $350,000.00.

>
>>>> **My sister was non-communicative. She was totally reliant on her
>>>> carers, who failed her miserably. Due to COVID restrictions, my
>>>> brother-in-law was unable to visit her.
>>>
>>> I think a great many people suffered the same fate.
>>
>> **She died from complications arising from bed sores. One was 160mm
>> across and bone was visible. It was horrific and the direct result of
>> the lack of care from the facility.
>
> Again, you have no real way of knowing that given the comments of the
> doctors. If, as you mentioned, the doctors treating her were of the
> opinion that she was in such a frail condition that she was unlikely to
> survive a trip of a few km's then it sounds like she was going to pass
> away before long regardless of wherever she was.

**She died as a result of the injuries due to bed sores. Bed sores
result from poor treatment.

>
>>> There's no possible way you can know that, and as sad as it is given
>>> the comments of the doctors that you've mentioned here it probably
>>> wouldn't have made any difference to her where she was.
>>
>> **Read my words, VERY CAREFULLY.
>
> I did. She was frail. She was on death's door. Her time was extremely
> limited. That's what you seemed to be saying.

**She was fine before you acquired bed sores. The bed sores were a
direct result of poor care she received in aged care. In fact, my
brother-in-law fully expected to die before my sister.

>>>> I'll say again: Avoid entering aged care while the COALition is
>>>> running things. The COALition acts to protect the companies that run
>>>> aged care facilities. They do not act for residents.
>>>
>>> I can understand you being upset, but rubbish like this here isn't
>>> doing you any favours.
>>
>> **It's fact, not rubbish.
>
> Trevor, here's the current list of standards that Federally funded aged
> care facilities are obliged to comply with:
>
>> https://www.agedcarequality.gov.au/providers/standards
>
> It's fairly extensive, and while I'm sure it wouldn't satisfy everyone,
> it *is* the minimum standard that facilities are legally obligated to
> provide.
>
> If they're not doing that, then that is *not* the government's fault.

**It is. The government could easily:

* Mandate nurses on duty 24/7.
* Mandate specific carer to resident ratios.
* Mandate proper nutritious meals for all residents.

[Noddy]

On 20/05/2022 3:01 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 20/05/2022 1:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 20/05/2022 11:05 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 20/05/2022 10:44 am, Noddy wrote:

>>>
>>> **Read what I wrote. Money doesn't buy better care. It just buys more
>>> expensive furniture. Furniture is cheap. Nurses are not.
>>
>> So then it *is* about money.
>
> **I'll say again: When under the old ownership, my mother and sister had
> access to:
>
> * 24/7 nursing care.
> * Excellent carer to resident ratios.
> * REALLY nice, nutritious food.
>
> The RAD was $350,000.00.

So this answers the question in a nutshell. It's not about the funding,
and it's not about the minimum standards. It's about the facility owner
providing a duty of care. Under the old ownership the facility seems
like it was able to do that perfectly well, whereas under the current
ownership they do not.

So *again* I ask you. How is this the government's fault? :)

[Trevor Wilson]

**Two ways:

* Despite the fact that all the relatives were happy with the way the
place was run, the government forced the place to be sold to a larger
company.
* When the new company took over, quality of service fell dramatically.

Had mandates been put in place, the quality of service would not have
fallen.

[keithr0]

On 19/05/2022 10:23 am, John_H wrote:
> lindsay wrote:
>>
>> I'm getting old... most shit on media that i observe, (television,
>> radio) doesnt really faze me.... But when you're force fed political
>> *SHIT*, that we have to pay for, I draw the line.
>>
>> In the last 10 mins, I've heard "there's a hole in your budget...) 4
>> times on prime time tv, , I heard it 4 times in 30 mins on TTFM this
>> morning before I punched the clock radio in the face and swapped to
>> digital.... I believe they actually changed it to a more modern track
>> today, but I havent heard it...thankfully.
>>
>> I'm nearly happy, I voted early, so I dont have to stand around in a 45
>> minute queue with all the dirty fucks without a mask... I could lie, and
>> say I dont care who wins... I do.. but find the cunt who came up with
>> "theres a hole in your budget", and "put him in the curry" ffs.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0n88tZQc4Q
>>
>> put 'em *ALL* in the curry....
>

> Hope you didn't put a major party at 1 which gets them $3 or so for
> your vote (in spite of what others may say it's the taxpayer who pays
> for their shit).

That's what the wicked witch of the west is doing with her ghost
candidates, she and James Ashby run One Nation as a profit centre. She
used to be last on my ballot, but, this time, she's been bumped up one
place by Clive.

> Also hope you never drew a prick on your ballot paper as one got
> elected last time (as I heard somewhere recently). :)
>

A friend who has worked as a vote counter reckons that you see all sorts
of "Interesting" stuff written on ballot papers.

[keithr0]

On 20/05/2022 2:27 pm, Noddy wrote:

Just as a lot of Lib candidates are from the legal profession, just as
bad. Abbott never had a proper job in his life, Dutton was a Queensland
cop not a group covered in glory, and Scomo an ex-salesman.

[John_H]

How about their tycoons tax, or whatever they call it... a 6% tax on
the total assets of billionaires and billionaire corporations.

Most billionaires, or anyone else, wouldn't return a 6% profit on
their assets... meaning they'd be forced to liquidate assets to pay
their taxes resulting in a drop in value as the market becomes
flooded. IOW the value of their assets and hence the amount of tax
collected would both decrease rapidly.

Even worse for companies whose share prices would collapse in response
to the drop in yields which would make the 1929 crash, precursor to
the Great Depression of the '30s, look like a mere blip in the road

back to the dark ages.

To say nothing of superannuation funds which wouldn't even be able to
meet their administration costs.

--
John H

[Trevor Wilson]

**And not a very good one:

https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/02/11/scott-morrison-career/

[alvey]

lol! What rubbish.
"communistic bullshit"? You sound like one of those idiotic Trumpites who
always refer to the Democrats as "the radical left".

Besides, as an unskilled labourer and non-business owner you really should
have been an ALP voter Fraudster.


alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/05/2022 4:13 pm, John_H wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 20/05/2022 11:24 am, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 20/5/2022 10:47 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 20/05/2022 10:14 am, Daryl wrote:
>>>>> On 20/5/2022 8:16 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>> Daryl wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/5/2022 10:23 am, John_H wrote:
>>
>>>>>> In spite of the Happy Clapper's claim that independents cause chaos
>>>>>> he's never had a majority government.  If Labor doesn't support him he
>>>>>> needs independents to pass his legislation which is a bloody good
>>>>>> thing in my book.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Agree if independents are truly independent which is something we can
>>>>> never be 100% sure of.
>>>>
>>>> **Correct, which is why we should all vote Green.
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL, they are a political party so therefore far from independent.
>>> I prefer to stay in this century than go back to the dark ages.
>>>
>>
>> **Nominate which of the Greens' policies that will take you back to the
>> dark ages. Be precise.
>
> How about their tycoons tax, or whatever they call it... a 6% tax on
> the total assets of billionaires and billionaire corporations.

**And how will that take us back to the dark ages?

Take as much space as you need to answer.

Additionally:

Gina Rinehart was worth $14 billion in 2019. $29 billion in 2020. $31
billion in 2021. Probably >$34 billion in 2022.

Do you honestly think she would miss $2 billion?

Really?

Do you think she would make good use of that $2 billion? Or could that
money be better spent on renewable energy projects, low cost housing or
money for our health care system?

>
> Most billionaires, or anyone else, wouldn't return a 6% profit on
> their assets... meaning they'd be forced to liquidate assets to pay
> their taxes resulting in a drop in value as the market becomes
> flooded. IOW the value of their assets and hence the amount of tax
> collected would both decrease rapidly.

**Gina seems to do OK. From $14 billion in 2019 to $31 billion last
year. I don't have my pocket calculator to hand, but I bet that works
out to a little more than 6% year on year.

How about Anthony Pratt?

$15.8 billion in 2019 to $20 billion in 2021.

How much can these guys spend? Seriously.

>
> Even worse for companies whose share prices would collapse in response
> to the drop in yields which would make the 1929 crash, precursor to
> the Great Depression of the '30s, look like a mere blip in the road
> back to the dark ages.
>
> To say nothing of superannuation funds which wouldn't even be able to
> meet their administration costs.

**Do the Greens state that they will tax super funds?

[Noddy]

On 20/05/2022 3:14 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 20/05/2022 3:08 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>> **I'll say again: When under the old ownership, my mother and sister
>>> had access to:
>>>
>>> * 24/7 nursing care.
>>> * Excellent carer to resident ratios.
>>> * REALLY nice, nutritious food.
>>>
>>> The RAD was $350,000.00.
>>
>> So this answers the question in a nutshell. It's not about the
>> funding, and it's not about the minimum standards. It's about the
>> facility owner providing a duty of care. Under the old ownership the
>> facility seems like it was able to do that perfectly well, whereas
>> under the current ownership they do not.
>>
>> So *again* I ask you. How is this the government's fault? :)
>>
>>
>>
>
> **Two ways:
>
> * Despite the fact that all the relatives were happy with the way the
> place was run, the government forced the place to be sold to a larger
> company.

Rubbish. That was a decision made entirely by the owner, and no doubt
after an enticing offer had been made for the take-over.

> * When the new company took over, quality of service fell dramatically.

Right. Company at fault. Not the government.

> Had mandates been put in place, the quality of service would not have
> fallen.

Bullshit. Any company who is/was prepared to treat people like numbers
and milk them to death as they clearly did would be unlikely to play by
the rules.

[Noddy]

On 20/05/2022 3:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:

> On 20/05/2022 2:27 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 20/05/2022 1:01 pm, John_H wrote:
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 20/05/2022 10:16 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>>> Following Bob Brown's visit even the local CFMEU branch withdrew its
>>>>> support from Labor.
>>>>
>>>> **I don't care for most unions. Some are OK. some are not. Most are run
>>>> by dickheads. They are equivalent to our politicians.
>>>
>>> Also a significant source of Labor politicians... Julia Gillard being
>>> but one example.  :)
>>
>> Lol :)
>>
>> For almost as long as it's existed the Labor party has been the
>> political wing of the trade union movement, with a host of it's former
>> heavyweights being union officials who preached their communistic
>> bullshit to the faithful before moving onto the big stage to preach it
>> to everyone else.
>
> Just as a lot of Lib candidates are from the legal profession, just as
> bad.

I dunno about that. Most lawyers may be contemptible lumps of excrement,
but at least they're not Communists :)

> Abbott never had a proper job in his life, Dutton was a Queensland
> cop not a group covered in glory, and Scomo an ex-salesman.

What's a "proper" job in your opinion?

Moreover, What do you think would be an ideal profession for one to have
held that would make them particularly suitable for a career in politics?

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/05/2022 5:45 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/05/2022 3:14 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 20/05/2022 3:08 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> **I'll say again: When under the old ownership, my mother and sister
>>>> had access to:
>>>>
>>>> * 24/7 nursing care.
>>>> * Excellent carer to resident ratios.
>>>> * REALLY nice, nutritious food.
>>>>
>>>> The RAD was $350,000.00.
>>>
>>> So this answers the question in a nutshell. It's not about the
>>> funding, and it's not about the minimum standards. It's about the
>>> facility owner providing a duty of care. Under the old ownership the
>>> facility seems like it was able to do that perfectly well, whereas
>>> under the current ownership they do not.
>>>
>>> So *again* I ask you. How is this the government's fault? :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **Two ways:
>>
>> * Despite the fact that all the relatives were happy with the way the
>> place was run, the government forced the place to be sold to a larger
>> company.
>
> Rubbish. That was a decision made entirely by the owner, and no doubt
> after an enticing offer had been made for the take-over.

**Nope. It was a fire sale. He was losing money.

>
>> * When the new company took over, quality of service fell dramatically.
>
> Right. Company at fault. Not the government.

**It IS the government's fault since:

* The problems have been telegraphed for several years.
* The government has avoided mandating the things I mentioned.

>
>> Had mandates been put in place, the quality of service would not have
>> fallen.
>
> Bullshit.

**How the fuck would you know? Really.

I was there. I observed the dramatic fall in quality of service.

Any company who is/was prepared to treat people like numbers
> and milk them to death as they clearly did would be unlikely to play by
> the rules.

**Wrong. The government has a department that oversees the aged care
industry. They perform unannounced inspections.

[Trevor Wilson]

**OK.

>
>> However, ANY mine worker who has entered the industry in the past few
>> years (personally, I would say the past two decades), expecting a long
>> term employment is just a moron. They deserve what they get -
>> unemployment. There is no long term future for thermal coal. I would
>> also add that, as mechanisation increases, then the number of jobs
>> decreases. BTW, coal mining employs less than 38,000 Australians:
>>
>> https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/how-many-coal-jobs-check-the-facts/
>>
>> A truly insignificant number of workers.
>>
>>>
>>> Following Bob Brown's visit even the local CFMEU branch withdrew its
>>> support from Labor.
>>
>> **I don't care for most unions. Some are OK. some are not. Most are run
>> by dickheads. They are equivalent to our politicians.
>
> Also a significant source of Labor politicians... Julia Gillard being
> but one example. :)
>

**Best PM we've ever had. She wrangled a minority government brilliantly.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 19/05/2022 5:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/05/2022 4:20 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 19/05/2022 4:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>   And please, while you're on the
>>> subject of "pitifully idiotic bullshit", don't start with the "per
>>> capita" nonsense.
>>
>> **Per capita is the only measure that matters.
>
> Per capita is completely nonsensical. The *only* figure that makes any
> difference to the planet is the global total.
>
>>> Hey Trev, when are you going to stop with the rhetoric and start
>>> leading by example?
>>
>> **I already do.
>
> Do you? How?

**Asked and answered.

>
>>
>>   You know, sell your fossil fuel burning cars and buy an EV?
>>
>> **As soon as we get a government that makes buying EVs attractive. The
>> COALition has no interest.
>
> Oh. So "doing your bit" is only okay if it's financially attractive to
> you. Is that how it works?

**No. It's more complex than that. I purchased a new car in 2017. It's
five year warranty period falls due at the end of this year. I would not
consider selling that car until the warranty period is finished.
However, my next car will, almost certainly be a hybrid or a BEV. I am
leaning towards a BEV right now. That may change. Depending on a bunch
of factors:

* The availability more plentiful charging places.
* The arrival of new battery technologies (Al-Ion for instance).
* The cost of petrol.
* Government incentives to buy an BEV.

Based on my present usage, my present car will probably outlast me (at
least 30 years). So, I will need some compelling reasons to buy a new
car of any type.

>
>>
>>> Bulldoze your old horribly inefficient house and build a new supper
>>> efficient one?
>
>> **How is my house inefficient? Be precise in your response.
>
> If memory serves, and I'm happy to stand corrected, you live in a house
> that's quite old. 1960's vintage or possibly older. Compared to a modern
> house it would be extremely inefficient, even if you'd gone to some
> trouble to counter that.

**Nonsense. The house next door is quite modern and extremely
inefficient. Like I said: I rarely use heating and cooling. I have trees
to my West that block the afternoon Sun. The house faces North, so I
pick up that nice Winter Sun. It's high and near the water, so I get sea
breezes on Summer evenings (mostly). It is an extremely comfortable
home, at any time of year. My partner chose very carefully.

>
>> FWIW: I have the most efficient inverter air cons available. They are
>> used around 10 days per year. I have no other heating or cooling. My
>> next door neighbour has a modern, efficient home and they've used
>> their air con every day for the past couple of months.
>
> Which says nothing about the differences about the homes, and everything
> about the personal preferences.

**And just how badly some modern homes can be designed and built. The
cheapskates didn't even specify double glazing. Yet my partner and I are
making plans to install double glazing in the next year or two.

>
>>   cut down the sun blocking trees around your place and
>>> install a big solar array with a battery back up?
>>
>> **ALL my electricity is obtained from renewable sources.
>
> So what?

**I put my money where my mouth is.

If you had a decent solar system you'd make more available for
> others to use.

**As I stated before: Too much shading. I lose the ability to generate
power, but I save power thanks to the shading from the Western Sun.

>
>>> Why is it that the bloke who makes more noise about environmental
>>> responsibility around here than anyone *also* seems to be the bloke
>>> who does jack shit himself?
>>
>> **You have no idea what I do, or don't do.
>
> I've got some, based just on what you've said here :)

**You have no idea what I do, or don't do.

>
>>> Other than talk about it of course :)
>>
>> **Like I said: You have no idea.
>
> Okay. So, just for shits and giggles value, what's the "attractiveness"
> thresh hold that needs to be met before you'd consider dumping your
> fossil fuel burning cars and moving to an electric one, and given your
> highly pro-active stance on climate change which is something you've
> been passionate about for many years, do you see it as selfish that you
> put your own financial interests *ahead* of action you clearly consider
> to be for the greater good of all mankind?

**See above.

[Daryl]

If you look at some YouTube videos on that subject you will find it
isn't so simple, its estimated that about 1 in 5 people in the UK who
buy BEV switch back to IC because charging away from home is a PITA and
its not just the lack of chargers.
They arrive at a place with lots of chargers but they are all taken so
they have to wait a very long time, secondly they often find chargers
not working or problems with the aps that control them.
Before you even consider a BEV make sure you can charge it at home
because relying on finding a charger could become your worst nightmare.
That may change over time but I wouldn't count on it in the near future.

> * The arrival of new battery technologies (Al-Ion for instance).

That might change everything but who knows when.

> * The cost of petrol.

The price is usually governed by supply and demand so I would expect
that if demand goes down so will the price but no one really knows.

> * Government incentives to buy an BEV.

Hope our Govt is never dumb enough to subsidize them.
In some countries EV's are cheaper than IC cars when you deduct the
subsidies but still people change back to IC because charging is a PITA.

>
> Based on my present usage, my present car will probably outlast me (at
> least 30 years). So, I will need some compelling reasons to buy a new
> car of any type.

Same here, its very likely that keeping any car that's in good working
order for a long time will produce less whole of life emissions than
continually making new ones regardless of the type.
I also wonder what will happen in about 10yrs when batteries start
failing, do owners scrap the whole car and start again or replace the
battery, either way the cost is going to be high.


--
Daryl

[Xeno]

Well Darren, you have a head start. You are an inveterate liar and that,
more than *any other skill*, makes you the perfect candidate to be a
politician. You’ve sold used cars, hey the perfect political training
ground. We only have one problem with you, you make Pauline Hanson look
intelligent and literate by comparison. It’d take a bit of work to overcome
that but, hey, Pauline made it!


--
Xeno

[John_H]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>On 20/05/2022 4:13 pm, John_H wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 20/05/2022 11:24 am, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 20/5/2022 10:47 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 20/05/2022 10:14 am, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>> On 20/5/2022 8:16 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>> Daryl wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19/5/2022 10:23 am, John_H wrote:
>
>>>>>>> In spite of the Happy Clapper's claim that independents cause chaos
>>>>>>> he's never had a majority government.  If Labor doesn't support him he
>>>>>>> needs independents to pass his legislation which is a bloody good
>>>>>>> thing in my book.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agree if independents are truly independent which is something we can
>>>>>> never be 100% sure of.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Correct, which is why we should all vote Green.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL, they are a political party so therefore far from independent.
>>>> I prefer to stay in this century than go back to the dark ages.
>>>>
>>>
>>> **Nominate which of the Greens' policies that will take you back to the
>>> dark ages. Be precise.
>>
>> How about their tycoons tax, or whatever they call it... a 6% tax on
>> the total assets of billionaires and billionaire corporations.
>
>**And how will that take us back to the dark ages?
>
>Take as much space as you need to answer.

What part of basic economics don't you understand?
A 6% reduction in private and corporate wealth, even if confined to
the top end of town, would have a significant impact on economic
growth. The flow on effects would precipitate an economic disaster
that would make the Great Depression of the 1930s look like a short
term recession.

>Additionally:
>
>Gina Rinehart was worth $14 billion in 2019. $29 billion in 2020. $31
>billion in 2021. Probably >$34 billion in 2022.
>
>Do you honestly think she would miss $2 billion?

At which point the state has seized a mere 6% of her assets, so
probably not! But it's a tax, it's ongoing, so how long before she's
reduced to a mere billion?

>Really?

Really! Communism by stealth... Carl Marx would've loved it.

>Do you think she would make good use of that $2 billion? Or could that
>money be better spent on renewable energy projects, low cost housing or
>money for our health care system?

So you'd have the state as the sole determinate at to where the money
gets spent (assuming it has any value whatsoever at that point)!

>> Most billionaires, or anyone else, wouldn't return a 6% profit on
>> their assets... meaning they'd be forced to liquidate assets to pay
>> their taxes resulting in a drop in value as the market becomes
>> flooded. IOW the value of their assets and hence the amount of tax
>> collected would both decrease rapidly.
>
>**Gina seems to do OK. From $14 billion in 2019 to $31 billion last
>year. I don't have my pocket calculator to hand, but I bet that works
>out to a little more than 6% year on year.
>
>How about Anthony Pratt?
>
>$15.8 billion in 2019 to $20 billion in 2021.
>
>How much can these guys spend? Seriously.

Indeed if they don't have it they can't spend it, which is no doubt
what motivates the watermelons... green the outside, red on the
inside!

>> Even worse for companies whose share prices would collapse in response
>> to the drop in yields which would make the 1929 crash, precursor to
>> the Great Depression of the '30s, look like a mere blip in the road
>> back to the dark ages.
>>
>> To say nothing of superannuation funds which wouldn't even be able to
>> meet their administration costs.
>
>**Do the Greens state that they will tax super funds?

What super fund doesn't have assets exceeding $1b, so why wouldn't
they be taxed? In any case a major source of superannuation pensions
is corporate share dividends which would cease to exist as a direct
consequence of a 6% asset tax.

--
John H

[Trevor Wilson]

**Quite a bit, actually.

> A 6% reduction in private and corporate wealth, even if confined to
> the top end of town, would have a significant impact on economic
> growth. The flow on effects would precipitate an economic disaster
> that would make the Great Depression of the 1930s look like a short
> term recession.

**Bullshit. My income tax bill is MUCH higher, as a percentage of income
than any billionaire in Australia. 6% tax is chicken-feed. Tax 'em more.

>
>> Additionally:
>>
>> Gina Rinehart was worth $14 billion in 2019. $29 billion in 2020. $31
>> billion in 2021. Probably >$34 billion in 2022.
>>
>> Do you honestly think she would miss $2 billion?
>
> At which point the state has seized a mere 6% of her assets, so
> probably not! But it's a tax, it's ongoing, so how long before she's
> reduced to a mere billion?

**Based on the rise in her wealth over the past few years, never. Even
with a miserably tiny 6% tax, she'll just get richer. And more annoying.

>
>> Really?
>
> Really! Communism by stealth... Carl Marx would've loved it.
>
>> Do you think she would make good use of that $2 billion? Or could that
>> money be better spent on renewable energy projects, low cost housing or
>> money for our health care system?
>
> So you'd have the state as the sole determinate at to where the money
> gets spent (assuming it has any value whatsoever at that point)!

**In a heartbeat. Look what Gina has spent some of her money on. Look
what Packer spends his money on. Some of that wealth could be delivered
to our health system. Or education system. Or defence.

https://themarketherald.com.au/fancy/net-worth-how-australias-richest-women-gina-rinehart-spends-her-wealth/

https://themarketherald.com.au/fancy/billionaire-insight-inside-the-luxury-life-of-james-packer/

>
>>> Most billionaires, or anyone else, wouldn't return a 6% profit on
>>> their assets... meaning they'd be forced to liquidate assets to pay
>>> their taxes resulting in a drop in value as the market becomes
>>> flooded. IOW the value of their assets and hence the amount of tax
>>> collected would both decrease rapidly.
>>
>> **Gina seems to do OK. From $14 billion in 2019 to $31 billion last
>> year. I don't have my pocket calculator to hand, but I bet that works
>> out to a little more than 6% year on year.
>>
>> How about Anthony Pratt?
>>
>> $15.8 billion in 2019 to $20 billion in 2021.
>>
>> How much can these guys spend? Seriously.
>
> Indeed if they don't have it they can't spend it, which is no doubt
> what motivates the watermelons... green the outside, red on the
> inside!

**Most of their money is made in Australia and spent overseas. If they
spend it.

>
>>> Even worse for companies whose share prices would collapse in response
>>> to the drop in yields which would make the 1929 crash, precursor to
>>> the Great Depression of the '30s, look like a mere blip in the road
>>> back to the dark ages.
>>>
>>> To say nothing of superannuation funds which wouldn't even be able to
>>> meet their administration costs.
>>
>> **Do the Greens state that they will tax super funds?
>
> What super fund doesn't have assets exceeding $1b, so why wouldn't
> they be taxed?

**Perhaps you missed my question. Here it is:

Do the Greens state that they will tax super funds?

Yes or no.

In any case a major source of superannuation pensions
> is corporate share dividends which would cease to exist as a direct
> consequence of a 6% asset tax.

**Given the tax evasion practiced by most large companies, I have zero
problem with extra tax on them.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/10/household-names-168-australian-companies-have-paid-no-tax-since-2013

[Noddy]

Tax evasion? Which ones do you know that are actually breaking the law?

You're starting to sound like a fanatical communist Trev. No wonder you
think Giallard was one of our greatest Prime Ministers :)

[Noddy]

On 20/05/2022 10:32 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 20/5/2022 8:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>
>> * The arrival of new battery technologies (Al-Ion for instance).
>
> That might change everything but who knows when.

Yep. He keeps citing this as a major selling point of EV's, but they're
not in use yet and there's nothing on the horizon to say when they ever
will be. It's a bit like saying our lives will all change for the better
once we switch to low cost, autonomous flying cars with the *only*
problem being that they haven't been invented yet.

>> * The cost of petrol.
>
> The price is usually governed by supply and demand so I would expect
> that if demand goes down so will the price but no one really knows.

Hope so. My environment killing gas guzzlers will be cost effective
after all :)

>> * Government incentives to buy an BEV.
>
> Hope our Govt is never dumb enough to subsidize them.
> In some countries EV's are cheaper than IC cars when you deduct the
> subsidies but still people change back to IC because charging is a PITA.

Like Chinese cars, they have some way to go.

Interesting to see media reports of late where after claiming that they
were getting out of IC engine production a lot of manufacturers are now
slowly releasing media statements to say that there is still life in the
old IC enginet and they're not shutting down their production facilities
just yet.

Like politicians, auto manufacturers will happily release whatever
public statements they think will curry favour with the public, and then
go on and do whatever the fuck they want anyway :)

>> Based on my present usage, my present car will probably outlast me (at
>> least 30 years). So, I will need some compelling reasons to buy a new
>> car of any type.

Well, I've just bought a new car that has a February 2023 expected
delivery date, and at the price I paid for it I could have comfortably
had any of the popular EV's on the market right now. But I didn't *want*
one as they don't appeal to me. They have far too many idiosyncrasies
that make them convenient as far as I' concerned, and given that I'll
probably be dead before this new ute is worn out I'm tipping that there
won't be an EV in my future any time soon.

[Daryl]

Its not as simple as that, if they tax what the super funds invest in
then isn't that still an indirect tax on super?
Different method, same result which will affect the average Joe as much
as the wealthy.
I don't disagree with the idea that the wealthy should pay more but we
need to be very careful with the way its done so that it doesn't result
in less investment in things that will create jobs making people worse off.
Sounds a bit like UAP plan for a tax of mining exports, prices are fixed
by the market so the tax would have to be absorbed by the miners with a
resulting drop in profit which could further result in some miners
shutting down and everyone loosing their jobs, the plan is not well
thought through.
The mining companies pay people very well which the employees spend, if
they loose their jobs it will have a big effect on the overall economy.

>  In any case a major source of superannuation pensions
>> is corporate share dividends which would cease to exist as a direct
>> consequence of a 6% asset tax.
>
> **Given the tax evasion practiced by most large companies, I have zero
> problem with extra tax on them.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/10/household-names-168-australian-companies-have-paid-no-tax-since-2013
>

That really doesn't tell the complete story, it just gives income
figures, those business's that didn't pay any tax may have incurred big
losses greater than their income.
If a business chooses to invest their income into expansion they might
not make a profit that year but they could have created hundreds of new
jobs, there are many ways a business can spend their income which
although not directly paying tax still benefits the economy.
Different story if a business is avoiding tax illegally.



--
Daryl

[Daryl]

On 21/5/2022 9:10 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 21/05/2022 8:42 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 21/05/2022 8:01 am, John_H wrote:
>
>>   In any case a major source of superannuation pensions
>>> is corporate share dividends which would cease to exist as a direct
>>> consequence of a 6% asset tax.
>>
>> **Given the tax evasion practiced by most large companies, I have zero
>> problem with extra tax on them.
>
> Tax evasion? Which ones do you know that are actually breaking the law?

Very likely very few if any, not against the law to minimise the amount
of tax they pay.
The ATO have been actively trying to prevent profit shifting as have
many other countries so its not as if the ATO hasn't been trying to
address the issue, its a big problem world wide, not just in Australia.
https://www.ato.gov.au/business/international-tax-for-business/in-detail/base-erosion-and-profit-shifting/?page=1#:~:text=Base%20erosion%20and%20profit%20shifting%20is%20a%20tax%20avoidance%20strategy,ones%20that%20have%20low%20taxes.

Trouble is if we come down too hard on these big companies they are
likely to pack up shop and move elsewhere making us worse off so its a
fine balance between collecting a reasonable amount of tax but not
killing off the goose that laid the golden egg.


--
Daryl