So they call that juvenile and yet their own leader brought a lump of coal into parliament, interrupting proceedings, saying 'Don't be afraid, there's nothing to be scared of', wasn't juvenile?
He could never bear the thought of even the most remote possibility of getting his hands dirty, nor could he bring himself to wear gloves for the fear of being seen as though he needed to protect himself from anything. Allegedly.
He might have been well intentioned, but that man is arguably the worst human being of all time, in terms of negative impact on like…the livable sliver the universe we can inhabit. Lead. CFCs. Hilarious death due to attempt to make his own disability less bad.
The gift that keeps on taking.
I most admit I thought the worst part of that was *corporate* rather than *personal* greed - like he was well off, but not as much as his bosses.
…however:
“[within the first two months of its operation, the new plant was plagued by more cases of lead poisoning, hallucinations, insanity, and five deaths.”
Or the Roundup honcho who claimed it was perfectly safe to drink and caused no harm to humans, but straight up refused to drink any when challenged on it.
Yeah, that happened. It was [Scotty From Marketing, back when he was Treasurer](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/09/scott-morrison-brings-coal-to-question-time-what-fresh-idiocy-is-this). There's a video of it at that link.
Not sure if *he* had it coated, or if the clowns who gave it to him did, either way it was coated in lacquer.
But to be fair to him (and I threw up a bit in my mouth at that very notion), you really *do not want* to be touching that shit with your bare skin if you can help it. It gets everywhere, it's a bugger to get out again, and it's often got a boatload of heavy metals in it.
Not to mention all the "wind turbine syndrome" bullshit they tried to pull.
There's actually legit reason to be slightly concerned about the risks of nuclear power, to anyone with even a vague understanding of its history. There isn't really for wind and solar.
I don't think that risks are a concern of nuclear generation. An outdated reactor in England caused some deaths way back in the 50s, and there was Chernobyl almost 40 years ago in a plant built 50 years ago, but the Russians weren't known for their safety. Since then there's only been a single death from Fukushima, and the redesign since then makes that sort of accident extremely unlikely to recur if you don't build them in a tidal wave zone, and if you have insulated back up diesel generators to keep the coolant flowing so it doesn't explode like Fukushima did. Diesels can run underwater… unless their air intake/exhaust is also below the waterline of the tsunami, and America has adopted them to their reactors.
Lessons were learnt and it would be very safe today, just like airline travel is safe from continually addressing lessons learned. The problem with nuclear is the cost compared to renewables.
I mainly just don't trust Australian organisations to manage nuclear power safely and responsibly. But that's primarily based on our legacy of privatising crucial components of our power grid and then allowing private companies to have infrastructure that stagnates and has to be shut down rather than obligating them to innovate.
We actually have a working example of slowly neglecting nuclear infrastructure. And by a party only marginally more corrupt and incompetent than the LNP... if at all.
South Africa.
Neither do I, but I don't think it's completely irrational stupidity for the public to have some concerns about it....especially when compared to wind and solar.
Which is what I already said.
Perhaps it's not irrational since nuclear is a scary word, but they'd be wrong since wind has a higher death rate per terawatt-hour of electricity according to all the statistics. Like I said, there has only been a single death this century from Nuclear generation, but there was an Australian maintenance worker killed when he fell from a wind turbine. And there is that [harrowing picture](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/13qfpvm/two_engineers_sharing_a_hug_atop_a_burning_wind/) of the two engineers sharing a hug atop a burning wind turbine during their final moments. I can't find statistics on how many others have been killed but a [Forbes article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/#:~:text=Wind%20energy%20kills%20a%20mere,maintenance%20activities%20\(Toldedo%20Blade\).) puts it at 100 people or so per trillion kWhrs, the majority from falls during maintenance activities. And there are hundreds of wind turbine failures with blades breaking, and turbines collapsing.
I’m one of the concerned people,
I don’t distrust the engineering/ science of the reactor architecture.
I distrust the organisations building and running it to not cut costs at every possible place, including ones that introduce risk. Whether that’s in building materials, project management of the build, operation, ongoing maintenance, fuel, or even a bad placement - somewhere, someone may screw up.
None of that should happen. I’m just not comfortable to trust that it can’t.
To use your example of airline travel, the risk is definitely low. Around 200 people died per year in the 2018-2022 range (source IATA).
That’s -very- low compared to other travel and was over millions of flights.
But it’s still non-zero.
To paraphrase an old saying: just one Fukushima incident can ruin your whole day.
As I said, Fukushima only caused a single death, and that was a worker who went there measuring radiation after the fact. When the same tidal wave hit it killed 20,000 people so there are far riskier things in this world than nuclear. You'd be astronomically more likely to be killed in Australia from a bushfire, a flood, a car accident, crossing the road, or even eaten by a shark. There have been 51 deaths in Australia this century from shark attacks.
Wind has proven to be more deadly. See this list :https://docs.wind-watch.org/fullaccidents.pdf There are over 1,600 documented accidents with wind, and hundreds and hundreds of injuries and deaths. It goes from being killed just innocently driving along and being wiped out by an accident with one of those enormous blades being transported along normal roads, to being killed from a blade shattering, to falling from the top during maintenance to being burnt from a turbine fire. There's a harrowing picture of two workers hugging on top of a turbine in their last moments as it burns underneath them.
And unlike nuclear the accidents keep happening every year. They will likely keep happening, but Chernobyl will never happen with western reactors, and Fukushima will never happen with the backup diesel safeguards in place, and tidal wave mitigation. When was the last tidal wave in Australia? It just doesn't happen here.
Even if you add all the deaths from Chernobyl, there are still more deaths from wind. Statista, a trusted analytical organisation has wind at 0.04 deaths per thousand terawatt hour, and nuclear at 0.03, but that includes all the historic deaths that ever occurred from nuclear. Unlike wind, they are much safer today than they were last century.
Even rooftop falls from solar panels have caused more deaths this century. You might say that's not from generating the power, but it's an ongoing death risk from the industry, since like wind, each installation only produces a tiny amount of power compared to nuclear plants, so there are thousands and thousands of workers on roofs and towers at risk every day.
I'm not supporting nuclear. It's too expensive for Australia, and the vanishingly small likelihood of accidents from wind makes it more feasible considering the cost, but the irrational fear of nuclear is comparable to the irrational fear of sharks compared to crossing the road. Sharks are scary like nuclear. Crossing the road isn't scary regardless of actual facts, numbers and statistics.
Yeh that was insane. Imagine hubris of displaying [that](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/7e9b85c969f9af45ed5903398c0665174f9e357b/0_186_5568_3341/master/5568.jpg?width=1900&dpr=1&s=none) as a trophy. He's probably displaying it on his mantle at home now, right next to that lump of lacquered coal he was so proud of.
[An article](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/17/adviser-whose-former-lobby-group-provided-lump-of-coal-to-scott-morrison-made-ambassador-to-oecd) tells me that it was supplied by the chief of the Minerals Council, but I'm a bit sceptical about him wanting it back.
Since he wanted the prop then the chief of the Minerals Council would be the obvious person to ask, but It's not as if it's worth anything so I reckon it would have ended up in the bin, unless it is actually on Scomo's mantle.
Although perhaps it may be worth something for posterity, and it could be auctioned off to his detractors as a monument to the LNP's attachment to fossil fuels and their emissions.
I just looked that up. Very bad behaviour.
[The article](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/29/speaker-calls-out-disgusting-behaviour-by-coalition-mps-that-left-parliament-worker-hurt) doesn't say, but I'm wondering why they would want to abstain. Was it to prevent a quorum? You only need a third for that so Labor would have the numbers.
If you know the vote will pass because of opposition and cross benchers and you don't want to be on record opposing what might be a very popular policy you leg it.
Then you have plausible deniability that you actually support that policy when time comes for re election just you were busy that day and missed the vote.
And the few voters who look up MP's voting habits on websites like [they vote for you](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/) only shows what they voted on, not so much what they abstained from.
I remember that, but that situation was quite unique, only following Abbot's prior declaration of not accepting Thomson's tainted vote. Abbot thought it was a stunt by Labor.
The situation above is different, and the motive is a more common reason for wanting to abstain.
While the LNP are worse, I cant help but feel the memes are a political stunt/distraction from Labor so people will forget that, even though theyre not as bad as LNP, Labor are also not doing enough to save our planet.
In saying that, Id also ask that people consider that instead of voting for the "least shit" of the two major parties next election (who will see our planet start to rapidly fall apart by 2030) maybe instead vote for a party who will actually try to save us from climate change, like the Greens or Independents.
Seriously our lives depend on our planet NOT burning up, please vote to save it.
I do vote Greens and I want them to have balance of power, but also I'd be scared if they actually won outright. I wouldn't vote for them if there was any chance of that.
You need to consider economic management as well, and I fear that shutting down all fossil fuel mining and export, or drastically cutting farmer's water allotments to feed rivers more naturally would lead to reductions of food production and export, financial hardships and much lower standard of living.
I'm also all for taxing the rich more, but their plans of wealth taxes, and more burden on the rich will lead to them moving off-shore, or selling their assets, and capital flight will detract from overseas investment if there are high taxes here from profitable businesses.
I fear that they'd turn us into a third world nation, and as much as I want to save the planet, Australia alone can't do it and the Greens may turn us into martyrs for the cause.
I will keep voting for them to get balance of power though, so long as they don't hold all the purse strings.
So you claim to vote Greens, yet spout LNP propaganda about them word for word, that's a real strange co-incidence. Here's a hint, you'll convince more people you vote for them if you actually know what their policies are as opposed to what Murdoch says they are, when you don't even possess that much knowledge it really shows you for who you actually are.
I don't just claim it, I do actually vote for them, and I'd much sooner Labor was in power than the LNP. They'd be my last choice, along with the extremes, like one nation or palmer united.
It's clear that you're the one lacking knowledge. You might do yourself a favour if you read what their policies actually are, and study what the economic consequences may be instead of spouting their propaganda.
Of course their goals are admirable, and what just about all of us want, but delusional adherents like yourself fail to grasp the consequences of what their policies will actually result in when taken to the extreme. And of course they would implement them in the extreme regardless of the economic damage they'd do.
"house prices are kept artificially high by ensuring immigration always outpaces housing construction" would be on repeat on every station, except the ABC which would have "wages are kept artificially low by ensuring immigration is kept high enough to maintain a constant surplus of labor".
population decline has severe consequences, so we do genuinely NEED immigration, but like any medicine its possible to overdose, with severe consequences, like the ones we're seeing right now.
no matter how rapidly we increase housing construction, immigration will be increased faster. what needs to happen is immigration needs to be tied to housing construction so they always match
If you do that, anti-immigrant forces will just join up with NIMBYs to make constructing any housing whatsoever illegal.
I keep getting more radical on this : What the world needs is Unitary Zoning.
If it's legal to have housing in a location, it is legal to build however many stories of it that the ground will take and screw the "character of your neighborhood" or whatever other excuse you come up with to block it.
Unitary Zoning sounds like a great idea, we should be building up rather than bulldozing farmland and bushland for suburbs. higher density uses infrastructure more efficiently.
its entirely possible that anti-immigrant forces and nimbys will try to limit housing construction, but they'll find stiff resistance, because just like how the "consequences of too much immigration" are driving opposition to immigration, the "consequences of not enough immigration" will drive a strong pro-immigration push once the housing crisis has been fixed.
aussies love multiculturalism as much as we love alcohol, current opposition to it is largely driven by the fact we're suffering from a severe "hangover" from having too much too fast, and the "i'm never drinking again" sentiment is a temporary thing, best solved by taking a break and reducing intake rather than trying to "push through" which will just make things worse.
on a somewhat related note, it would be great for the environment if we "pause" population growth and set immigration to keep our population stable at 27 million, and anyone who actually cares about the environment should be supporting that, but i'm fairly certain that "27 million" will only last a few years before people demand that we begin growing again. people will want growth, it just has to be sustainable growth.
Yeah, immigration isn't driving house prices, it's driving rental demand more than anything. And as you said, a bunch of other policies, like negative gearing, implemented decades ago are driving house prices.
housing supply is hard to adjust, and has consistently been growing by around 150k houses per year for the past decade.
immigration has sat around 250-300k for the past decade, and jumped to 600k in 2023.
you can't just double the housing supply with the stroke of a pen, but "migrant intake" IS set by the stroke of a pen, you can double it or halve it whenever you want, depending on which outcome you want to acheive.
the current "goal outcome" is "house prices must never go down", but migration targets should be set with the goal of ensuring a nationwide vacancy rate of 2-3%, because "house prices must never go down" is utterly unsustainable in the long term, the major parties do it while desperately hoping the bubble doesn't pop while they're in office, they want to "kick the can down the road" until their opponents are in power so they get blamed for it.
if we somehow suddenly built 600k houses per year, immigration would increase to 900k per year because thats the only way the government can keep the prices going up, because "house prices going down" is political suicide.
most of the reason the ALP had to bump immigration up to 600k was because the coalition deliberately set things up so the bubble would pop during albo's term. they want the bubble to pop, they just don't wanna take the blame for it. bumping immigration was literally the only option, because albo "telling aussies that house prices are almost entirely dependent on population growth due to migration, I.E. supply and demand, basic goddamn economics" would go about as well as my attempts have gone. they'd rather do mental gymnastics to justify rejecting "supply and demand" in a situation where its bloody obvious that "supply and demand" is exactly what is happening here.
the ALP need to do the hard thing, pull the plug on this pyramid scheme, because if they don't and the bubble pops when the LNP are in power, the LNP are gonna use that "600k" to pin the blame squarely on the ALP and voters are gonna be pissed.
that is true, but its a bit like a "customs declaration form", you generally can't get in trouble for stuff you declare, but if you get caught with stuff you didn't declare, you get in much bigger trouble later on.
its the difference between "mum i accidentally lit the stove on fire" vs "mum i accidentally burned the house down".
The party of ‘we don’t care about your feelings’ sure get their feelings hurt pretty easily.
Also, how can anyone take this policy seriously? It’s so light on costing, consultation, transparency and any manner of detail that it deserves to be derided.
How dare we not take this magic pudding seriously!!!!
> Also, how can anyone take this policy seriously?
the problem is that, in the context of political messaging, that isn't a rhetorical question. you do actually need to aim the message at the people you're trying to convince. if someone could already tell that this plan is harebrained and disingenuous, were they ever in danger of voting in the coalition?
i guess i just don't get the fish memes. labor correctly avoided talking about the lack of costing, since a) no politician really wants to have to cost anything, and b) labor doesn't want voters to be suspicious of govt expenditure. but nuclear power is infeasible in australia for logistical reasons, not because it's dangerous. why the anti-science angle? it's embarassing
Bro if they were serious about this they'd have done all that years ago and sprung a full fledged, well planned policy.
Putting out a press conference saying they'll be up and running in 2035-37 when you can't even get your own State leaders on board let alone the important shit like choosing a fucking design as a bare minimum makes this whole thing just a moronic political stunt.
Go and Google how long it takes countries like France, China, Russia or Korea who have a nuclear industry with specific models for ease of construction and maintenance to build one. The fastest one recently built took nearly 5 years and Dutton gave a fucking press conference saying they'll have one up and running in 9 years...
Question, genuinely. Why do you think Dutton and the LNP haven't released costings yet? I can only think of two reasons, and neither of them make me think patience is the answer here.
It doesn't really matter. I was talking to a bloke in the pub last night who's already 100% bought into nuclear based on the fact Dutton was on tv saying it's a good idea. He doesn't give a shit about facts, he doesn't give a shit about how expensive it will be, or that it would be redundant by the time they get built, or that it's clearly just a scheme to drag the arse out of fossil fuels. Coalition voters are already on board because they've been told to be. Releasing costs will give opponents more ammunition, but it won't change the minds of the dumb fucks who are already sucked in and proudly wearing the t-shirts.
Yeah complain about a meme when the LNP alleged nuclear policy is a trashy rush job with no substance, timeline or indeed any way of actually happening. Cry about a meme when your policy amounts to a pitiful distraction from your love of oil and gas. Or get to work LNP and actually build something that will help an entire electorate rather than stewarding the wealth of your school chums.
Albo handled it perfectly and was absolutely right.
He needs to maintain the mojo he’s found over the past two weeks. Previous PM’s all lost their way when they tried to be too statesman-like under pressure.
"Albanese getting all defensive"
Are you fucking kidding me dude? The journalist went on the attack and he laughed and told him to "lighten up".
How the fuck is that "getting all defensive"?
> "We're not going to take lectures from a mob who said that an Advisory Committee for Indigenous Australians on matters that affected them would lead to everyone lose their house and their private property," he responded.
Instant boredom induced, he should just lean in and say "The memes are about as serious as the policy".
Telling people to lighten up is about as effective as telling people to relax. Just lands flat on people you want to get your message to.
Labor's just presenting the Coalition with a compelling alternative leader to Dutton: an [inanimate carbon rod](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fnr9mvwhm0ct71.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3Df7a338f6efc954cf5ea1bf498d4d8232118b663a)
Maybe I’m giving the Coalition too much credit but it feels like part of this ridiculous nuclear idea is to rile up Labor into a big response they can then label as angry, irrational, and juvenile.
The articles slamming Labor for being “juvenile” with their memes were released the evening of the Liberal’s announcement.
It’s almost as if the Liberal supporting media knew the announcement, and knew what the backlash would be and had articles attacking the backlash pre written ready to be published…..
That's fair enough. The point I'm generally trying to make is that this sub only questions the influences of the ABC when it's something they disagree with. Otherwise, its good quality journalism.
I’ve always questioned their influences, because they have a major slant towards liberal bias, as they’re operated by majority liberals for at least a decade or more, at this point.
I find it ironic people call the ABC the woke mouthpiece of the left when they don’t even know who runs the fucking place.
>I’ve always questioned their influences, because they have a major slant towards liberal bias, as they’re operated by majority liberals.
Could you point out this slant?
>I find it ironic people call the ABC the woke mouthpiece of the left when they don’t even know who runs the fucking place.
I've literally never seen anyone call it this.
They may be juvenile, but not as juvenile as releasing an uncosted nuclear plan, that could easily blow out to be tens of billions of dollars more expensive than what we have now.
But think of all the extra fossil fuels we will use with this plan and the reduction of all those polluting wind mills and solar panels, and all that clean radio active waste we can use to fertilise our backyards.
This maybe the real issue here, as this kind of 'policy' degrades the trust everyone should have in our democratic mechanisms, finding the best way forward in our national interests.
If only it blew out by tens of billions...
At the end of the day if there is any change out of a Trillion dollars (Remember they have to buy 6 working coal mines... Several working battery storage facilities in NSW and Victoria... Buy a good portion of the NSW electrical grid... Build water storage and treatment facilities at every site and still find and fund waste storage for a thousand years) I would be very surprised...
Given how ridiculous and juvenile the Libs plan is, I say the memes are right on point. The best part is, if it was Labor talking nuclear, the Libs sure as hell would doing the same. Because, lets be honest here, who doesnt think of Simpsons and Homer when thinking of nuclear power? Better that than doing a scare campaign using Chernobyl, Three Mile Island or Fukushima!
Apart from holding a press conference, there was literally nothing about the Coalition's 'policy' announcement that could be remotely described as serious – uncosted, unfeasible, unrealistic. And yet the reporting we get later in the week not only treats the nuclear announcement seriously, it's now about Labor's use of memes? Political reporting in this country sucks.
Memes are always going to have a wide range of reactions but it's a touch disappointing.
Nuclear energy doesn't work in Australia because the economics of building reactors from scratch now don't stack up but nuclear energy where it does exist is pretty great to have and when countries have abolished it like Germany it's not fared super well for them.
Feeding into misunderstanding of nuclear energy is unfortunate it is a shame that it's going to fall on pretty partisan lines.
Humour's all well and good, but Labor only needs three words to hold Spuddy's feet to the flames:
HOW
MUCH
SPUDDY?
Run it incessantly on TV and it'll hopefully start seeping into Boomer minds and maybe get some Moderate Liberals/swing voters to switch.
Plus, it's turning the Coalition's (wafer-thin) playbook against them.
The question is, is it enough to divert attention from Dutton's shabby nuclear "policy" release? Maybe for the media, but not for social media.
It's also a bit rich coming from the same people who released horrendous images about Dan Andrews and Annastacia Palaszczuk, including ones that compared the two Premiers to nazis and dictators.
Dutton loves to dish it out, but just can't take it.
Loves to tweet about how "lefties are so easy" and lefties are snowflakes who need safe spaces, but wets the bed over a meme.
Absolutely pissweak.
Political memes will always be embarrassing and juvenile, just a lame attempt at being relevant.
Id prefer my policy makers to focus on actual nuanced discussion than low effort memes disguised as 'satire'.
I dont have much of a problem with it, all politicians do dumb stunts. I do worry if it will backfire on the Labor party though as it kind of treats the public like idiots thinking that a 3 eyed fish from a cartoon is an accurate depiction of nuclear power.
Hey if the LNP put an actual policy out with costings etc there would be something to debate. I think a meme is entirely appropriate as a response to a one page thought bubble with no costings with as many holes in it as my favourite pair of undies
I mean the sheer balls on the LNP and media here trying to take the high road after releasing this dogs breakfast of a proposal is breathtaking
Why is anyone taking this seriously ?
>On Friday morning, the prime minister was asked by ABC News Breakfast if the whole thing was a bit juvenile.
This after Peter Dutton whinged to an ABC reporter, unprompted, that the ABC should call out Labor MP's for posting memes on their socials.
The ABC isn't completely cooked like something like Sky News, but boy do they get a lot out of "hey we are looking at both sides here..."
I'm sure the ALP will be happy to talk about detail the second there is detail.
Also these memes were posted by interns on an accounts with 4k followers, they weren't the conversation until the coalition made them the conversation.
To be fair, the Victorian Premier and a federal frontbencher posted them and they aren't interns, and they have 22k and 59k followers respectively. But as I said in my other post here, it's certainly not as juvenile as Morrison's stunt with the coal in parliament.
Albo is right. It's just a meme and they need to lighten up and ignore it. You can't ignore a leader interrupting proceedings with a juvenile stunt though.
Do you think they actually post those themselves rather than the intern with social media access? I guarantee you they don't go through and approve social media posts.
Which front bencher? Andrew Leigh only posted his on insta which has 4kish followers
> Andrew Leigh only posted his on insta which has 4kish followers
Oh OK. I didn't notice that.
And if an intern posted it, then unless they wash their hands of it and throw them under a bus, then they are responsible for anything that is said in their name. Most people reading it would expect it to be them, and it's reasonable to attribute it to them unless they say otherwise.
They would certainly be aware of it since it's a news item online and broadcast on News 24, and they haven't removed the posts so they must be endorsing them in retrospect.
Why do you think anyone who is shouting how we need the LNPs nuclear plan now cares about anything besides “LNP said it I agree”?
There’s discussion, experts and data that’s been shown but that doesn’t count because “lol ALP simp fake news”
So they call that juvenile and yet their own leader brought a lump of coal into parliament, interrupting proceedings, saying 'Don't be afraid, there's nothing to be scared of', wasn't juvenile?
Note: he was so scared of actually touching that piece of coal that he had it lacquered before bringing it in.
He could never bear the thought of even the most remote possibility of getting his hands dirty, nor could he bring himself to wear gloves for the fear of being seen as though he needed to protect himself from anything. Allegedly.
Getting dirty is for Matt Canavan and that's only for photos
It's never not caravan every time I see his name. And like caravans with toilets he's full of shit too.
Hey! At least caravans are enjoyable.
and only from his makeup artist
Then he showed us all that he doesn't need protection by not using his welding helmet.
Honestly reminds me of the scientist behind leaded fuel and his public stunt about that.
He might have been well intentioned, but that man is arguably the worst human being of all time, in terms of negative impact on like…the livable sliver the universe we can inhabit. Lead. CFCs. Hilarious death due to attempt to make his own disability less bad. The gift that keeps on taking.
Oh I don't think it was well intentioned. He was very aware of the impacts of lead on humans, but spotted an opportunity to make bank by hiding that.
I most admit I thought the worst part of that was *corporate* rather than *personal* greed - like he was well off, but not as much as his bosses. …however: “[within the first two months of its operation, the new plant was plagued by more cases of lead poisoning, hallucinations, insanity, and five deaths.”
They absolutely knew, and the whole planet played the price for their lie.
Or the Roundup honcho who claimed it was perfectly safe to drink and caused no harm to humans, but straight up refused to drink any when challenged on it.
Is this real? The "Don't be scared" part was the most absurd bit lol.
Yeah, that happened. It was [Scotty From Marketing, back when he was Treasurer](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/09/scott-morrison-brings-coal-to-question-time-what-fresh-idiocy-is-this). There's a video of it at that link.
Oh yeah, but did he really have it coated because he was scared to touch it? Lol
Not sure if *he* had it coated, or if the clowns who gave it to him did, either way it was coated in lacquer. But to be fair to him (and I threw up a bit in my mouth at that very notion), you really *do not want* to be touching that shit with your bare skin if you can help it. It gets everywhere, it's a bugger to get out again, and it's often got a boatload of heavy metals in it.
Sounds dangerous, I hope we don’t do something dumb like burn it by the tons
no.
What a weak cunt that guy is LOL.
It's not juvenile! In fact, I'm looking forward to Dutton trying to promote good ol'nuclear power with a lump of plutonium.
Then he'll turn around and wink at his colleagues with his third eye. Edit: That would make a good meme. Someone should get onto that using AI.
I winked at a colleague once with my third eye… Had a long discussion with HR…
That’s why parliament has a prayer room
Sounds like you were just showing them your best side.
What bing gave me: https://imgur.com/a/JyjBo5A Quite like the first one.
Reminds me of protest signs
Wasn't that Abbott who winked at an older woman who said she had to turn to phone sex work to survive?
The Radioctive Russet
Can't wait for the morning tea today. They said we are getting some yellow cake! /S
He’ll bring in his wife’s best yellow cake
At least he doesn't have to ask his wife Jenny what sort of cake and how the cake should feel.
D̴̗͈͙͎͔̠̗͙̱̲̈͗̊̓ǫ̴͔̺̞̹͓̘̱̦̇̂͜n̵̡͙̖̫̯͋̏̅̓̌̍͒͜͝ͅ’̴͔̝̹͖̙̉̔̒̇̓̓͐̾͠ͅt̷̛̲́̀̂̋̓̈́̚͘ ̵̠͎̘͔̖̂̈́̂͘͝b̸̡̛̤̝̈̅̎̎̑̍e̵̛̼̗̠̞̙̲̖̩͊̑̅̽̓̓̀̚ ̷̨̗̉̅͂͜ḁ̴̧͎͇̜̺͑̃f̶̧̧̥͉̟͋̑̀̎̽͌r̷͕͉͉̤̆̀̒́̽͒̈́̚͝ą̷͈̯̞́̊̈̀͛͊̚į̸̧̣̹̜̖̠͗̅̅̈́̅̌͜d̶̨̧̛͍͍̓̓́͒͝
Then he'll finally look like the bad guy from Captain America (Hugo weaving, red skull)
Not to mention all the "wind turbine syndrome" bullshit they tried to pull. There's actually legit reason to be slightly concerned about the risks of nuclear power, to anyone with even a vague understanding of its history. There isn't really for wind and solar.
I don't think that risks are a concern of nuclear generation. An outdated reactor in England caused some deaths way back in the 50s, and there was Chernobyl almost 40 years ago in a plant built 50 years ago, but the Russians weren't known for their safety. Since then there's only been a single death from Fukushima, and the redesign since then makes that sort of accident extremely unlikely to recur if you don't build them in a tidal wave zone, and if you have insulated back up diesel generators to keep the coolant flowing so it doesn't explode like Fukushima did. Diesels can run underwater… unless their air intake/exhaust is also below the waterline of the tsunami, and America has adopted them to their reactors. Lessons were learnt and it would be very safe today, just like airline travel is safe from continually addressing lessons learned. The problem with nuclear is the cost compared to renewables.
I mainly just don't trust Australian organisations to manage nuclear power safely and responsibly. But that's primarily based on our legacy of privatising crucial components of our power grid and then allowing private companies to have infrastructure that stagnates and has to be shut down rather than obligating them to innovate.
We actually have a working example of slowly neglecting nuclear infrastructure. And by a party only marginally more corrupt and incompetent than the LNP... if at all. South Africa.
Neither do I, but I don't think it's completely irrational stupidity for the public to have some concerns about it....especially when compared to wind and solar. Which is what I already said.
Perhaps it's not irrational since nuclear is a scary word, but they'd be wrong since wind has a higher death rate per terawatt-hour of electricity according to all the statistics. Like I said, there has only been a single death this century from Nuclear generation, but there was an Australian maintenance worker killed when he fell from a wind turbine. And there is that [harrowing picture](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/13qfpvm/two_engineers_sharing_a_hug_atop_a_burning_wind/) of the two engineers sharing a hug atop a burning wind turbine during their final moments. I can't find statistics on how many others have been killed but a [Forbes article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/#:~:text=Wind%20energy%20kills%20a%20mere,maintenance%20activities%20\(Toldedo%20Blade\).) puts it at 100 people or so per trillion kWhrs, the majority from falls during maintenance activities. And there are hundreds of wind turbine failures with blades breaking, and turbines collapsing.
I’m one of the concerned people, I don’t distrust the engineering/ science of the reactor architecture. I distrust the organisations building and running it to not cut costs at every possible place, including ones that introduce risk. Whether that’s in building materials, project management of the build, operation, ongoing maintenance, fuel, or even a bad placement - somewhere, someone may screw up. None of that should happen. I’m just not comfortable to trust that it can’t. To use your example of airline travel, the risk is definitely low. Around 200 people died per year in the 2018-2022 range (source IATA). That’s -very- low compared to other travel and was over millions of flights. But it’s still non-zero. To paraphrase an old saying: just one Fukushima incident can ruin your whole day.
As I said, Fukushima only caused a single death, and that was a worker who went there measuring radiation after the fact. When the same tidal wave hit it killed 20,000 people so there are far riskier things in this world than nuclear. You'd be astronomically more likely to be killed in Australia from a bushfire, a flood, a car accident, crossing the road, or even eaten by a shark. There have been 51 deaths in Australia this century from shark attacks. Wind has proven to be more deadly. See this list :https://docs.wind-watch.org/fullaccidents.pdf There are over 1,600 documented accidents with wind, and hundreds and hundreds of injuries and deaths. It goes from being killed just innocently driving along and being wiped out by an accident with one of those enormous blades being transported along normal roads, to being killed from a blade shattering, to falling from the top during maintenance to being burnt from a turbine fire. There's a harrowing picture of two workers hugging on top of a turbine in their last moments as it burns underneath them. And unlike nuclear the accidents keep happening every year. They will likely keep happening, but Chernobyl will never happen with western reactors, and Fukushima will never happen with the backup diesel safeguards in place, and tidal wave mitigation. When was the last tidal wave in Australia? It just doesn't happen here. Even if you add all the deaths from Chernobyl, there are still more deaths from wind. Statista, a trusted analytical organisation has wind at 0.04 deaths per thousand terawatt hour, and nuclear at 0.03, but that includes all the historic deaths that ever occurred from nuclear. Unlike wind, they are much safer today than they were last century. Even rooftop falls from solar panels have caused more deaths this century. You might say that's not from generating the power, but it's an ongoing death risk from the industry, since like wind, each installation only produces a tiny amount of power compared to nuclear plants, so there are thousands and thousands of workers on roofs and towers at risk every day. I'm not supporting nuclear. It's too expensive for Australia, and the vanishingly small likelihood of accidents from wind makes it more feasible considering the cost, but the irrational fear of nuclear is comparable to the irrational fear of sharks compared to crossing the road. Sharks are scary like nuclear. Crossing the road isn't scary regardless of actual facts, numbers and statistics.
Or having a statuette of a boat on your desk saying 'I stopped these" or 500 other childish things the Liberal Party adores.
Yeh that was insane. Imagine hubris of displaying [that](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/7e9b85c969f9af45ed5903398c0665174f9e357b/0_186_5568_3341/master/5568.jpg?width=1900&dpr=1&s=none) as a trophy. He's probably displaying it on his mantle at home now, right next to that lump of lacquered coal he was so proud of.
The coal was on loan from the Minerals Council (not a joke).
[An article](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/17/adviser-whose-former-lobby-group-provided-lump-of-coal-to-scott-morrison-made-ambassador-to-oecd) tells me that it was supplied by the chief of the Minerals Council, but I'm a bit sceptical about him wanting it back. Since he wanted the prop then the chief of the Minerals Council would be the obvious person to ask, but It's not as if it's worth anything so I reckon it would have ended up in the bin, unless it is actually on Scomo's mantle. Although perhaps it may be worth something for posterity, and it could be auctioned off to his detractors as a monument to the LNP's attachment to fossil fuels and their emissions.
It's morrison's butt plug....
Don't forget how senior LNP MPs like to dash for the door like children to avoid votes, one time doing it so hastily they injured a staffer.
I just looked that up. Very bad behaviour. [The article](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/29/speaker-calls-out-disgusting-behaviour-by-coalition-mps-that-left-parliament-worker-hurt) doesn't say, but I'm wondering why they would want to abstain. Was it to prevent a quorum? You only need a third for that so Labor would have the numbers.
If you know the vote will pass because of opposition and cross benchers and you don't want to be on record opposing what might be a very popular policy you leg it. Then you have plausible deniability that you actually support that policy when time comes for re election just you were busy that day and missed the vote. And the few voters who look up MP's voting habits on websites like [they vote for you](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/) only shows what they voted on, not so much what they abstained from.
That makes sense. I was hoping that someone would come along and give a reason. Thanks for that.
[Didn't want to accept Thomson's tainted vote](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk-bVJpwwvk)
I remember that, but that situation was quite unique, only following Abbot's prior declaration of not accepting Thomson's tainted vote. Abbot thought it was a stunt by Labor. The situation above is different, and the motive is a more common reason for wanting to abstain.
Always reminded me of that disaster in Wales where the school got covered in coal.
Aberfan. 116 children dead.
Gosh, such a senseless tragedy. Imagine how much coal those children could have mined.
145 children survived... ಠ_ಠ
Yeah, but you want the slow ones that can't run away to be working in the mines.
No that was just another day in the office.
While the LNP are worse, I cant help but feel the memes are a political stunt/distraction from Labor so people will forget that, even though theyre not as bad as LNP, Labor are also not doing enough to save our planet. In saying that, Id also ask that people consider that instead of voting for the "least shit" of the two major parties next election (who will see our planet start to rapidly fall apart by 2030) maybe instead vote for a party who will actually try to save us from climate change, like the Greens or Independents. Seriously our lives depend on our planet NOT burning up, please vote to save it.
I do vote Greens and I want them to have balance of power, but also I'd be scared if they actually won outright. I wouldn't vote for them if there was any chance of that. You need to consider economic management as well, and I fear that shutting down all fossil fuel mining and export, or drastically cutting farmer's water allotments to feed rivers more naturally would lead to reductions of food production and export, financial hardships and much lower standard of living. I'm also all for taxing the rich more, but their plans of wealth taxes, and more burden on the rich will lead to them moving off-shore, or selling their assets, and capital flight will detract from overseas investment if there are high taxes here from profitable businesses. I fear that they'd turn us into a third world nation, and as much as I want to save the planet, Australia alone can't do it and the Greens may turn us into martyrs for the cause. I will keep voting for them to get balance of power though, so long as they don't hold all the purse strings.
So you claim to vote Greens, yet spout LNP propaganda about them word for word, that's a real strange co-incidence. Here's a hint, you'll convince more people you vote for them if you actually know what their policies are as opposed to what Murdoch says they are, when you don't even possess that much knowledge it really shows you for who you actually are.
I don't just claim it, I do actually vote for them, and I'd much sooner Labor was in power than the LNP. They'd be my last choice, along with the extremes, like one nation or palmer united. It's clear that you're the one lacking knowledge. You might do yourself a favour if you read what their policies actually are, and study what the economic consequences may be instead of spouting their propaganda. Of course their goals are admirable, and what just about all of us want, but delusional adherents like yourself fail to grasp the consequences of what their policies will actually result in when taken to the extreme. And of course they would implement them in the extreme regardless of the economic damage they'd do.
I wonder what it would be like to have a media that had our interests at heart?
A better country with better politicians.
"house prices are kept artificially high by ensuring immigration always outpaces housing construction" would be on repeat on every station, except the ABC which would have "wages are kept artificially low by ensuring immigration is kept high enough to maintain a constant surplus of labor". population decline has severe consequences, so we do genuinely NEED immigration, but like any medicine its possible to overdose, with severe consequences, like the ones we're seeing right now.
... Build. More. Housing. FFS, aus is pretty goddamn empty.
no matter how rapidly we increase housing construction, immigration will be increased faster. what needs to happen is immigration needs to be tied to housing construction so they always match
If you do that, anti-immigrant forces will just join up with NIMBYs to make constructing any housing whatsoever illegal. I keep getting more radical on this : What the world needs is Unitary Zoning. If it's legal to have housing in a location, it is legal to build however many stories of it that the ground will take and screw the "character of your neighborhood" or whatever other excuse you come up with to block it.
Unitary Zoning sounds like a great idea, we should be building up rather than bulldozing farmland and bushland for suburbs. higher density uses infrastructure more efficiently. its entirely possible that anti-immigrant forces and nimbys will try to limit housing construction, but they'll find stiff resistance, because just like how the "consequences of too much immigration" are driving opposition to immigration, the "consequences of not enough immigration" will drive a strong pro-immigration push once the housing crisis has been fixed. aussies love multiculturalism as much as we love alcohol, current opposition to it is largely driven by the fact we're suffering from a severe "hangover" from having too much too fast, and the "i'm never drinking again" sentiment is a temporary thing, best solved by taking a break and reducing intake rather than trying to "push through" which will just make things worse. on a somewhat related note, it would be great for the environment if we "pause" population growth and set immigration to keep our population stable at 27 million, and anyone who actually cares about the environment should be supporting that, but i'm fairly certain that "27 million" will only last a few years before people demand that we begin growing again. people will want growth, it just has to be sustainable growth.
[удалено]
Yeah, immigration isn't driving house prices, it's driving rental demand more than anything. And as you said, a bunch of other policies, like negative gearing, implemented decades ago are driving house prices.
housing supply is hard to adjust, and has consistently been growing by around 150k houses per year for the past decade. immigration has sat around 250-300k for the past decade, and jumped to 600k in 2023. you can't just double the housing supply with the stroke of a pen, but "migrant intake" IS set by the stroke of a pen, you can double it or halve it whenever you want, depending on which outcome you want to acheive. the current "goal outcome" is "house prices must never go down", but migration targets should be set with the goal of ensuring a nationwide vacancy rate of 2-3%, because "house prices must never go down" is utterly unsustainable in the long term, the major parties do it while desperately hoping the bubble doesn't pop while they're in office, they want to "kick the can down the road" until their opponents are in power so they get blamed for it. if we somehow suddenly built 600k houses per year, immigration would increase to 900k per year because thats the only way the government can keep the prices going up, because "house prices going down" is political suicide. most of the reason the ALP had to bump immigration up to 600k was because the coalition deliberately set things up so the bubble would pop during albo's term. they want the bubble to pop, they just don't wanna take the blame for it. bumping immigration was literally the only option, because albo "telling aussies that house prices are almost entirely dependent on population growth due to migration, I.E. supply and demand, basic goddamn economics" would go about as well as my attempts have gone. they'd rather do mental gymnastics to justify rejecting "supply and demand" in a situation where its bloody obvious that "supply and demand" is exactly what is happening here. the ALP need to do the hard thing, pull the plug on this pyramid scheme, because if they don't and the bubble pops when the LNP are in power, the LNP are gonna use that "600k" to pin the blame squarely on the ALP and voters are gonna be pissed.
[удалено]
that is true, but its a bit like a "customs declaration form", you generally can't get in trouble for stuff you declare, but if you get caught with stuff you didn't declare, you get in much bigger trouble later on. its the difference between "mum i accidentally lit the stove on fire" vs "mum i accidentally burned the house down".
The party of ‘we don’t care about your feelings’ sure get their feelings hurt pretty easily. Also, how can anyone take this policy seriously? It’s so light on costing, consultation, transparency and any manner of detail that it deserves to be derided. How dare we not take this magic pudding seriously!!!!
They don’t care about YOUR feelings, their feelings are PRECIOUS to them.
> Also, how can anyone take this policy seriously? the problem is that, in the context of political messaging, that isn't a rhetorical question. you do actually need to aim the message at the people you're trying to convince. if someone could already tell that this plan is harebrained and disingenuous, were they ever in danger of voting in the coalition? i guess i just don't get the fish memes. labor correctly avoided talking about the lack of costing, since a) no politician really wants to have to cost anything, and b) labor doesn't want voters to be suspicious of govt expenditure. but nuclear power is infeasible in australia for logistical reasons, not because it's dangerous. why the anti-science angle? it's embarassing
"If you don't know, vote No." And the LNP clearly have no plan, no costings, and no credibility.
They never do. So I always put them last in votes. Because that's where they put me and my future.
Jesus this shit writes itself
I’m going to wait for the costings and expect enough detail by the election to make an informed decision
Hello sir. I have a bridge to sell you.
I’ve sold monorails to Oggdenville, Brockway and North Haverbrook and, by God, it put them on the map!
At least our monorails will be nuculear powerd!
Nucular
*I shouldn’t have stopped for that haircut. Sorry.*
and that concludes our training course
Bro if they were serious about this they'd have done all that years ago and sprung a full fledged, well planned policy. Putting out a press conference saying they'll be up and running in 2035-37 when you can't even get your own State leaders on board let alone the important shit like choosing a fucking design as a bare minimum makes this whole thing just a moronic political stunt. Go and Google how long it takes countries like France, China, Russia or Korea who have a nuclear industry with specific models for ease of construction and maintenance to build one. The fastest one recently built took nearly 5 years and Dutton gave a fucking press conference saying they'll have one up and running in 9 years...
> I’m going to wait for the costings You'll be waiting forever
Question, genuinely. Why do you think Dutton and the LNP haven't released costings yet? I can only think of two reasons, and neither of them make me think patience is the answer here.
They lost the spreadsheet.
Yknow what, fair. They should've enabled automatic cloud backups smh
Left it in a carpark
The printer ran out of coloured ink...
Barnaby sent it by sms?
It doesn't really matter. I was talking to a bloke in the pub last night who's already 100% bought into nuclear based on the fact Dutton was on tv saying it's a good idea. He doesn't give a shit about facts, he doesn't give a shit about how expensive it will be, or that it would be redundant by the time they get built, or that it's clearly just a scheme to drag the arse out of fossil fuels. Coalition voters are already on board because they've been told to be. Releasing costs will give opponents more ammunition, but it won't change the minds of the dumb fucks who are already sucked in and proudly wearing the t-shirts.
Think you forgot the /s
I’m not sure whether to read that as very dry humour or incredibly optimistic. It’s text written online, could go either way.
Lol, yet newscorp publishing straight up propaganda is fine. They got nothing.
Headline of the Daily Terror today reads "Running scared" and something about Albo being scared of the coalition nuclear plan.
Nice Flair.
[удалено]
People got annoyed when I went with a bit tougher flair, so instead of getting complaints I went with some softer wording.
I mean why would foreign owned media give a shit about Australian interests?
A little rich coming from the part that literally used a nursery rhyme in the election advertisements. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADVf0a73K_0
Fuck you for reminding me that abomination existed 😂
Yeah complain about a meme when the LNP alleged nuclear policy is a trashy rush job with no substance, timeline or indeed any way of actually happening. Cry about a meme when your policy amounts to a pitiful distraction from your love of oil and gas. Or get to work LNP and actually build something that will help an entire electorate rather than stewarding the wealth of your school chums.
Who cares if it's juvenile? Have you seen some of the crap the COALition have put out in the past?
Albo handled it perfectly and was absolutely right. He needs to maintain the mojo he’s found over the past two weeks. Previous PM’s all lost their way when they tried to be too statesman-like under pressure.
> "This is a serious conversation we're trying to have with the prime minister." Ahahahahahahahahaha
The memes are juvenile, they're memes. They're meant to be. They get the point across though, so who cares?
The memes were a good idea, Albanese getting all defensive about them is not. Just wink about it and move on.
"Albanese getting all defensive" Are you fucking kidding me dude? The journalist went on the attack and he laughed and told him to "lighten up". How the fuck is that "getting all defensive"?
> "We're not going to take lectures from a mob who said that an Advisory Committee for Indigenous Australians on matters that affected them would lead to everyone lose their house and their private property," he responded. Instant boredom induced, he should just lean in and say "The memes are about as serious as the policy". Telling people to lighten up is about as effective as telling people to relax. Just lands flat on people you want to get your message to.
But he's not trying to get the message to that journalist, nor any other rusted-on LNP pearl clutchers.
There's plenty of people in the middle he's trying to get to.
And I don't think those people are chucking a fit over memes. They aren't who he's telling to lighten up
Labor are treating the LNP nuclear "plan" with the appropriate seriousness that it deserves.
Labor's just presenting the Coalition with a compelling alternative leader to Dutton: an [inanimate carbon rod](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fnr9mvwhm0ct71.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3Df7a338f6efc954cf5ea1bf498d4d8232118b663a)
In rod we trust
Duttonium reactor
He's certainly dense enough to replace what they usually use.
I mean ain’t they used to stop nuclear reactions?
*That's the joke.*
Maybe I’m giving the Coalition too much credit but it feels like part of this ridiculous nuclear idea is to rile up Labor into a big response they can then label as angry, irrational, and juvenile.
I assumed it was to delay the transition to coal and allow their coal mates to transition to uranium.
The articles slamming Labor for being “juvenile” with their memes were released the evening of the Liberal’s announcement. It’s almost as if the Liberal supporting media knew the announcement, and knew what the backlash would be and had articles attacking the backlash pre written ready to be published…..
Of course the media knew... Senator Bridgette McKenzie has been fucking Simon Benson (murdoch's political editor) for decades...
It takes a real man not to hyperventilate about the dangers of radioactive waste
Atomic level decoy.
Seems that Murdoch is influencing the ABC reporters now ...
And have been for a while.
I don't know, getting riled up over Simpsons memes doesn't seem like a good look. Running the story at all makes the Coalition look silly.
ABC reported on something I don't like... clearly, its the ABC being influenced.
I mean, the ABC is chaired by a vast majorly liberal appointed board. Do with that what you will.
Because a labour appointed board would be unbiased. Yup.
I mean, that wasn’t the point, but if that’s what you got from it, all the power to you.
That's fair enough. The point I'm generally trying to make is that this sub only questions the influences of the ABC when it's something they disagree with. Otherwise, its good quality journalism.
I’ve always questioned their influences, because they have a major slant towards liberal bias, as they’re operated by majority liberals for at least a decade or more, at this point. I find it ironic people call the ABC the woke mouthpiece of the left when they don’t even know who runs the fucking place.
>I’ve always questioned their influences, because they have a major slant towards liberal bias, as they’re operated by majority liberals. Could you point out this slant? >I find it ironic people call the ABC the woke mouthpiece of the left when they don’t even know who runs the fucking place. I've literally never seen anyone call it this.
They may be juvenile, but not as juvenile as releasing an uncosted nuclear plan, that could easily blow out to be tens of billions of dollars more expensive than what we have now.
But think of all the extra fossil fuels we will use with this plan and the reduction of all those polluting wind mills and solar panels, and all that clean radio active waste we can use to fertilise our backyards.
This maybe the real issue here, as this kind of 'policy' degrades the trust everyone should have in our democratic mechanisms, finding the best way forward in our national interests.
If only it blew out by tens of billions... At the end of the day if there is any change out of a Trillion dollars (Remember they have to buy 6 working coal mines... Several working battery storage facilities in NSW and Victoria... Buy a good portion of the NSW electrical grid... Build water storage and treatment facilities at every site and still find and fund waste storage for a thousand years) I would be very surprised...
That's the best I've seen Albo. Calling it like it is!
We need a lot more of this kinda Albo.
Definitely.
Given how ridiculous and juvenile the Libs plan is, I say the memes are right on point. The best part is, if it was Labor talking nuclear, the Libs sure as hell would doing the same. Because, lets be honest here, who doesnt think of Simpsons and Homer when thinking of nuclear power? Better that than doing a scare campaign using Chernobyl, Three Mile Island or Fukushima!
Apart from holding a press conference, there was literally nothing about the Coalition's 'policy' announcement that could be remotely described as serious – uncosted, unfeasible, unrealistic. And yet the reporting we get later in the week not only treats the nuclear announcement seriously, it's now about Labor's use of memes? Political reporting in this country sucks.
Memes are always going to have a wide range of reactions but it's a touch disappointing. Nuclear energy doesn't work in Australia because the economics of building reactors from scratch now don't stack up but nuclear energy where it does exist is pretty great to have and when countries have abolished it like Germany it's not fared super well for them. Feeding into misunderstanding of nuclear energy is unfortunate it is a shame that it's going to fall on pretty partisan lines.
Welcome to Australian politics
Three eyed Simpsons fish? Tourists would absolutely flock to the region! Secret Coalition plans to turn Australia into a tourist hotspot.
Humour's all well and good, but Labor only needs three words to hold Spuddy's feet to the flames: HOW MUCH SPUDDY? Run it incessantly on TV and it'll hopefully start seeping into Boomer minds and maybe get some Moderate Liberals/swing voters to switch. Plus, it's turning the Coalition's (wafer-thin) playbook against them.
The question is, is it enough to divert attention from Dutton's shabby nuclear "policy" release? Maybe for the media, but not for social media. It's also a bit rich coming from the same people who released horrendous images about Dan Andrews and Annastacia Palaszczuk, including ones that compared the two Premiers to nazis and dictators.
They seriously followed that article up by asking Ziggy Switkowski's opinion?
Quite funny watching the LNP having a collective sook. They've got nothing to back up this nuclear proposal, so just having a cry in the corner.
A thing can be right as many times as the number of eyes it has: 1. Juvenile 2. Apt political satire 3. Funny as fuck
Who sooked ?
I’ve asked before...does anyone know what they are planning to do with the nuclear waste?
If you don't meme, you can't be seen.
Bing AI's 3 eyed Dutton version of Morrisons coal lump incident: https://imgur.com/a/JyjBo5A (Best 5 i got)
I have no idea how the AI got the first one but the others are suitable horrifying.
Albo nailed it. It's funny, the blinky bill one is great.
It's equally as juvenile as Duttons nuclear policy. The only sensible approach to it should be ridicule.
Can't believe the inanimate carbon rod hasn't featured yet.
Australian politics... Smh
Dutton loves to dish it out, but just can't take it. Loves to tweet about how "lefties are so easy" and lefties are snowflakes who need safe spaces, but wets the bed over a meme. Absolutely pissweak.
Political memes will always be embarrassing and juvenile, just a lame attempt at being relevant. Id prefer my policy makers to focus on actual nuanced discussion than low effort memes disguised as 'satire'.
I dont have much of a problem with it, all politicians do dumb stunts. I do worry if it will backfire on the Labor party though as it kind of treats the public like idiots thinking that a 3 eyed fish from a cartoon is an accurate depiction of nuclear power.
Hey if the LNP put an actual policy out with costings etc there would be something to debate. I think a meme is entirely appropriate as a response to a one page thought bubble with no costings with as many holes in it as my favourite pair of undies I mean the sheer balls on the LNP and media here trying to take the high road after releasing this dogs breakfast of a proposal is breathtaking Why is anyone taking this seriously ?
Seems to be only the pro-niclear are calling it juvenile Meanwhile out here in meme country I want to see better things done about Liberal pollies
What memes?
>On Friday morning, the prime minister was asked by ABC News Breakfast if the whole thing was a bit juvenile. This after Peter Dutton whinged to an ABC reporter, unprompted, that the ABC should call out Labor MP's for posting memes on their socials. The ABC isn't completely cooked like something like Sky News, but boy do they get a lot out of "hey we are looking at both sides here..."
[удалено]
I'm sure the ALP will be happy to talk about detail the second there is detail. Also these memes were posted by interns on an accounts with 4k followers, they weren't the conversation until the coalition made them the conversation.
To be fair, the Victorian Premier and a federal frontbencher posted them and they aren't interns, and they have 22k and 59k followers respectively. But as I said in my other post here, it's certainly not as juvenile as Morrison's stunt with the coal in parliament. Albo is right. It's just a meme and they need to lighten up and ignore it. You can't ignore a leader interrupting proceedings with a juvenile stunt though.
Do you think they actually post those themselves rather than the intern with social media access? I guarantee you they don't go through and approve social media posts. Which front bencher? Andrew Leigh only posted his on insta which has 4kish followers
> Andrew Leigh only posted his on insta which has 4kish followers Oh OK. I didn't notice that. And if an intern posted it, then unless they wash their hands of it and throw them under a bus, then they are responsible for anything that is said in their name. Most people reading it would expect it to be them, and it's reasonable to attribute it to them unless they say otherwise. They would certainly be aware of it since it's a news item online and broadcast on News 24, and they haven't removed the posts so they must be endorsing them in retrospect.
Nearly every expert and scientific organisation that has weighed in on it has said nuclear in Australia is a bad idea. Not much else to be said.
Why do you think anyone who is shouting how we need the LNPs nuclear plan now cares about anything besides “LNP said it I agree”? There’s discussion, experts and data that’s been shown but that doesn’t count because “lol ALP simp fake news”