Steve S said: "In that sense, Labor and Teals offer you a more comforting climate narrative, but the essential LibLab environmental policies won't change. Record immigration levels, bold logging and land clearing, prolonging fossil fuels, wild-west water and irrigation policies, permissive species crashes, and so on. Labor's 43% "emissions reduction" is no more or less meaningless than the Libs' 35%."

This is spot on.

It's very difficult to meaningfully slash Australia's emissions or prevent further environmental degradation and destruction while running a Big Australia mass immigration program.

See:
How will Australia meet “net zero” with 50% more people? - http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/10/how-will-australia-meet-net-zero-with-50-more-people/

Big Australia immigration threatens nation’s water security - http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2022/01/big-australia-immigration-threatens-nations-water-security/

Fake green Teal demands mass immigration - http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2022/05/fake-green-teal-demands-mass-immigration/

At the risk of sounding churlish, I must say that there are a number of major problems with Peter Bowden's arguments.

It's immediately clear that he doesn't understand conservative thought very well at all. For a better insight, he would do well to read the late Roger Scruton, who stated that "conservatism is a philosophy of inheritance and stewardship; it does not squander resources but strives to enhance them and pass them on."

Scruton also argued: "Conservatism starts from a sentiment that all mature people can readily share: the sentiment that good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created. This is especially true of the good things that come to us as collective assets: peace, freedom, law, civility, public spirit, the security of property and family life, in all of which we depend on the cooperation of others while having no means singlehandedly to obtain it. In respect of such things, the work of destruction is quick, easy, and exhilarating; the work of creation slow, laborious, and dull. That is one of the lessons of the twentieth century. It is also one reason why conservatives suffer such a disadvantage when it comes to public opinion. Their position is true but boring, that of their opponents exciting but false."

AC.

I watched your video link. I think we need to remain sceptical about the world in which we live day to day.
It feels like I’ve been picked off by a conspiracy when I get booked for speeding: But is it a conspiracy to slow down speeding traffic, keeping the dangers of speeding vehicles within sensible and safe limits?

What about the humble camera?
(Apparently), there are more cameras than people to operate them. The truth is out there, under the eye of a camera; but is it?

The truth is easily manipulated through the camera lense. We are trapped into believing that here is a photograph in front of our eyes taken with a camera, the truth is therefore undeniable and incontestable.

What is truth as a philosophical question, should be considered before believing theories of conspiracy.
Conspiracies don’t work without a large content of truth. It’s a boring cake made from flour alone, without condiments.

The speaker in your link promoting the conspiracy of creeping communist control of the US, is I think, a camera lense of history, with its “truthful” manipulations. There is a truth, but to imply as he did at the outset, that history taught in schools is any less relevant than his own version of events, itself should be questioned.

Looked at through the lense of the North American Aboriginal, US history shows an entirely different picture. The Mayflower event to them!

I don’t subscribe to the theory that world domination by Communists, is dreamt up in a board room in Moscow or Beijing, anymore than opposition to ideological madness is opposed entirely by the CIA and McCarthyism.

We that walk as individuals, are the opposition to whatever may threaten our own survival.
I do believe your view is correct, to question every presentation of truth before our eyes, but resting on conspiratorial conclusions is hazardous to that journey. The war for truth is many battles and skirmishes. Take them seriously, one at a time for me.

Dan

SR,

When did you come up with this drivel? A brain haemorrhage? The Liberals and nationals co governed in a majority government. The coalition is closer to the left/right factions of the Labor party than 2 separate parties and has been for decades.

The teals do not share liberal values. Their "climate change action and damn the consequences" is the complete opposite of rational change management.

The reason Labor got the majority is not because of its left whinge values, it is because it promised not to make the same left whinge cock ups it made before and essentially moved its election platform to the right. The seats that the liberals held onto were not the Labor lite incumbents but the more conservative MPs. The Nats did not lose a seat and one nation doubled its vote.

shadowminister,

More than happy for that kind of deluded thinking to prevail in hard right circles like yours and Dutton,s.

"We lost seats in our traditional heartland not because we got that on the nose with our constituency there because of our hard right policies, but because they weren't hard enough.

On ya Einstein.

Lets bring back "Pig Iron' Bobs Liberal values.

* A pool of 10% unemployed.
* Appeasement of Fascists.
* Low paid exploited working women.
* Aboriginals abused and marginalised
* A racists White Australia policy
* Foreign wars with conscription and death for young Australians.

Yep! That's just what Dud Dutton should do.

Shonky; are you still claiming Labor can't form a majority government, what a political dunce you are. What you posted on 23rd May; "Labor is in a minority government and will have to partner with the irrational greens and/or the one-dimensional Teals. Good luck with that."