Moan and groan, but you’ll continue to support the criminals by voting for them.

You wish to vote for them, don’t cry about outcomes!

Dan

Vote? Where but in a few instances have any, we've voted for, obtained a seat? As dirty deals done in dead of night as preference swaps completely negated the expressed will of the alleged majority!

If preferences were optional and they should be, then we'd see labor governments forward as far as the eye can see. And require as it should, a complete reset of the mindset of conservative political aspirants.

To be much more inclusive and socially progressive and move toward cooperative capitalism that arguably leaves nobody behind.

We need to return to our original conservative roots and once again become champions of progressive change rather than fight tooth and nail to resist fair-minded, egalitarian, progressive change. And once again embrace pragmatic bipartisan policies that once made us the third most wealthy nation on planet earth and debt free creditor one at that.

Any nation on earth is judged by how well the least among them fare! And the better they fare so do all those in the food chain above them in win, win outcomes as far up as the eye can see.

Trickle down hasn't ever worked but tickle up, logically and rationally, surely will. As job keeper did when it was applied.

But not as temporary handouts but something more permanent as happens when cooperative capitalism is the, Chrisian inspired, economic paradigm/template.
Alan B.

Great article. I myself was an RN until fired for refusing the jab. I am astonished that Alan B is happy to be censored by the various incompetent and compromised bureaucrats who have taken charge of public health. The reality is that mush of what was thought to be "settled medical science" only a couple of decades ago has now been refuted. Things such as depriving young babies of everything except breast milk for the first year of their life had the effect of generating an enormous wave of allergies. If doctors had been unable to speak out and discuss this issue we would still be offering this harmful public health advice. The current dietary advice is clearly wrong given the enormous rates of obesity and diabetes in Australia. If we prevent people questioning these absurd guidelines, they will never be changed. There has been almost total regulatory capture of the organs of state that are meant to protect the public health by a variety of interests, most importantly big pharma. This resulted in the suppression of early treatment for covid as pointed out in this article. I heard the various "public health experts" whipping up fear in parents for the safety of their children who in fact faced virtually zero risk for Covid (as was clear from the very earliest data from China in March of 2020). This allowed the draconian policies to be enacted over the past 2.5 years that have done more to harm public health than anything in our history. The cure to a lack of confidence in public health is removing the pecuniary interests from the decision making process and allowing proper debate and discussion on all aspects of health care.

Additionally, we must be extremely careful every time we hear the word "misinformation". This word didn't seem to exist until it was used to suppress debate and discussion around the global response to Covid and is now also being used to suppress discussion of "Climate Change" and almost any other contentious subject. In the past (pre 2020) when we disagreed with someone, we would say "your are wrong about that", and then have to engage in the debate with evidence about how the other party is wrong. If we thought the person was intentionally being dishonest we would call them a liar. Of course we still needed to discuss how that person was lying. The beauty of "misinformation" is it provides an excuse to shut the opponent down without having to either address the points at issue, or even make the argument for our own point of view. Misinformation is nothing more than a justification for censorship of those you disagree with but lack the ability to refute with facts, data and logic. Another term for it is "wrongthink".