Not disagreeing with what you say, John, but I think the election is lost. Even without the Trump Derangement, Dutton needed a top team and a brilliant campaign, but has had neither. One unforced error after another.

Albanese stands for UN open borders and renewables net zero, Dutton stands for slightly less open borders and nuclear net zero. Is that meant to be the high water mark of contemporary conservative philosophy?

Just wait until the actual votes are counted. Results are usually different from the pontificating of pollsters, the media and "experts".

As Nick Cater says: “Welcome to Australia's first fully-fledged post-truth election campaign, where hypocrisy and deception are assets, not liabilities”.

There are lies everywhere: from candidates, bankrollers, pollsters. All that can be hoped for is that enough of the approximately 18 million voters are on to the bastards.

One of the lies by the habitual liar Albanese has been that Tony Abbott slashed $80 billion off health and education in 2014 (a decade ago !!), when in fact, health GREW by 2.7% and education GREW by 5%.

“Labor's platform is little more than a list of slogans and electoral bribes (and lies)”, yet Dutton has been incapable of doing anything with it! The only hope for Australia in the most dangerous position we have been in since WW11 with these two mutton heads trying to fool us into thinking that they are up to the job, lies with those 18 or so million voters using common sense.

Among all lies, bribery and BS from the uniparty’s childishly inept electioneering, there has been no indication that they will take the following advice from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute”

“The next government needs to confirm that the key focus for the ADF is deterrence and war fighting to ensure the defence of Australia and to support our key allies and partners in Indo-Pacific stability. That includes deterring while preparing for the possibility of protracted high-intensity major-power war within our region that would likely see Australia come under direct threat of attack and include war fighting in domains such as space and cyberspace”.

And now we know that Labor knew about Russia's request for an airbase in Indonesia months ago and that Defence Minister Richard Marles has apparently approved two new Navy tug boats to be built in China! Honestly you couldn't make this stuff up in your wildest dreams but it's reality under Labor.
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/albanese-govt-was-aware-of-russian-request-for-access-to-indonesian-air-base-in-march-ahead-of-federal-election-campaign/news-story/eb8d3ce5ee66f6052e88ca2a6b877208

Australia doesn't have a sovereign weapons capability to produce long range guided weapons, and will not have for another decade. We are dependent on foreign suppliers; hopefully not from the foreigners we have just bought a tug boat for the RAN from - Communist China!

You are kidding yourselves if you think we won't still be living in a lunatic asylum no matter who gets to be our government. The great white hope Dutton can't even guarantee a defence spend of 3% of GDP for another ten years. Everything is a decade down the track with these idiots. They didn't even have a vessel to shadow the Communist navy lapping our country.

You’re overreaching here, John Mikkelsen.

You accuse Labor of lying, but a lot of the examples you give are more complicated than you present - and some points are a bit misleading.

On Medicare, yes, Labor plays it up - but Coalition governments have a long track record of freezing rebates and quietly undermining funding. Concerns about future cuts aren’t made up, even if Labor leans into them politically.

Your nuclear energy argument relies heavily on one report (Frontier Economics), but most modelling - including CSIRO’s GenCost report - still finds nuclear more expensive and much slower to deploy here. It’s not as black and white as you suggest.

Your personal experience with healthcare costs is real - but blaming Labor alone ignores the fact that out-of-pocket costs have been rising for well over a decade under both sides.

As for the debt, it’s simply wrong to imply Labor created the $1 trillion figure - the Coalition government was already responsible for it before the last election. Labor added to debt during the GFC, yes, but the explosion toward $1 trillion overwhelmingly happened under the Coalition.

Power bills have gone up, no question. But pretending it’s purely Labor’s fault when there’s been a global energy crisis is a bit convenient.

The Voice referendum didn’t cost $450 million either - it was around $364 million - and calling Labor’s management a path to "collapse into the abyss" feels more like emotional language than serious analysis.

There’s plenty to criticise Labor for - and fair criticisms matter more than exaggerated ones.

And yes, the Russia base situation and building tugboats in China are serious concerns. They deserve real scrutiny. But none of that changes the fact that much of your original article stretched things. Two bad decisions don’t turn every criticism into a fair one.

If we want better government, we need better arguments - not just louder ones.

I saw this summary online. Seems on the ball. Select your favourites—
Do voters have amnesia? Albanese Government report card --
Preference Greens...fail. Defence...fail. Tax unrealised capital gains...fail. Maintain Indonesia relationship...fail. Instant asset write off..fail. Home batteries for the rich...fail. Port of Darwin...fail. Vehicle emissions standards...fail.
Domestic batteries....fail. RepuTex modelling...fail. Gas reserves...fail. Tax reform...fail. Access to National Parks...fail. Debt reduction...fail. US Tariff exemptions...fail. Emergency messaging system...fail. Northwest gas field extension...fail. Bulk citizenship ceremonies...fail. Green Hydrogen..fail. Funding for hate preachers..fail, Stand up to China...fail. Voice Referendum…fail, Electricity prices...fail, Immigration...fail, Housing...fail. Productivety...fail, Border security...fail, Inflation and government spending...fail.
Student debts.... fail, Support for Jewish community…fail, Puberty blockers.fail, Green investments….fail, Funding UNWRA…fail, Interest rates.fail, Support for Israel.. fail, Foreign affairs. fail, UN representation. fail, Quantum computer.. fail, Hate speech suppression fail, Wage restraint..fail, Public sector 36,000 staff growth fail, Minerals exploration approvals..fail, Airline competition...fail, Super rules...fail, Industry bargaining..fail, Cashless debit card...fail, Afghanistan military medals...fail, Paid parental leave..fail, Deport criminals...fail, US and UK Ambassadors…..fail, Temporary protection visas...fail, EV subsidies..fail, PM travel..fail, Budget restraint...fail, Salmon farming...fail, Alliance with US...fail, Support for Alice Springs...fail. Support for Australia Day...fail.
NDIS overhaul...fail. Stage 3 tax cuts in full...fail. Live Sheep exports...fail. Aged care nursing....fail.

Hi Lytton, better tell John Daysh, there's more fails than you can poke a stick at and just on the nuclear plan alone which will cost nowhere near Labor's claimed $600 billion, it's also a fact that nuclear plants will last 80 years as opposed to so-called "renewables" which will all need replacing after about 20 years as we have seen recently with the closure of Victoria's first "wind farm" after just 20 years. Now we see even the UK's Starmer embracing nuclear energy let alone the other G20 countries who realise it's cheaper, cleaner and more reliable than an unworkable system based on wind turbines, Chinese solar panels and batteries that can only store energy that would last a few hours when called on when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.

Mikko2,

Nuclear may have a role to play in some countries’ energy mixes - and you’re right it has advantages in lifespan and reliability. But the debate isn’t as simple as “nuclear good, renewables bad.”

The idea that nuclear plants run for 80 years is theoretical at this point - no plant has actually operated that long yet. It assumes costly mid-life refurbishments and ongoing regulatory approvals, not just set-and-forget reliability. Meanwhile, renewables are lasting longer, and the economics have shifted dramatically even in the past five years.

It also hasn’t gone unnoticed that you didn’t fully engage with the dubious "fail" list that was posted. Probably wise - lumping dozens of complex issues into a pile labelled "fail" cheapens real criticisms and makes serious points easier to dismiss.

Pointing out Labor’s flaws is important - and there’s plenty worth discussing - but when criticisms get stretched or stripped of context, it doesn’t strengthen the case, it weakens it. Again, if we want better government, we need sharper arguments, not just louder ones.

Australia's national debt when Labor took office after the covid years was $895 k, not the $1.2 trillion foreshadowed in Labor's latest budget - and we all remember that Labor wanted the government support largesse we saw during the covid pandemic panic to be continued when the coalition ended it. From left- wing The Guardian:

Gross debt ($, billions)
Despite the upward debt trajectory since Labor took office in May 2022, Chalmers highlighted how the pre-election fiscal outlook in 2022 predicted gross debt would have blown out to $1.1tn by mid-2025 – or $177bn more than the budget will forecast on Tuesday.25 Mar 2025
Chalmers upbeat on eve of budget despite grim debt outlook ...

Mikko2, you’re actually helping prove my point.

Yes, Labor inherited around $895 billion in debt. But as you’ve shown, the forward projections - even before Labor’s first full budget - already had debt rising toward $1.1 trillion by mid-2025. That was baked in from pandemic-era Coalition budgets.

Labor has added to it, sure - but pretending they created the $1 trillion debt, or that the trajectory wasn’t already locked in, isn’t accurate. Even the numbers you posted show that.

News report tonight—

And finally, confirmation of what we already knew to be true: the Albanese government has become the biggest-spending government in history, with plans if re-elected to take the nation to even greater heights of fiscal profligacy.

The Liberal Party is showing itself to be a party that supports racism and hate speak and will support racists trash to gain office. The parties endorsed candidate for the seat of Fowler in Sydney Vivek Singh has described Aboriginal people in the most derogatory language on social media. Dutton refuses to dis-endorse this racists sleazebag. Unfortunately scratch the veneer and it exposes people like Singh and Dutton for what they really think of our First Australians.

what they really think of our First Australians.
Paul1405,
So, what do they think ? We know what you think of of them. A convenient platform for your hypocritical character to keep any possible harmony from becoming a reality !

Indy,

Referring to indigenous people as "arseholes" in Singh's case, or "concrete jungle bunnies" as in your case, hardly promotes harmony among people. Dutton's attack on 'Welcome To Country' is just another example of the way this bloke tries to promote division in society for political gain. The disgusting booing by the far right mob on ANZAC Day in Melbourne just shows how extremism is alive and kicking in Australia. BTW, the RSL (not known for their radicalism) have come out in support of a 'Welcome To Country' at their ANZAC Day ceremonies.

Never forget "every accusation is a confession" for the right wing nutjobs. Biggest liars on the planet.

Don't forget we are all human beings, each with a story going back 300,000 years. All Australians should be treated with equal respect, regardless of our heritage, so why have one and only one heritage and story forced upon us?

The Nazi salute claimed its origins as a greeting between people. I don't think that forcing greetings, welcomes or acknowledgements a good idea.

or "concrete jungle bunnies" as in your case,
Paul1405,
This is a perfect example of your Woke hypocrisy crossed with your conniving character.
A straight out deliberate lie for no other purpose than opportunistic division creating.
I never once stated that CJB are Aboriginals. The reference was clearly for city dwellers among the high rise warren where the most conditioned & indoctrinated half-baked, half educated perpetual students create their taxpayer funded fantasies. I really have to dig deep in my memory bank to think of worst characters than you. You're not even smart enough to feel an ounce of shame !

Regarding the wasted cost of Labor's divisive Voice referendum, which they didn't mention in their election platform back in 2022 -
"Cost
The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) estimated the cost of the referendum would be about $450 million..."
How many houses could that have built in outback communities, Albo? What services will you cut to try to offset budget deficits as far as the eye can see and that mounting $1.2 trillion national debt?
We thought Whitlam was bad but Albo is the weakest, wokest and worst PM Australia has ever seen and our credit rating is now also at risk
https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/election-spending-puts-aaa-rating-at-risk-20250428-p5luql

.

Dear John (the author),

.

You wrote :

« … the Opposition's nuclear energy plan, where costings are blown out of the ballpark to a highly inflated $600 billion »
.

There are currently about 440 nuclear reactors in 32 countries generating 10% of the world's electricity. The first nuclear reactor was built 87 years ago in 1938. Nuclear engineers have long mastered their profession to a high degree of perfection and security.

Cost overruns on building new nuclear power plants are the rule rather than the exception, sometimes doubling or even tripling the original projections.

For that reason, I am inclined to consider that the $600 billion figure should be retained for argument's sake as an acceptable starting point.

I am fully in favour of Australia going nuclear, and the sooner the better.

We have already earmarked AUD 365.42 billion (USD 235.00 billion) for US nuclear submarines that probably won’t be forthcoming until sometime towards the end of the millennium (“America First” oblige !) In the meantime, that money could best be employed building badly needed nuclear reactors.

.

Nuclear bomb number 8 is going into the Federal electorate of Dickson, the grand opening in 3035, with a construction cost of $100 trillion, and only 500 years late, will be carried out by Little Little Dud, the great, great and ten more greats grandson of the once local member Grandpa Dud who unfortunately passed away in 2035 when he consumed a gob full of yellow cake, believing it to be Nanna's apple crumble.

Don't worry about Saturday, she'll be right, no matter what the outcome is.

The one time Albo has spoken the truth during the election campaign:

'If you ask me, "Do you rule out governing in coalition with the Greens?" The answer is no,' Mr Albanese told reporters.

Oops, I guess that's why he has given an anti-semitic Green candidate his second preference.

Labor's lying started during the Whitlam era when the party for working people was twisted by unions into an academic parasitic yuppie club funded by the blue collar workers & their employers !
Labor is now so far removed from its original doctrine that only a Coalition Government can offer those values Labor originally stood for !

Seems you are an anti-Semite if you don't agree with the Zionists murdering over 40,000 innocent men, women and children in Gaza.

Coming to Australia under Blackout Bowen and Eacy Way Albo:
"It could be a coincidence, but Spain’s grid ran entirely on renewables for the first time on April 16th. Less than two weeks later, at lunchtime Monday Spain and Portugal and even parts of France suffered massive cascading blackouts. Thirteen gigawatts of electricity, about half the grid, suddenly disappeared at 12:30pm. Trains were halted, and people were stuck in dark subway tunnels. A tennis tournament was stopped, flights were cancelled and diverted, and prosaically, as an emblem of the Western World, Spain’s nuclear plants shut too, and are now running on diesel back up. Shops have been stripped, people are fighting over taxis, and landlines and ATMs are down, and even the mobile network failed in Madrid. The mayor of Madrid has urged the PM to declare an emergency and deploy soldiers.

Electricity has been restored to some areas, but the grid operator has said “it could take up to a week to fix”. Other reports say “six to ten hours”.

Notably, Spain has one of the highest proportions of renewable power in Europe — with 50% of the national supply coming from pure unreliable power. Spain has 32 GW of solar power, and 32GW of wind turbines. As it happens, the wind turbines have been largely useless for the last 24 hours. The Telegraph is reporting that solar power was providing almost 60% of Spain’s power two hours before the blackout..."
"It appears the phenomenon occurred when it was a climate extreme of 23 degrees C in Madrid today. .."
https://joannenova.com.au/2025/04/days-after-spain-reaches-100-renewable-mass-blackouts-hit-due-to-mysterious-rare-atmospheric-phenomenon/

Mikko2,

The blackout in Spain wasn’t “renewables gone wild.” It was a grid frequency drop - a stability issue that can happen in any power system if infrastructure doesn’t keep pace with generation changes. Even fossil-fuel grids have suffered similar cascading failures.

But instead of engaging with that reality, you quote a climate denial blogger, toss in some apocalyptic imagery, and hope readers won’t notice the leap from “solar panels” to “soldiers in the streets.”

Yes, renewables require smarter grids and better storage. But misrepresenting a one incident - while ignoring the global shift toward renewables backed by serious engineering - isn’t analysis. It’s emotional manipulation dressed up as energy policy.

John,

"The blackout in Spain wasn’t “renewables gone wild.” It was a grid frequency drop - a stability issue that can happen in any power system if infrastructure doesn’t keep pace with generation changes."

It is a problem with wind and solar, and the more of it there is in the system, the more unmanageable the system becomes. The Spaniards are victims of the wind and solar con, as are Australians with skyrocketing power prices. Grid collapses to come. IBM's tales won't make the problem disappear.

Fester,

No, the blackout wasn’t caused by a problem with wind or solar. It was caused by a sudden frequency drop - a grid stability issue that can occur in any system if the supporting infrastructure doesn’t keep up. That’s not a flaw in renewables - it’s a failure to modernise the grid around changing inputs.

Spain’s grid operator didn’t blame solar or wind - you did, because it fits your narrative. But repeating it doesn’t make it true.

Meanwhile I'd sooner trust the 50 signatories to an open letter on the follies of the renewables plan and the benefits of nuclear energy including expert such as Dr Adi Paterson, the former head of ANSTO, who has many years of international experience, rather than Bowen, Albo and some commenters here:
Australia’s energy future is in jeopardy, according to a major open letter signed today by over 50 of the nation’s leading scientists, engineers, economists, conservationists, business leaders, union leaders, and energy experts.

The signatories warn that Australia’s current energy policies are ideologically driven and risk becoming a multi-trillion-dollar, irreversible economic and environmental disaster.

Key Points from the Open Letter:

• Australia’s energy transition is proceeding without sufficient scientific rigour, transparency, or cost accountability.

• Full renewable transition costs are projected between $7 trillion and $9 trillion — equivalent to up to $850,000 per Australian household.

• Renewable-only plans pose a severe threat to grid stability, affordability, and national energy sovereignty.

• Nuclear energy is being misrepresented and prematurely dismissed; reliable, zero-emission nuclear power could be delivered for around $120 billion — a fraction of the renewables rollout cost.

• Billions in taxpayer subsidies are flowing offshore to foreign-controlled renewable companies, with limited transparency or return for Australian taxpayers.

• Environmental damage from large-scale wind and solar developments is being overlooked by major energy councils and environmental non for profits.

Self proclaimed experts here might like to debate Dr Adi Paterson who throws out a challenge to debate Jim Chalmers or any "experts" he can produce on Bolt last night:
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/andrew-bolt/very-detailed-energy-model-shines-light-on-how-blackouts-occur-under-renewables/video/c30753608734daeafd0c37730d2ee797

I certainly wouldn't, Mikko2.

//...I'd sooner trust the 50 signatories to an open letter ... including expert[s] such as Dr Adi Paterson...//

At least not after seeing the letter, which reads less like a serious energy proposal and more like a tantrum in bullet points.

* "Australia’s energy transition is proceeding without sufficient scientific rigour, transparency, or cost accountability.”
No, planning is based on detailed reports from CSIRO and AEMO - all public, peer-reviewed, and transparent. Disagreeing with conclusions doesn’t mean the process isn’t rigorous.

* “Full renewable transition costs are projected between $7 trillion and $9 trillion...”
There’s no credible source for this. It’s a fantasy figure with no disclosed assumptions, and it contradicts every serious cost analysis from GenCost and the ISP, which project costs in the hundreds of billions, not trillions.

* “Renewable-only plans pose a severe threat to grid stability, affordability, and sovereignty.”
The challenges are already being addressed through storage, demand response, and infrastructure upgrades. Countries with far higher renewable penetration than Australia aren’t collapsing, either.

* “Nuclear could be delivered for $120 billion.”
Sure, provided there's no legal obstacles, industry start-up costs, waste handling, or insurance burden. GenCost still shows nuclear as at least twice the cost of renewables and more than a decade away from delivering power.

* “Billions in subsidies are flowing offshore to foreign renewable companies.”
Foreign investment has always been part of Australia’s energy sector. If we’re suddenly pretending foreign capital is a dealbreaker, we’d better nationalise half the mining industry while we’re at it.

* “Environmental damage from large-scale wind and solar is being overlooked.”
It’s not. Impact studies and planning disputes are routine. All energy sources have downsides - the point is that wind and solar have far fewer than what they’re replacing.

For every hand-picked “expert” on that list, there's an Australian economist who signed a different letter calling nuclear slow, expensive, and the wrong fit for Australia. The one you trust reads like a polemic sales pitch - the other reads like a detailed policy briefing.

I know which one I'd sooner trust.

Thanks for re-posting the informed views of numerous science and industry experts John Daysh. The facts are obvious and will become more so if Labor gets back in and the lights go out while our power bills continue to soar and huge areas of native forest and productive farmlands are destroyed "to save the environment". Simon and Garfunkel revisited with "Hello Darkness my old friend...."

Oh, well this is awkward, Mikko2!

You see, I had only quoted the points you posted from the letter in order to debunk each one of them. Sorry.

//"...the lights go out while our power bills continue to soar and huge areas of native forest and productive farmlands are destroyed "to save the environment".//

There’s no evidence that Labor’s policies will cause blackouts - AEMO’s grid planning accounts for renewables, storage, and firming. If the lights go out, it’ll be because of ageing coal and gas assets, not solar panels.

Power bills soared during a global fossil fuel crisis - not because of renewables. In fact, increased wind and solar helped push prices down last year.

And no, wind farms aren’t bulldozing forests. Farmland is often dual-used, and all developments go through environmental approval - unlike coal mines, which actually clear forests and dig craters.

If the facts were truly obvious, you wouldn’t need the predictions, the panic, or the poetry.

The Noaltion are running for cover with their pants on fire. It has been exposed that Trumps number one campaign manager Chris LaCivita, came to Australia in late March to give the Liberal party and Dud Dutton advice on how to run their election campaign, Trump style. Seems, vote Noaltion and all we'll get is a bunch of Trump puppets with Trump style policies. If you want Trump, just vote Noalition.

"AEMO’s grid planning accounts for renewables, storage, and firming. If the lights go out, it’ll be because of ageing coal and gas assets, not solar panels."

Yes, very similar to all the expert advice and planning in other nations pursuing net zero, and then the lights go out in Spain and no one in the government there can shed any light on it. Plenty of warnings going back at least five years, but spruikers and zealots have no time for technical nuances. And the reason we have all those ageing power stations is because the renewable energy zealots said they wouldn't be needed and so they weren't properly maintained.

"Cascade failure" might become the fist thing people think of when they hear renewable energy.

True, Fester but our resident expert John D has already determined the cause of the blackouts in Span and Portugal while authorities there are still scratching their heads while the cause is pretty obvious with unreliable renewables that will only last 20 years before they will all need replacing again at great cost.
Meanwhile, a great editorial from Sharri Markson last night but we will soon know whether Australia is burdened with another three years of destructive Labor policies and more lies under Albanese.
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/sharri-markson/sharri-markson-officially-endorses-peter-dutton-to-be-prime-minister/video/1e7c62ee1af26174728e51cb14f0a3db

Fester,

Once again, the Spanish blackout was triggered by a frequency drop - not a solar panel melting down - and their grid operator never blamed renewables. But sure, let’s skip that detail and turn it into a morality tale about Net Zero.

If ageing coal stations weren’t maintained, that’s not proof that renewables are unreliable - it’s proof that fossil generation can’t be treated like it’s timeless and maintenance-free. That’s not a zealot problem - that’s a planning problem.

If anything, it proves the need for a transition plan that doesn’t hinge on creaking legacy assets. Which is exactly what AEMO’s current work accounts for.

Hi Fester,

I remind you that Chernobyl, was a government built nuclear power plant, and what a disaster that was. Why is the LNP wanting to build 7 nuclear plants here? Why can't they get private investors? I really do believe such an undertaking will cost billions more than the Coalition claims, and it will take years longer than the forecast as well.

Try getting private investors to back something that is banned. What a ridiculous claim but it's one of many also made by Albanese. End the ban, cut the billions in subsidies poured into unreliable very temporary renewables and make it an even playing field before anyone can claim investors aren't prepared to back safe modern nuclear plants which are now embraced by every sensible G20 nation. Chernobyl is an old furphy along with three eyed fish memes and if Labor really thought nuclear plants including SMRs were dangerous they would not be planning to let our submariners serve onboard in close quarters with an SMR for weeks at a time, then allow them to be serviced and maintained in Australian ports!

Hi Mikko2,

"they (Labor) would not be planning to let our submariners serve onboard in close quarters with an SMR for weeks" The LNP doesn't have monopoly on stupidity.

Are you saying when elected the Coalition will "make nuk legal", then private capital will come flooding in from all those silent investors? Why doesn't Dutton say that, no he said the government will fund it all. I am also concerned about nuclear waste disposal, that's an unresolved issue, your thoughts.

BTW, I'm not a sycophantic Labor supporter, I'd be very happy with a hung parliament. But given Labor's 3 years, and what they have done, compared to the Coalitions 9 years, I don't think Labor deserves the sack, maybe a wrap on the knuckles, but not the sack.

Mikko2, given this fact; "Waste residues from reprocessing in France have been returned to Australia, where they are currently stored at ANSTO's Lucas Heights campus. There are ongoing concerns and problems related to nuclear waste storage at the Lucas Heights reactor site."

Presently Australia produces about 45 cubic metres of radioactive waste per year, mostly low level waste, but under the Coalition proposal there will be a significant increase in he production of high level nuclear waste.

Where would Australian produced waste, particularly high level waste, be processed and then stored?

Mikko2,

No one’s claiming you can attract private investment for something that’s banned - but let’s not pretend lifting the ban would suddenly trigger a wave of investor enthusiasm.

Even when the idea’s been floated, investors weren’t exactly lining up to back nuclear. And that wasn’t due to ideology - it was because of the cost, construction timelines, regulatory hurdles, and the complete lack of local infrastructure. Nuclear isn’t banned globally, and yet private investment remains thin, often propped up by massive public subsidies just to keep projects viable.

And yes - SMRs power submarines, which also carry torpedoes, sonar arrays, and armed personnel. They're not a model for mass civilian energy generation. Comparing military SMRs to commercial reactors is about as useful as using battleship layouts to guide urban planning.

As for that link to the unprofessional political endorsement? Wow! Watching that felt like a fever dream. Unprofessionalism aside, however, virtually nothing Markson said was even remotely true.

But I was particularly disturbed by her portrayal of Albanese's response to the rise of antisemitism as non-existent. The weaponsing of Jewish suffering to attack political opponents, which we so often seen from the right, risks trivialising it. Clearly those who do this don't actually care about fighting antisemitism - only about exploiting it when it's politically convenient.

Albanese’s response hasn't been flawless, but to claim he stood by and “allowed” antisemitism to flourish is as dishonest as it is inflammatory.

It’s hard to put Markson's plethora of verifiably false claims down to mere ignorance. After all, she’s a senior journalist with editorial power, and someone with years of insider political access. She knows how to verify data, and is perfectly capable of verifying the accuracy of each and every one of the claims she made.

Despite this, she chose say what she had to have known was not true anyway.

Thanks for introducing me to her. What a piece of work. She'll be one to keep a close eye on.