The Forum > Article Comments > Labor’s litany of lies > Comments
Labor’s litany of lies : Comments
By John Mikkelsen, published 28/4/2025With time running out in the countdown to the May 3 Federal election, Australia's future may well depend on how many voters believe Labor's repetitive litany of lies.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Page 8
-
- All
Posted by John Daysh, Friday, 2 May 2025 9:32:47 PM
|
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.