Albanese has delivered massive immigration (completely off the previous scale), with all-time housing pain, and ever-increasing energy prices. His "million jobs" are cancelled out by his million migrants.

All that should be the central focus in Sussan Ley's opposition attack. Except, she and her front bench don't oppose. Just like Labor, they are totally focused on the "supply side" of housing.

The upper-class or media analysis seems to be that Ley should embrace the "climate science" of "net zero" to be competitive with voters. Net-zero is a distraction, and she will never be competitive.

We know what the Liberal Party “stands for” - nothing. The voters know they stand for nothing or they would not have returned the Albanese Socialist government, the worst government ever.

The Liberals needed to attend to two matters only to get elected: Net Zero and immigration. They didn’t have the guts to do so; and they still don’t have the guts to speak up about the issues from the safety of opposition. Too many of them are lefties. Their ‘leader’ is a middle-aged school girl.

As the author suggests, their yay or nay to Net Zero will be decided not on principle and common sense, but on their own over-paid jobs. The fact that they could not make a quick decision on Net Zero, but had to “listen to modern Australia” sent a clear message: they will never be trusted again.

The Nationals have made their decision on Net Zero without all the posturing and the cowardice of the Girl Guide leader and her troop, and they should go it alone.

The Liberals will never “resolve just who they are”.

There is no point in any party rejecting net zero, unless than they come up with a practical solution which includes Nuclear. Unfortunately, the Liberals went into the last election with a boots and all idea of old technology using Uranium which went down like a lead balloon with the electors.

They should start explaining the emerging technology using Thorium with all it's advantage of low price, low amounts of short life radioactive waste, safe small modular construction. Companies like Copenhagen Atomics are well on the way to proving the viability of their machine and the Chinese have already built a working unit using Thorium.

David

Nuclear power is currently well above the wind and solar con, but not as cheap as coal. That might change with the current r and d in nuclear. The coalition might do much better by shafting the grafting carpetbagger con artists and focusing on roof top solar and community batteries (if it wants to go further).

Time to end the ideological con job.

Nukes are expressed as simplistic like authors on this sight. nukes require a 50 klm,s exclusion zone around the plant. A permanent water supply.
Where do you find that in AU. AU citizens are coastal dwellers. The only permanent water supply is ocean water.

After all the years of nuke power nothing has changed to make nukes any safer than they were taken up as a power supply to generate 1 gwh of power /day. No different than coal power.
No matter of what sort of heating you have for boiling water the temperature required has not changed.

So the gains are minimal and not zero co2 let alone the gigantic costs involved in handling the absolute potency of the preferred heating medium.

In au this system does not make any sense at all.

"After all the years of nuke power nothing has changed to make nukes any safer than they were taken up as a power supply to generate 1 gwh of power /day. No different than coal power."

Nuclear power historically has a mortality rate per unit energy generated between wind and solar, but when you consider that wind and solar need gas and coal to be dispatchable, nuclear is far safer. Modern reactor designs are far safer still.

Why support carpetbagger wind and solar con artists, ripping off taxpayers north of ten billion a year, destroying the environment, economy, and our food production in the process? As for water, nukes can operate with sea water, and China has a pebble bed reactor that does not require water. In contrast, have you wondered where all the water will come from to run all those pumped hydro cons, like the 20 billion dollar plus Snowy 2.0 fiasco?

It's time to end the graft and support the interests of Australians and our natural heritage.

"nukes require a 50 klm,s exclusion zone around the plant"

If your claim were true the Lucas Heights reactor would have an exclusion zone from Mona Vale to Port Kembla.

You must be smoking stronger dope than Ivan Milat.

Time to ditch those carpetbagging grifters.

Doog, you are way behind where modern nuclear research is at. Go and have a look at Copenhagen Atomics and get yourself up to speed.
David