Chris Gaff 1000 you both support the victims then blame them.
In the Brant thread most agree using this tragic number of events, far from over, to gain political points is as weak as you can get.
No grass castles these houses, just new homes owned by folk like you or me, probably struggling to pay for them.
The failure if any is the failure to understand *building your home among the Gum trees is stupid blindness*
We can if we wish continue to turn the threads head away from its path.
Even look more deeply at what local councils/state governments/and a host of idiotic fools who will not let winter cold burns take place, can do to reduce the impacts of future fires.
I chose to end what now looks dead the threads wanted directions.
I propose both sides of the house are subjected to a public demand to change the voting system in the Senate.
In doing so we can change the infestation of that house by unwanted drop kicks, and see the will of the most over rules the few.

Belly: we can change the infestation of that house by unwanted drop kicks, and see the will of the most over rules the few.

By unwanted drop kicks, do you mean NLP or ALP Members?

I believe that a fully independent Senate (even, as you say, with drop kicks) would lead to better Governance. The two Major Parties would be forced to frame their new Laws & Policies in a fairer light. I'd ban the Greens though.

Chris,

"Didn't you read this bit?
A spokeswoman for Mr Keenan said the government had set up the payment so that it would reach those most in need, most quickly. She explained the bushfire situation was still unfolding and that as it became clearer, the payment might be extended to other categories.

''First and foremost we have to release payments to people who need it immediately,'' she said."

Well, how would you expect a govt of this calibre to spin it.?

But I'm more interested in your change of tune.

One minute you're saying:

"This is the stuff of leadership. Read it and understand that he really cares..."

Linking to an article which headlines:

"NSW bushfires: Tony Abbott says Canberra will pay half cost of rebuilding

Prime minister pays tribute to 'ordinary people who, on an extraordinary day, come together to support their community"

And the next, you you're saying:

"Do you really believe these people who live in these fire prone expensive retreat zones do not have bank accounts, financial resources or family elsewhere.
Next you will expect the public to pick up their rebuilding costs because the insurance costs were too high.
They choose, and can afford, to live in tree and bush surrounds whilst others live in abject poverty, in the same country."

So for the benefit of plugging the govt's altruism, you highlight their "generosity" to fire victims who are just ordinary people devastated by bushfire....but when the govt's generosity is shown to be less than it's cracked up to be you turn on those who have lost their homes as elites who shouldn't expect too much help.

Okay.....

Poirot,
Abbots taxpayer money will go to those who really need it not those who say they need it.
If you can afford to live the lifestyle of the leafy bush setting you can afford the necessary insurance.
I feel for them in their loss but it is not my problem if they are not insured.
I know what they are going through.
I was a Bushfire captain of Headquarters brigade in the days when we were called the "Bushfire Brigade"
I had brigades members that would turn up in bare feet to fight fires.
I have had my sons fighting fires in R.A.F.T teams (Remote Area Fire Teams)hundreds of miles away from their homes and their mothers and I have had one whole truck team perish on the Southern Highlands.
I know what they go through but I have also seen the likes of P Garrot start fires (accidentally) and expect others to fight them for him and then expect government handouts "to tide them over"
Public payout needs to be targeted and policed.

Jayb I find your suggestion interesting and unrealistic.
Tell me did you support the greens propping up the ALP government.
Did you like the lower house being in the hands of independents.
Can you tell me this, are you aware of the deals that have to be part of any agreement between a government and the minor party,s if those party,s have the balance of power.
What if we, like so many country,s bought about bargaining between differing side to form governments?
Say extremes from both sides to get any thing past the upper house.
Last, probably not important to you, but a basic requirement for those who voted for both sides, why give major power to minor party,s ever.
Rest assured jayb most by a big margin do not share that view of yours, and never will.
[it should be noted others have made claim jayb is a member of an extremist group]
Too that some have reason to want to harm our democratic system.

I think all of us can benefit by reading both my post and jayb, see we see often, requests for more small party representation in our government.
I think I am on solid ground saying most do not agree.
My first reaction having forgotten claims if jayb very radical links, was does he know just how much his wish would threaten good government.
Then it came back from an extremist group that out come, less secure government, is a wanted out come.
The thread never quite made it.
I thought we would see both sides look more deeply at the implications of next 12 months and a senate that most, in my view, would think is worse for small party,s like the mad hatters motorist party millions of our dollars and wages of $200.000 a year to? be a pain in the bottom and challenge the very basic of democracys, do the bidding of the most.