We have issues of global magnitude pressing in on
Australia, namely the threat from China, the cost of living
pressure and how to live with COVID. This is a time
when authoritarianism poses as such a threat to the liberal
international order.

The election feels more like a competition of political
strategies rather than being a contest of ideas. It would come
as something of an upset if the 2022 Australian federal election
became a rousing advertisement for democracy.

One can only pray and hope that it will.

It is going to cost your grand daughter a lot more than that for personal mobility if you lot have your way. Surely you told her that she must get a battery electric car, not one of those dreadful ICE things that are destroying the planet. Aren't little 4 cylinder things antisocial according to you Greens.

The cheapest battery car I could find for her is an 11 year old Nissan LEAF, with over 100,000 on the clock for $13250, before government charges. At that age it will be due for a $20,000 battery replacement now, or very very shortly, so could be a bit of a money pit. The next cheapest one I found was a 2017 Nissan e-NV200. A bit of a people mover at $35,000. At least at that age, & with only 18,000 on the clock it should be cheap running for a while.

Don't you lot reckon every one should be walking or riding bikes, rather than driving planet wrecking ICE cars anyway? I guess you just might let her have a battery assisted bike, as a special indulgence as you are a green member, but that does look like nepotism doesn't it.

Do let us know what she thinks of Green policy when you tell her no cars for kids today.

Foxy
I think the journalists themselves should also be held to account.

They seem less interested in getting and reporting the facts than scoring points and seeking self-promotion, looking for those "gotcha" moments to create their own headlines.

What should be an exchange of ideas is just a meaningless circus based on spin and scandal and in the end we all pay the price.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

You wrote :

1 - « No matter which reptiles slither into government, it looks like they will be signing up to the globalisation of Covid control and regulation by the WHO. Another step towards loss of control by sovereign governments to World Government (UN) »
.

The control of pandemics is impossible without strong and effective international cooperation.

As a founding member of the UN in 1945, Australia is also a founding member of the World Health Organisation which was constituted in 1948.
The current version of the WHO International Health Regulations (IHR) came into force on 15 June 2007. They are binding on 196 countries across the globe, including the 194 WHO member states.

So far, 227 Countries and Territories around the world have reported a total of 525,220,844 confirmed cases of the Covid-19 pandemic, with a total reported death toll of 6,295,272.

Australia is not an isolated case that can be managed effectively by our own federal and state governments, with our own national resources or lack thereof. China and North Korea have attempted to do so with the catastrophic results that have resulted.

In my view, ttbn, the trade-off for Australians of (limited) loss of control of sovereignty – v – global covid protection, has been extremely positive. That is what we voluntarily signed up for back in 1948, and that is what the current generations are benefiting from – not just in Australia but worldwide, today.

I imagine any self-respecting conservative should be pleased with that – our ancestors had great foresight. At the end of the second world war, they knew the value of solidarity.
.

2 - « … the usual bozos rabbit on about the 'far right' and publications they automatically deem incorrect because they are 'conservative' »
.

Quite right, ttbn. Nothing wrong with conservatism – or progressivism, for that matter, either. The two extremes are the problem (far left and far right), the “ultras”, the systematically exaggerated one-sided view of things, the blindly simplistic point of view.

The natural world tends toward equilibrium.

.

G'day BP,

You wrote; " Nothing wrong with conservatism – or progressivism, for that matter, either. The two extremes are the problem (far left and far right), the “ultras”, the systematically exaggerated one-sided view of things, the blindly simplistic point of view."

I see the "ultras" as radical and they can only gain traction in society, when the social and political conditions are conducive. The radical under certain conditions becomes the normal.

Conservatism becomes a problem when it retards positive progressive development in a modern moderate society. I'm not saying progressive change should be accepted without rational debate and due consideration of the facts first taking place, but if there is no perceived impediments to change, and change is obviously for the good, then change should take place. Until its implementation change is always some risk, the risk of the yet unknown is real, but should not be the overriding reason to resist change.

What do you think?

.

Dear Paul1405,

.

I discovered recently that I tend to think along similar lines to those of the ancient Indian philosophers, the Jain philosophers. Though I do not employ the same terms as they did, the basic idea is very similar : there are two distinct categories of existence in nature – the evolutive and the static (as I express it).

According to the Jain philosophers, these two types of existence are constantly interacting with each other. They had no beginning and are eternal. As early as 520 BC, they considered that the universe and its constituents such as matter cannot be destroyed or created. They can only be transformed.

It is this philosophy that underlies my thoughts regarding the necessary coexistence of mankind’s progressivism (the evolutive) and conservatism (the static). In my mind, they correspond to the dual metaphysical building blocks of the natural world that are essential for its equilibrium.

.