That mod con description is the nicest version of "fuck u I've got mine" I've ever read :laugh:

I think the liberals are gonna get smashed in the WA election

The persona you most resemble is:


Disillusioned Pessimist

Disillusioned Pessimists despair about the direction of society and our country. They feel pessimistic about the future and let down by the community. Careful with money, they may not have much to spend but nor are they campaigning for more wealth redistribution either. They are generally supportive of climate action but wary of opening Australia's doors too wide when it comes to trade and immigration. When it comes to government, they err on the side of personal responsibility over government intervention.

I also align slightly with activist egalitarian and anti-establishment firebrand. Essentially if I wasn't so miserable, demotivated and depressed I'd be a protestor.

So now Mal cuts the Gold Pass lol, is this some kind of emergency poll booster?

-PB

Damned if you damned if you don't.  Don't cut the gold pass, you're feeding parliamentary entitlements, cut the gold pass, you're enacting an emergency poll booster.

Damned either way.

The Gold Pass is the first step. Why can' pollies pay super like the rest of us plebs? F*ck their lifetime pension.

I think it is more an incredibly clever political move by old Mal.  If the rumblings are correct and many in the party want him out, it will now look like they have thrown a tantrum and removed him because he has taken their benefits.  It would look like an incredibly vindictive move by the party and would not look good in the eyes of the public.

If you keep telling yourself your depressed etc and have to tell strangers on the internet all about your self-hate to alleviate your pessimism you'll never get over it. Stop listening to the inner bitch and prove yourself wrong 

Might also give him a poll boost, which could be reasons for the party rumblings too.

I'm happy with the decision either way, but can't see it stopping the Libs from knifing him in the back sometime this year lol

-PB

Credit where credit is due. It's a great decision that is long overdue.

It's a cover when really we (as a country) pay millions in inflated pensions for politicians who no longer serve the country.

Mal has covered 5% of a deeper issue.

Pollies get super like everyone else now. We still pay $40 million a year to older pollies but that will go down with attrition.

So they get super and a pension? Who was it getting up mothers for double dipping last year?

The pension scheme was scrapped in 2004, any politician that started after that date is on a super scheme. Anyone else is on a pension. I don't believe there's any double dipping but happy to be corrected.

Still lots of other perks that need to be reined in but it'd probably have to be accompanied by a pay rise which makes people's blood boil :laugh:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-08/turnbull-and-shorten-trade-barbs-during-question-time/8252540

A palpable hit!

Hmm... see where misconceptions get me. The way the media talk, politicians get a pension as well as super. I stand corrected.

Politicians claiming living away from home allowances is a joke. The job is in Canberra. If you don't want to relocate for work, don't take the job. Hockey is one who comes to mind. Claims living expenses to live in his wifes house in Canberra doesn't he?

Fark you yabber on.  Their workplace is their constituency.  IE Where they were elected.  

Here's a tip.  It's not Canberra.

Canberra is a place they attend only 8 to 10 weeks a year.   And not in one block either.  A living away from home allowance is justifiable.  (Mind you there are bits of that which could be tightened up.)

It's like you getting sent away for work 1 week a month for a year and your company expecting you to pick up the bill.  How happy would you be if that were the case?

For a bloke who seems so absolutely damn sure on everything you post about maybe you should do a little research before you mouth off every 5 minutes. 

What's with the personal attacks?

I mentioned Joe Hockey claiming an allowance for one of his wives properties in Canberra. To correct myself it's only part (a major part) owned by his wife. He claimed $108000 to spend 368 nights there in 4 years which averages to 13 weeks per year during his 4 year term. That's just 1 of many politicians. $27,000 in just accommodation expenses per year is huge amount.

But that's all good right?

Yeah I'm not sure why the animosity? Some living expenses are fair while they're in Canberra but they're far too generous.

I'm happy to be wrong as you pointed out to me re. the super but sheesh, someone's having a bad day.

I wonder what the total travel expenses bill for federal politicians is each year. They would fly business class at least for sure. The total cost would probably make my eyes water.

I can read what you wrote cobber. it's all there in the post above. You said "politicians'. That's 'politicians' plural. You're not talking about Joe Hockey, you're talking about all politicians.

As I said Canberra is not their workplace and they're entitled to an allowance when working away from home. They are running the country after all and not a chook raffle at the local RSL club.

I'm currently working away from home, I get an allowance for accommodation, an allowance for 3 meals and a per diem. It's north of $300 a day. Presumably, based on your logic above, you'd be against me receiving that allowance.

If you really want to know the reason for the animosity is you sound like a squawking one nation, right wing, talk-back radio caller that sees all issues (see any post by you in the last dozen pages) in nothing but black or white.. There's no greys or nuances.

For someone who is all of 26 or 27 years of age you seem rather sure of yourself.  To paraphrase Betrand Russell "the intelligent are full of doubt, the ignorant are cocksure".

Cappucino is 100% right.

My post was poorly written I will concede but your reaction is childish and pathetic. It bemuses me how people form such firm backstories for people they do not know. You might as well join Murdoch's Rags in paraphrasing people to suit some sort of narrative.

FWIW Pauline Hanson is a racist disgrace with terrible communication skills.

So what about Joe Hockey? Nothing to say?

Having worked away from home yes, accommodation and some meals were paid for. However, even if you half Joe Hockeys' average spend over 4 years and apply it to the rest, it's a significant amount of money claimed in a single area only. I am curious to know how many luxury items and bottles of wine the tax payer forks out for.

What does 'running the country' have to do with it? One could argue that they're doing a terrible job of that too.

I have been a contractor for government departments. I'm sure over your career you have to and will agree when I say it sometimes feel like a competition to see how much money can be spent.

There are issues with energy security but no energy security? Yes that is false. I was referring to energy planning being done on the fly.
Nope definitely not the weather. As for NT, you build infrastructure for the climate, winds like that are not normal for SA. Well they never used to be.
I mentioned the Libs because of the article I linked. Clearly you didn't read it.

I'm not really interested in discussing state politics with you though. TBF after I read your comments in the discussion about the salary cap, I got the impression that you like to make opinions on gut feel rather than reading up on the facts. I've seen nothing to sway my opinion on that.

Oh sorry, you were hinting that it should be in this thread. OK sorry.

But as I was saying, how can you compare Adelaide storms with Darwin and why do they have better luck keeping the power on?

it's because you have a high percentage of intermittent power supply without adequate redundancy in the form of more reliable base load like Gas turbines and Coal.

The Weatherill Government made a big mistake in closing down power plants across the State and failed to plan adequately.

No one is saying you can't have Green Energy but relying on it to deliver all the time when the sun don't shine and when the wind isn't blowing is a major blunder. 

Also, having the mix you do has just made it immensely expensive for households and worse still business and that means less investment in SA and less jobs too. It's an ideologically driven (by the Greens) Energy policy which isn't doing anything for the environment either. 

I have drilled a few sites for these types of transmission lines. 

As laughable as it is that people in a position of power blame the blackouts on the use of renewable energy, those transmission lines should have been designed for a worst case wind rating (i.e cyclonic) given the importance of the structures.  

We drilled 3 in central QLD with a very low wind rating and had to percussion drill the foundations in because they designed them like they would similar structures in Cairns or Darwin. I assume the lines that went down in SA were old and maybe not so robustly designed. 

At this stage in our development no we don't have the infrastructure to be 100% renewable. We need to be between 30 and 50% renewable within a decade though. 

In the tropics, they build street gutters 2 to 3 times higher than they do here in SA. Why's that? Because they build infrastructure that's suitable for the climate. Why spend more on towers to withstand 150km/h winds when they're incredibly rare (well used to). If you actually had read anything from a credible source, you'd understand why the power was shut down and it had absolutely nothing to do with renewables.

The rest of what you've written is false. We have gas turbines and had enough capacity to ensure there was no any need for rolling outages. It just wasn't switched on. If this is a topic that genuinely interests you and not just "hurr hurr stupid lefties" then perhaps read these two articles:
https://theconversation.com/why-did-energy-regulators-deliberately-turn-out-the-lights-in-south-australia-72729
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/11/hard-facts-unmask-the-fiction-behind-coalitions-coal-comeback

Also your statement re:NSW in the other thread is also false. Rather than power shedding residential homes, they instructed the aluminium smelter to drop its production.

But conversation and guardian are stupid lefty pages

-PB

I know you're being facetious but I'd love to see those that genuinely use that argument actually point out where article is wrong and provide an alternative credible source. 

Was actually sarcasm but ok.

-PB