https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australians-on-trump-dumb-dangerous-and-dishonest-20250610-p5m65k.html

The early warning signs are right here in para 1:

Australians have some of the most critical attitudes towards US President Donald Trump and his administration among the world’s voters, with an international survey revealing most people find him arrogant, dangerous and a threat to the global economy.

"Some of"? Not good enough! We should be on top of the podium here!

Only voters in Sweden have stronger anti-Trump views than Australians

Sweden? We lost our podium top step to Abba? Not good enuf, Straya!

This year, 71 per cent of Australians surveyed by Pew had an unfavourable opinion of the United States, compared with 60 per cent in 2024. Only Swedes had a higher unfavourable rating of the US, at 79 per cent,

Wot, beaten again by the Swedes? Appalling.

Australians have little confidence in Trump as a world leader, with 77 per cent saying they had none or very little in the president

Ample room for improvement here. For a start, no lobotomised peeps should be counted in the survey. The very idea that 23% somehow don't think badly of the idiot... incomprehensible!

Mexico (91 per cent), Sweden (85), Germany (81), Turkey (80) and France (78) were the only nations with even less confidence in Trump than Australia.

Oh now this is simply too painful to endure... displaced completely off the podium altogether. The ignominy!

More than 70 per cent of Australians said democracy in the US worked somewhat or poorly, the second-highest level of any nation.

Curses, only Silver again!

On personal characteristics, Australians were stridently negative towards the president. He was named as arrogant by 91 per cent of voters, dangerous by 81 per cent and honest by just 18 per cent.

Why aren't these each 100%, or even more!!!

Across all key issues, just people in Spain, Sweden, Turkey and Mexico had a more negative outlook on the Trump presidency than Australia.

How can we withstand this repeated global humiliation? Why were we eclipsed here? We should round up all yaysayers & deport them to some failed tinpot dictatorship. Say, i know...

#AusPol #HahahahaLiebs #WhyIsLabor #NatsAreNuts #ClimateCrisis #WeAreTotallyFscked #GreensYeah #TuckFrump #WhyMerkaWhy #USPol #OrangeOaf #FuckRWNJs #fuckALLreligion

Australians on Trump: dumb, dangerous and dishonest

A global survey shows Australians have some of the most negative attitudes in the world towards the US president.

The Sydney Morning Herald

Sydney Morning Herald - Latest News

AUKUS in doubt as US starts review into whether the deal is ‘America First’

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/aukus-in-doubt-as-us-starts-review-into-whether-the-deal-is-america-first-20250612-p5m6rn.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feed

Well butter me sideways & call me toast, this ranks right up there in the "well, duh" stakes. In the wee small hours heard snippet of Murray Watt bloviating that all is well, & i would say that i can't wait to hear Marles desperately spinning on this except i always turn the sound off if ever that waste of space is interviewed.

IMO the most pressing question is... once orangeoaf & co officially [inevitably] kill this, & also predictably refuse to return our money, will our first wave of our invasion of Merka be the elite Emu Squad, or do we hold them back til a little later in the battle?

#AusPol #HahahahaLiebs #WhyIsLabor #NatsAreNuts #ClimateCrisis #WeAreTotallyFscked #GreensYeah #TuckFrump #WhyMerkaWhy #USPol #OrangeOaf #FuckRWNJs #fuckALLreligion #aukus

AUKUS in doubt as US starts review into whether the deal is ‘America First’

The snap review comes just days before Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and President Donald Trump attend a world leaders’ meeting in Canada.

The Sydney Morning Herald
Labor MP Jerome Laxale pushes to force climate considerations into environment laws

The Albanese government is facing pressure from its backbench to move quickly on sweeping changes to environment laws after a contentious gas project was granted provisional approval.

ABC News
As the planet warms and liberal democracy is attacked, does the government care?

Fossil fuels are warming the planet. Liberal democracy is under attack. Does Australia's government understand what's happening? 

ABC News

This bloke seems entirely unaware of the seismic demographic changes extant, & the consequent political irrelevance now of the Liebs. There is simply NO need to keep kowtowing to them, nor appease them, nor even work with them. They have made their bed, & can simply enjoy the pleasantries of lying in their own shit & piss. Historical references to & comparisons with Keating's era are illegitimate, care of said demographics & consequent historically low primary votes [trending down ofc, not a once-off result]. I feel quite astonished at this preposterous article.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/chalmers-has-earned-the-right-to-snub-the-coalition-but-here-s-why-he-shouldn-t-20250604-p5m51r.html

QUOTE

Opinion | Chalmers has earned the right to snub the Coalition, but here’s why he shouldn’t

Jim Chalmers slammed the door shut this week on doing a deal with the Coalition on tax changes to superannuation. The treasurer is perfectly entitled to thumb his nose at the opposition. Labor first announced these tax changes last term, the government took them to the election, and it then secured a thumping majority on May 3. But Chalmers is making a mistake.

The much-depleted Coalition has not yet decided whether it plans to be constructive, in a legislative sense, in this second term on the opposition benches, or whether it will continue with the monomaniacal impulse to say “no” to most proposals.

Chalmers could not agree to the Coalition’s twin requests – that the tax change be indexed so that over time the impost does not affect more than the initial estimate of 80,000 people and second, that the tax would not apply to unrealised capital gains (such as a family farm or an expensive artwork) held by an individual’s self-managed super fund.

Instead, the treasurer has chosen to negotiate with the Greens, who also want tweaks, but who are much more likely to eventually pass the tax in its original form.

So, notwithstanding the huffing and puffing from the opposition and some in the more conservative sections of the media, this debate is likely to end up with Chalmers getting his way and securing the new tax – which raises the tax rate to 30 per cent on superannuation balances over $3 million – in its unamended form.

The treasurer’s mistake is not so much in not compromising on the detail with the Coalition (arguments can be made for and against the proposed changes). Rather, it’s in the signal sent to the Coalition about how he intends to negotiate in the coming term of parliament.

Chalmers’ PhD, Brawler Statesman, was written about Labor’s legendary former treasurer and prime minister, Paul Keating, and how the one-time member for Blaxland implemented and then bedded down ambitious and necessary economic reform over more than a decade.

Keating’s record of reform (backed by Bob Hawke) is part of political folklore now – he floated the Australian dollar, opened up the economy, reduced tariffs, welcomed foreign banks, privatised major government-owned companies such as Qantas and more.

Chalmers should remember that his political hero got some of his biggest early reforms done by working with the opposition – including then-deputy opposition leader John Howard – to ensure a political consensus, which then had the flow-on effect of ensuring they would not be unpicked by a future Coalition government.

Chalmers and Anthony Albanese frequently argue they have an ambitious reform agenda, and they’ve already made big changes to the economy.

That is an overstatement, though they deserve full marks for taking a political risk and altering Scott Morrison’s stage 3 tax cuts last term – their bravest moment was also one of their best.

These super changes are not earth-shattering, though in 30 years time the number of people with a balance over $3 million will grow to an estimated 1.2 million people. And after a stunning election win, Labor can – in its second term – afford to be more ambitious and to go beyond its policy program.

But the only way that this can be achieved is to seek bipartisan consensus from the opposition on bolder changes such as a reduction in the company tax rate, winding back the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount or even winding back the diesel fuel tax rebate which, according to the Australia Institute, cost the budget an estimated $10.2 billion in 2024-25, including $4.8 billion for the mining industry and $1.4 billion for the coal industry.

Thirteen years ago, in her Quarterly Essay, Great Expectations, Laura Tingle observed that Australians’ “expectations of what government will do have seemed to grow over the years”, even as politicians’ willingness to have honest conversations about how to pay for improved services has declined.

At the same time, Australians’ willingness to pay additional tax to fund these services has also diminished. But we do not have a right to expect an ever expanding, European-style welfare state with strong social programs while simultaneously desiring an American-style tax system. We can’t have it both ways.

To increase defence spending, to maintain NDIS funding at current levels, to increase bulk-billing rates and introduce universal childcare something has to give, a point Chalmers made himself on the ABC’s 7.30 program, when he noted “we need to make the budget more sustainable over time”.

This challenge to make the budget more sustainable – and to explain to Australians that some more ambitious tax changes may be needed to structurally reform the budget – lies at the heart of the challenge facing Albanese, Chalmers and Labor in the second term.

Which brings us back to superannuation. If Chalmers wants to be remembered as a reforming treasurer he needs to work with the Coalition at least sometimes.

On super, by refusing to cede a little ground to the Coalition and forego some revenue, Chalmers has missed an opportunity to send a clear, early signal that he will pursue budget reform from the political centre.

Taking that path offers a political dividend too, as it would entrench Labor as a centrist and magnanimous government and in so doing marginalise the Coalition a little more and help bed down Labor as the natural party of government.

The 48th parliament has yet to meet. There remains a window of opportunity for Chalmers and Labor to reach across the aisle. There may well be a deal to be done that trades company tax cuts for a winding back of the diesel fuel rebate, for example, or reduces the capital gains tax discount in exchange for something else.

It’s now up to the treasurer to meet the moment.

  • James Massola is chief political commentator.

UNQUOTE

You silly silly boy, James 🙄🤦‍♀️

#AusPol #HahahahaLiebs #WhyIsLabor #NatsAreNuts #ClimateCrisis #WeAreTotallyFscked #GreensYeah

Chalmers has earned the right to snub the Coalition, but here’s why he shouldn’t

If Jim Chalmers wants to be remembered as a reforming treasurer he needs to sometimes work with the Coalition. That should start now.

The Sydney Morning Herald
Death spiral of gas networks is the “500lb gorilla” standing in way of energy transition. Here’s a solution

“We’re living in a state of denial.” Former regulator says no one has come up with a solution for the “death spiral for gas networks, so he has a suggestion.

RenewEconomy

important.

The public funding produces considerable complacency, and not a little failure of accountability to members.

Some years ago, a legal action against Pauline Hanson followed state Electoral Office allegations that she was running a pseudo-political party she entirely controlled, designed to milk into her own pocket, the public funding coming from the votes she was gathering.

The premise is that parties were democratic structures, subject to the law, accountable to party memberships, receiving grants which should be directed towards the party's interests.

One must wonder whether the major parties could live up to such requirements.

This is not a worry that funds are diverted to improper purposes. It is, instead a concern that the money is spent without any serious regard to supposedly democratic and accountable membership structure.

The members, simply, have no say at all. Those who demanded some right to participate in what was done would be quickly shoved out of the way.

Insiders, indeed, refer to parties as "brands", not as organic organisations subject to deliberately difficult processes of making decisions, allowing a maximum of participation, if with a system of battening down the hatches once binding decisions are arrived at.

The increasing lack of relevance and respect accorded to party membership, or democracy within parties, fits into a general pattern of less and less public participation in much community activity.

Most could be forgiven for giving up involvement. Monthly party meetings at 8.30pm in the public library are a deadly bore, especially to the young or people leading busy lives.

The pattern of participation was set in about 1890 and much has changed in society since.

Oddly, all the modern technology and the internet ought to be improving communication and participation.

But it isn't, and sporting clubs and cultural organisations suffer as much as political parties.

Some subjects which can attract the passions - the environment, the need for action on climate change, events in the Middle East and education for example. Matters may mobilise people, not into party branches but on to the streets. It is vital that parties adapt.

But the sad thing is that most of the major parties are not very interested in broadening their bases, increasing their memberships, or having debates about what ought to be done.

They might, in theory, agree on the need for it, but the idea of more consultation, more debate, more open government excites no enthusiasm whatever, from the prime minister down.

They do not see it as in their real interest. They are probably right, because a good many representatives would not be in Parliament were their work to be subject to better public scrutiny.

But it is not merely a matter of whether politicians can shelter themselves from the public.

A crisis of legitimacy and authority is involved. Government is getting more difficult. Many voters have turned off.

They are scathing of politicians and deeply cynical about their honesty and motives. Australia is by no means as far down this path as the United States, but Trump is a warning of what happens when people decide that conventional politics doesn't work.

UNQUOTE

#AusPol #HahahahaLiebs #WhyIsLabor #NatsAreNuts #ClimateCrisis #WeAreTotallyFscked #GreensYeah #WomensRights #WomensRepresentation 2/2

The Bradfield booth that swung it for the teals and how the Liberals’ lead slipped away

It was one of the tightest races in electoral history, and analysis of Bradfield votes shows how and when it was won for teal Nicolette Boele.

The Sydney Morning Herald

Yeah, well, she's a specialist & i'm not, but i feel far more pessimistic than apparently she does.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/06/06/climate-litigation-activist-lawfare-woodside-santos-court/

QUOTE BEGINS

Last week, Australia’s top oil and gas executives gathered at the Australian Energy Producers conference to sound the alarm on the rise of so-called “activist lawfare”. Speaking at a session titled “From Placards to Plaintiffs” — of which Crikey obtained a recording — panellists including Santos’ Kevin Gallagher and Woodside’s Meg O’Neill rattled off a list of reasons why public-interest climate litigation is a scandalous threat.

Woven through their arguments were narrative tactics aimed at delegitimising communities that seek to uphold the law in court, casting them either as nefarious, sophisticated operatives with “legal budgets a lot of the big firms here represented today wouldn’t even rival”, or unserious, infantile activists with “ideological” legal strategies — claims that are hard to reconcile.

The conference’s “lawfare” session is part of a broader push from the resources sector to shut down the growing wave of community climate litigation — a playbook honed in the 1990s with attempts to undermine the courts amid the landmark Mabo and Wik decisions.

This year, multibillion-dollar gas giant Santos, represented by the US firm Quinn Emanuel — the “most feared law firm in the world”, according to its website — recently aggressively pursued the Environmental Defenders Office and four civil society organisations that had expressed support for traditional owner Simon Munkara’s unsuccessful case against them.

To the applause of the gas industry, the new Northern Territory government recently removed the power of courts to review government decisions made under petroleum, planning and water laws (called third-party merits reviews) — a critical way communities can use the courts to ensure environmental decisions made by politicians comply with the law.

Similar changes are popping up at the federal and state levels. Conservative media pundits have provided a steady drumbeat of anti-“lawfare” rhetoric throughout, with commentary in The Australian last week calling on governments to “fix” the issue of pesky legal accountability. These narratives and legal tactics come from a global gas industry playbook designed to lock in the industry’s profitability, despite the unequivocal scientific evidence that gas pollution is driving radical climate harm.

Demonising public participation in the courts is a dangerous path. Holding the powerful accountable to the law is a basic tenet of liberal democracy. Undermining the courts by attacking the moral legitimacy of public interest litigation or limiting judicial oversight can have catastrophic long-term impacts. One cursory glance at the US is enough to remind us that communities must have access to a trusted democratic backstop.

What’s conveniently left out of “lawfare” accusations is the agency and grassroots credentials of plaintiffs. The word “activist” is used as a smear, evoking images of inner-city blow-ins enacting a woke agenda, detached from the wishes of real locals. In reality, it is the communities directly impacted by climate-polluting developments that are typically bringing litigation.

Take Mardathoonera woman and traditional custodian Raelene Cooper, who has been striving to protect the ancient Murujuga rock art, comprising more than 1 million ancient rock engravings that are eight times older than the pyramids. Pollutants from Woodside’s North West Shelf are threatening the sacred site, and the federal government has failed to process her cultural heritage application for more than three years.

Or take the group of NSW farmers who have just this week filed a challenge to Santos’ 50km Narrabri gas pipeline, which risks damaging vital rivers and aquifers — clean water sources they are dependent on. Litigation is an adversarial and taxing task, but how else can people assert their legal rights when governments fail to uphold or enforce the law against powerful corporations?

Missing from these narratives is also an acknowledgement of the robust mechanisms courts have in place to dismiss dodgy cases. “Lawfare” arguments imply that companies are being vexatiously bombarded by nonsense cases. But it is for a court to decide if a case has merit, not senior executives of gas companies. In fact, for a case to make it to a hearing, the court must judge it as having legal merit.

The fossil fuel industry is terrified of the accountability that litigation brings. Courts have the power to cut straight through the protective padding of PR spin and bring discussion into the realm of facts, and make orders on this basis. The gas industry has recently found this out the hard way via a wave of greenwashing litigation that challenges its deflect, distract, obfuscate strategy.

Last month, in response to a case brought by concerned parents, Energy Australia was forced to publicly apologise to 40,000 customers and admit carbon offsets do not neutralise the damage of fossil fuels. At the same time, Santos shareholders have been in court to challenge the company’s widely marketed “clear plan” to reach net zero by 2040 and claim that natural gas is “clean energy”, alleging they are “little more than a series of speculations”.

Some may remember the wave of community litigation that steered public discourse against the tobacco industry in the US. The tobacco industry’s attempt to spin its way out of the devastating health impacts of cigarettes was no match for the scrutiny of the courtroom. The oil, coal and gas industries have strategically ducked and weaved litigation for decades, but the law is catching up with them. They’re desperate to shut it down.

We must resist the self-interested calls of polluters to shut communities out of the courts. The alternative puts our democracy on a dangerous path.

  • Isabelle Reinecke is the executive director and founder of Grata Fund, a public-interest organisation that supports marginalised people and communities access the courts system. She is also the author of Courting Power: Democracy, Law and Public Interest in Australia (Monash).

QUOTE ENDS

#AusPol #WhyIsLabor #HahahahaLiebs #NatsAreNuts #OzElection2025 #ClimateCrisis #NonLinear #TippingPoints #PositiveFeedbackLoops #FossilFools #RenewableEnergy #ChangeTheSystem #StateCapture #RightToProtest #Biodiversity #WeAreTotallyFscked #Misanthropy #Karma #NativeForests #StopLoggingNativeForests #FsckCapitalism #CognitiveDissonance

Climate litigation isn’t ‘activist lawfare’, it’s democracy at work

The oil, coal and gas industries have strategically ducked and weaved litigation for decades, but the law is catching up with them.

Crikey

@amonkeyinsilk The interview this morn by Sally Sara on RN Brekkie with the actual lead scientist of this report, rocked me. Hitherto i had believed that the awful WA Premier, & Elbow, had wilfully mislead the public over the report's conclusions, but this morn the bloke himself said, plainly, unambiguously, that the local air quality is good, the current damage is likely historical not contemporary, & they believe that the art & the industry can in fact safely coexist.

I felt devastated to hear this, not only coz til now i had believed that the pollies had lied, but also coz i trusted as truth what i was hearing & reading from the opponents.

Ofc, the project remains an abomination wrt its carbon bomb, nothing at all ameliorates nor forgives that crime... it's just that i had also believed that the art destruction was another reason to reject & condemn the project.

I am a staunch leftie greenie, but i still demand that "my" peeps tell the truth!

#AusPol #HahahahaLiebs #WhyIsLabor #NatsAreNuts #ClimateCrisis #WeAreTotallyFscked #GreensYeah #BiodiversityCrisis