I awoke the next day, picked up my iPad beside my bed and tuned into The Guardian. Dutton “believes in climate change,” declared the headline. If l believed my ears the night before, he had declared he didn’t.
“I don’t know because I’m not a scientist and can’t tell you whether the temperature has risen in [outback Queensland town] Thargomindah because of climate change or the water levels are up.”
Silly me, l took that to mean he didn’t believe in climate change; only scientists had enough facts to make it accurate. What strange logic, l thought to myself.
Nothing has ever stood in the way of science and technology. Its advancement phas been staggering. So why are the conservative political forces so opposed to it? When something is demonstrated, true beyond any doubt, don’t we generally believe it?
Science has opened my eyes to a multitude of truths. I’ve come to terms with the reality of AI, a notion that transports me back to late last year.
During that time, a striking video surfaced, capturing Nationals senator Matt Canavan candidly describing his party’s nuclear policy as nothing more than a “political fix.”
“With an air of resignation, he acknowledged that this approach is far from the most economical energy source.”
In an eye-opening podcast interview conducted in August, Senator Canavan expressed his candid views on his party’s stance regarding nuclear power as a remedy for soaring energy costs. He conveyed a striking sentiment, stating:
“Nuclear power is simply not the answer we need. We share in this oversight – we aren’t genuinely committed to exploring this option. We’re merely clinging to the notion of nuclear energy,”
He emphasised during his conversation with the National Conservative Institute podcast. His words painted a picture of a party grappling with its priorities, hesitant to embrace the bold solutions that the energy crisis demands.
He doesn’t know what he believes in, and his party is full of Luddites. Dutton has now made three clangers that will cloud over the balance of the campaign. Firstly, he wanted to sack 41,000 public servants; secondly, he admitted he made a mistake in the rush to comment on reports that Russian planes may be based in Indonesia. Thirdly, his prevarication about climate change left everyone stunned.
If you were daring, you could add another mistake: the Coalition’s promised tax break for food and entertainment expenses, saying “bosses’ long lunches” would be subsidised by the Coalition’s reversal of Labor’s surprise budget tax cut.
These were three or four monumental missteps by a man vying for the esteemed role of Prime Minister of Australia. With each blunder, my trust in him eroded, leaving me feeling as if I couldn’t rely on him more than I could launch him into the sky with a mighty throw. And believe me, that’s quite a hefty toss!
Let’s return to the campaign. Peter Dutton and his allies are woefully unprepared to take the reins of government. I’m still grappling with the tumultuous decade we endured, a chapter that mercifully closed just three years ago. Three years into the aftermath of that chaotic era, they still can’t provide us with any concrete plans or proposals. Let alone the details.
One of my fascinations in this campaign is the governance of the LNP during its last term never gets a mention. An age of perpetual crisis. Do Labor not see the treasure trove of blunders they could use against Dutton, starting with Robodebt?
The recent ABC leaders’ debate was intended to be a pivotal moment, a chance for voters to discern who could project the gravitas of a prime minister. Instead, it seems like a display to determine whether Peter Dutton could ever embody the essence of a credible leader, but doubts linger.
We are now halfway into the campaign, and it has revealed an opposition leader still trying to convince those voters who feel worse off that they would fair better under him. Conversely, the Prime Minister could not answer all the questions about actions that might improve their lot.
Albanese’s more substantial leadership presence, particularly in dealing with an increasingly uncertain international environment, is reassuring. It contrasts with Dutton’s less Prime Ministerial demeanour and lack of popularity. Another Abbott?
He must urgently address the glaring gaps in his policies to stand any chance of besting Albanese. During the ABC debate, after 13 long years, he and his party are still wavering on the fundamental question: Does climate change actually exist?
Dutton’s proposed cuts to the public service have been met with disbelief, but rumours still exist that he will go ahead with them if he gains government.
When confronted about Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, he sidestepped the issues, claiming unfamiliarity with both leaders. Adding to the disarray, he had to concede a blunder when discussing reports of Chinese intentions to station military aircraft in Indonesia.
Such half-hearted performances are hardly the electrifying moments that would draw unsure voters to the polling booths in droves.
He found himself at a loss when articulating how he might navigate the economy more effectively than the Labor Party, unable to outline a credible strategy to combat inflation or reduce interest rates.
In stark contrast, the Prime Minister exuded a sense of optimism about the nation’s economic future. With a glimmer of hope, he highlighted a range of encouraging economic indicators – declining inflation, rising real wages, falling unemployment, and stabilising interest rates. Yet, he recognised that substantial challenges remained on the horizon despite these positive trends.
Neither leader could claim a victory of monumental proportions. Albanese did what he had to do, but no more. Dutton didn’t. Speers did all he could, forcing answers where possible and moving on when he couldn’t.
More thoughts:
1 I’m baffled by Dutton’s incompetence but scared he might win.
2 Many punters would have taken the extra three days over Easter and Anzac Day, giving them 10 days away from the campaign.
3 A draw is a loss for the LNP.
4 Dutton has had many offers for climate change briefings. He should take up as many as possible.
5 13 Days left for voting.
6 Whoever thought of Dutton’s son campaigning with his dad. He was doing it hard trying to save up for a deposit on a house without consulting “The bank of Mum and Dad.”
7 Negative gearing will be demolished in Labor’s next term. Now costing as much as “The pension.”
8 Channel 9 will host the third debate on Tuesday night, just hours after early voting begins.
10 Coalition appears to be losing support, but the latest Essential poll shows 47% of voters on the fence, making the final 12 days crucial.
My thought for the day
How can one man hold the future of the planet in his hand while the remaining leaders kowtow to him?
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites like The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Mr. Peter- ex policeman -Dutton has never done any one thing to distinguish himself as a potential leader. In fact his past racist and denials of Aborigine history and persecution is just the same as his being anti – everything and blocking anything progressive the Labor Party put forward to improve lives of Australians. He is the last person I would want to be in control. A Trump “Wannabe”.
Dutton sees himself as the underdog and seems to think that this race should be handicapped much as the Stawell Gift was handicapped so that the favourites don’t get a look in.
It seems that we are about to be inundated with an avalanche of policy data and costings from the coalition within the next few days – they have held out to the last possible moment, insulting our intelligence. We are just ten days out from the election and we have a mere outline of their nuclear plan with vague costings and timelines and we have yet to see their defence policy and all of their other budget costings and their cuts.
The coalition including SKY and Newscorp seem to expect Dutton to do a Steve Bradbury and come through the pack and take the gold at the last minute.
A third Leaders Debate tonight …..yawn !
I’m expecting that the usual Merdedung suspects will say that P Duddy won the debate ’cause he is just so great and triffic. In the real world Albo will be the winner.
Terry,
I don’t see much change from Duddy and the Duddettes policy (snort, snigger) wise just an increase in cries of crime…Crime…CRIME and how they’ll stamp out the crime…Crime…etc.
I don’t watch much legacy media these days. But my impression, just going by a few media visuals, is that TPTB want Labor returned. Most clips of Albo are aimed at showing the public a Mr Smiley, your friend. Here Joe and Jill, here’s a discount for your next electricity bill. No, it’s not a bribe, we are generous with other peoples money, that’s all, no need to be cynical.
Dutton is used as a wedge-distractio to draw a few more concessions out of Labor so to keep the sponsors of media happy.
Not a criticism, but be thankful for search engines, for the usage of acronyms, whilst comprehensible for the poster, (who otherwise wouldn’t have used them), aren’t always within the cognitive remit of the readers.
Without immediate access to Google, the meaning of TPTB would remain a mystery.
As a somewhat seasoned scribbler who was once paid handsomely to proofread and error check English language documents generated by speakers of English as a second language, one of the tips I picked up on was that if acronyms are going to be used, then the first reference ought to be spelt out as a basic courtesy to the readers. Subsequent references in acronymic form were then perfectly acceptable.
Uhm …. John Lord ….. Surely you have overlooked at least two (2) other Boofhead Duddo disasters:
1) Sacking 41,000 (at least) Commonwealth Public Servants;
.
2) Proposed introduction of the Indue Debit Card restricting ALL Centrelink payments leaving only about 20% for free spending; to the benefit of a now corporatised entity allegedly composed of NOtional$ supporters for a mere $12,000 per pensioner per year;
.
The disastrous Campbell Newman Queensland NLP misgovernment did this and nearly destroyed the QPS for nothing more that ideological reasons of a few FRWNJs with more money than community values.
The Indue Card was trialled in NT with Aboriginal government payments and was generally resented. Why should adult Australian at the end of their careers and wanting to enjoy hard earned retirement, have any government censoring their spending on anything, be it overseas travel, classic cars or medical expenses?
Being the toy bully boy for the billionaire club may boost his ego, but Australian voters generally dislike bullies, who are best taken down several notches at every opportunity.
Canguro, in a bit of a rush and assumed TPTB was a common enough acronym.
TPTONB, ‘the powers that ought not be’ is probably more accurate?
New England Cocky. I honestly thought the 41,000 had been withdrawn as a policy. My apologies.
John
Like all of Dutton’s brainfarts parading as policies he tells lies and muddies the waters to cause confusion. He had said that the sacking of 41,000 public servants was a mistake and they would go by natural attrition rather than sackings.
But yesterday in Hobart he was pinned down by a reporter and this was the exchange :
REPORTER: You have a policy of reducing the public service by 41,000…
DUTTON: …in Canberra… We’re not reducing the public service – [in Tasmania ]
REPORTER: Only in Canberra?
DUTTON: We’ve been clear about that from day one.
REPORTER: Are you still banking the costing on that Mr Dutton? [i.e. the savings]
DUTTON: Yes we are.
MP Andrew Leigh (federal Member for Fenner in the ACT) noted that the commitment was “utterly insane”.
“This plan isn’t just ideological craziness, it’s also mathematical innumeracy. There’s no way in which the numbers stack up to make this happen on voluntary attrition.
“You would have to close the head offices of 12 departments — Agriculture, Attorney Generals, Climate Change, Defence, Education, Finance, Foreign Affairs, Health, Home Affairs, Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs — in order to get anywhere close to the 41,000 job cuts that Peter Dutton is talking about.”
Mr Leigh said he believed the Coalition would end up “breaking their promises and making savage cuts to the public service”, then filling the roles with consultants and contractors.
Business as normal !
Consultants and contractors end up costing more than full-time public servants. It’s not a policy tht is capable of reducing governments spending.