Nice to see activists who spend a lifetime staging secondary boycotts and trashing corporations operating within the law get stopped by the courts. Go Adani!
Nice to see activists who spend a lifetime staging secondary boycotts and trashing corporations operating within the law get stopped by the courts. Go Adani!
Poor old Queensland Premier Anastasia Palaszczuk. How could the CFMEU abandon the left wing faction of the Labor Party?
Here is what CFMEU construction division secretary Michael Ravbar had to say:
“The leadership vacuum in the left has seen a once powerful voice for working Queenslanders atrophy to the point where today it is little more than a creche for party hacks…In the process, the faction has become little more than a protection racket for dud members such as Jackie Trad, who as former deputy premier bears much of the blame for the failure to look after workers’ interests even on major public projects such as Cross River Rail…”
Isn’t it funny how the new party of the workers now lies with conservative governments and progressives with the urban elites?
In the CFMEU’s case, it is a reality that the party has left them, not the other way around.
Flipping through the latest RBA Chart Pack, it is no surprise that business investment keeps sliding off a cliff. As a % of GDP, it has slid from a peak of 18% off the short-term trough of 14% (GFC) to 11%, which now puts it at 1994 levels. It proves the old adage that businesses don’t invest because interest rates are low, they invest because they have confidence in the cycle.
Our government should be looking at this with alarm bells. It doesn’t take too much imagination to work out that political instability has played its part.
Australia was once regarded as the vanguard of political stability in the region which made it a sensible investment choice for domestic and international investors as a place to do business. There was a comfort in knowing that there wouldn’t be revolving door prime ministers and flip flops on policy positions. After all, much business investment takes years to get to the production stage.
The Howard years saw our business investment surge. Sensible fiscal policy was a feature too. While Rudd can be forgiven for GFC causing a slump in business investment it resumed until political instability put the mocker on business confidence.
We have been running deficits ever since and cranking up the national debt (we wrote about it here) because it is clear we don’t have sensible free-market conditions to self sustain direct investment at anywhere the levels we need.
Instead, we kowtow to radical activists who try to stop investment in projects like Adani and conduct illegal secondary boycotts on businesses like Greyhound Australia and Siemens without repercussions.
Whether coal is evil or not is irrelevant. The problem is such activism, which is further supported by ideologically corrupted government environmental departments – that push their own agenda on granting approvals – doesn’t endear domestic industries or foreigners to invest in us. These are dangerous precedents. All of this tokenism when we only need look at the realities of what will happen down the line.
Don’t take our word for it. Even our domestic businesses are leaving.
Thanks to Australia’s ridiculous energy prices, Aussie company Bluescope confirmed the expansion of capacity in Ohio. In Feb 2019, the company CEO said, “much cheaper energy in the United States is a major driver of the company’s preparedness to invest in a $1 billion expansion in Ohio.”
In 2017, Tomago Aluminium reported, “We have to grow to be competitive and to be ahead of the curve, but when the spot price went to $14,000 [per megawatt hour] we had to take that load off. It’s just not sustainable. You can’t smelt at that price. We have had to curtail or modulate the load [on occasions] or we get hammered by the price…We cannot continue to keep paying those prices. We have to find a solution. The prices are crippling”
Unfortunately, 28 years of unfettered economic expansion has made us complacent. We think this economical miracle has no off-ramp.
None of this is remotely surprising.
Can we honestly say that the impact of higher electricity prices hasn’t been a factor in pushing away investment in engineering and manufacturing? So this mad push for renewables will not alleviate this pressure. Germany is the perfect beta-test crash dummy. It predicted flat prices. They doubled from those forecasts.
Yet our political class is playing with fire.
We never thought Australia was realistically going to have a surplus when it was announced. Secretly there must be a sigh of relief in Treasury that the impacts of the bushfires and coronavirus will provide a convenient scapegoat to miss those targets under the premise of ‘doing the right thing.’ And no that does not mean the government is glad those two catastrophes have happened from a humanistic approach.
We need proper reforms. We need to ditch these notions of political correctness in public policy. We are as unimaginative as many other governments around the world. Living on a low-interest rate fuelled debt bomb. Kicking the can down the road simply does not work. Why aren’t politicians convicting their cases with evidence rather than folding to ideological positions held by fringe dwellers on Twitter?
When we visited Israel on a business delegation in 2018, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu uttered the only 4 words that mattered for investors – “we want your business.” The innovation nation knows what it is good at and is prepared to back it to the hilt.
It would be so nice if our government spent some time in Israel to discover that we have it all wrong. Because we are only storing up a rude awakening. When our economy does suffer from the eventual ramifications of all of that lack of investment, the public will be howling that they can’t pay their mortgages, that they can’t get decent jobs and they can’t keep the lights on. None of that would have been necessary if they had been more open to business.
The ultimate result will be that we’ll put ourselves deeper into debt to fund some monster infrastructure projects that will provide short term relief, not long term solutions.
The foreign investors that could have helped had we treated them in a more dignified fashion will just buy our assets at fire-sale prices instead. Then we’ll have another moment to howl at the moon.
That will be the true price of our complacency. Experience is a hard teacher. You get the test first and the lesson afterwards.
28 January 2020
Adani statement on Greyhound
Despite an ongoing sophisticated and well-funded campaign by anti-coal activists, construction of our Carmichael Project is progressing well.
Adani Australia continues to work with a broad range of contractors and we have signed contracts valued at more than $500 million.
Adani Mining CEO Lucas Dow said there were more than 200 people working at the mine site and many more were working on various components of the project across regional Queensland from assembling equipment to preparing to lay the railway track.
“Anti-coal activists have thrown everything they’ve got at us in order to stop our project from court cases to multi-million dollar advertising campaigns but they haven’t succeeded.
“We are not intimidated and construction is progressing well.
“The activists’ latest tactic is to boycott other businesses and threaten their livelihoods and intimidate their employees as they have done with Greyhound, who is engaged by one of our sub-contractors.
“This latest tactic will not affect construction of the project as bussing providers from around Queensland are lined up and ready to assist us and our contractors with our transport needs.”
A reminder that Secondary boycott actions under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 say,
“Section 45D prohibits conduct by a person “in concert” with a second person from engaging in conduct that “hinders or prevents” a third person supplying goods or services to a fourth person.”
While we can argue that Greyhound Australia chickened out of its Adani contract of its own volition after such pressure (it could have ignored them) it nonetheless shows that activists are becoming more emboldened to try to shut down legitimate business activity they have nothing to do with. Why have laws if they won’t be enforced?
When will Australian authorities realize that allowing the intimidation of corporates who are running legitimate businesses must stop? If we allow activists to bully companies into bending to a socialist ideology, will we be the least bit surprised when foreign investment dries up in the future? Because that will be the outcome.
It isn’t enough that activist environmental departments wrap businesses up in so much red tape in order to get approvals. We have to tolerate a small band of student protestors too.
Bus company, Greyhound Australia (GA), is the latest company to fold to activist pressure. It has rejected a contract to ferry workers to construct the Adani mine after being all for it.
SchoolStrike4Climate launched a campaign to boycott travel with GA until it publicly ruled out working on the mine. So now we have brainwashed teenagers dictating school transport policy even though they don’t pay a cent to fund it.
We’re somewhat surprised these kids aren’t dictating the school curriculum while they’re at it. Seriously, where are the schools in their quest to teach discipline? We already saw what happened to Newington College which proudly wilted to student pressure. Note it’s 2019 HSC rank fell from 98th to 176th. No connection, surely?
What our continued PISA education ranking slump tells us is that the teaching faculties have a lot to answer for to surrender to this garbage. It only suggests they’re willing accomplices rather than disciplinarians.
It is bad enough when adults push agendas. It is worse when they manipulate children to do their bidding for them.
Going back to GA, Had these children and teachers done their homework they would have realized that this wasn’t the first time the company has had ties with fossil fuel companies. Had their laser quick smartphone skills led them to the history page of Greyhound Australia they would have learned that,
“in conjunction with the Shell Company, undertook a survey of the route from Adelaide to Perth – a distance of over 3,200 Kilometres – in 1957.”
How could they have let this company transport them in the first place?!? It should have never been on the list. Common sense would prevail that the school only opened the yellow pages to hire a bus charter company. At no stage did the school demand a full audit on corporate carbon footprints.
Had it occurred to these kids that these buses that ferry them on school excursions run on diesel? While the per passenger carbon footprint might be smaller than alternative modes of transport, these kids should demand that the schools ban them outright, or doesn’t that count when they are having fun? Maybe the lesson should be that they don’t get to go on excursions to save the planet and will now have to walk or cycle to school instead of hitching a ride in mum’s SUV.
Although GA does list a pretty pithy section on lowering emissions
“Limit the size of your luggage by packing only what you need – the more a bus or plane weighs, the more carbon emissions it produces. Enjoy local food and drink which haven’t been imported from far away – not only will you help the environment, you’ll also experience new flavours (and maybe find a new favourite). And finally, avoid plastic bags and bottled water – take your own reusable shopping bags to the local farmers markets, and refill your bottles throughout the day. Every little bit helps!”
Had GA truly believed in this garbage, they would have never bothered to entertain the Adani contract in the first place.
Looking forward to seeing the private bus company that steps up to fill the void for Adani. Surely the same Queenslanders that voted for Adani’s go ahead in the last federal election will back GA’s replacement to transport workers, many of whom probably have kids at school.
The problem with think tanks nowadays is that many are giving the rest a bad name. It would seem that not enough are actually doing the thing they are supposed to be doing – critical thinking.
It was only yesterday that the World Economic Forum’s 2020 report on gender justified a superior “health & survivability” gender gap score to Syrian women even though they live on average 15 years less than Australian women. Why? Because the WEF put more emphasis on the age gap between the sexes rather than longevity, poor Syrian males whose average life expectancies struggle to make 52-yo get back-handed applause for doing their bit for gender equality.
Closer to home, the think tank, The Australia Institute (TAI), has proposed the idea of a $1/ton carbon tax on fossil fuel companies to put into an independently administered climate disaster fund.
As ever with left-wing think tanks, taxation is the only viable cure to all ills. On page 37, TAI doesn’t miss the chance to write a few lines about our poor Pacific neighbours at risk of being inundating by rising sea levels despite a study showing 88.6% of Pacific islands and atolls being stable or growing in size. Who needs evidence when we want a narrative?
Don’t forget the one important takeaway. TAI was named as one of the four supposed “experts” prepared to put its name in a Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) report which scored Australia dead last on international and domestic climate policy. Remember this was the mob that handed Australia a 0.0 (zero point zero) score.
Only foaming at the mouth alarmists could derive such a ridiculous total and only a research body with little interest in objectivity would allow it to be included. If you are hunting for credibility, you won’t find it in the CCPI report.
Therefore if this is the standard at the TAI, why should we pay the slightest attention to them in terms of policy options to mitigate disasters?
TAI wrote in the heavily media, BoM & Deloitte sourced National Climate Disaster Fund report,
“It is now clear that global warming increases both the frequency and intensity of many types of natural disasters including floods, bushfires, droughts and other extreme weather events. This is borne out by the science and experienced in unprecedented extreme events in Australia and globally.”
Then why did the UNIPCC, the carbon cathedral of climate alarmism, state in its March 2018 report on weather extremes the following with respect to anthropogenic induced global warming?
“…There is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems…in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods…low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences..low confidence in projections of changes in extreme winds.. low confidence in projections of changes in monsoons…low confidence in wave height projections…overall low confidence because of inconsistent projections of drought changes…low confidence in projected future changes in dust storms…low confidence in projections of an anthropogenic effect on phenomena such as shallow landslides.”
“Low confidence” is mentioned 230 times in the above report. “High confidence” gets talked about 169 times. “Cold” is mentioned 82x. “Hot” 44x. “Cold extreme” 11x and “Hot extreme” 8x. Is this a coincidence?
Backed by such “low confidence”, why would we lend time to TAI to give us solutions which only raise taxes on fossil fuel industries? Why hasn’t TAI consulted with the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) to learn that 85% of Aussie bushfires are either deliberately, suspiciously or accidentally lit? Why not consult the WA Government’s Bushfire Front site which debunks the myth of climate change causing megafires?
Never mind such trivialities, TAI quotes the head of the Australian Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, who noted that Australia is in “the most natural disaster-prone region in the world” and that“climate change is predicted to make disasters more extreme and more common.” Since when did Australian military personnel become climate experts? Given our Navy uses pink nail varnish to promote recruitment is it any wonder he makes such activist statements?
For FNF Media, who does not profess to be a climate scientist, there is no escaping the list of activists straying out of their lane to push their non-existent credentials on the environment.
Take the Australian Medical Association (AMA). How is it that the AMA is being regarded as an expert on climate change? Does getting a degree in medicine bestow one insights on the impacts of hurricane or drought activity?
The Doctors for Environment Australia have jumped on the activist bandwagon too saying, “three medical colleges, the RACP, ACEM and ACRRM representing tens of thousands of doctors recently declared climate change a health emergency.”
Yet do the AMA, RACP, ACEM or ACRRM speak for the each and everyone of their members? The stats say otherwise. In 1962, more than 95% of doctors belonged to the AMA. By 1987 it was 50%. AHPRA reports that in 2016 there were 107,179 registered medical practitioners. The 2016 AMA annual report notes a membership of 29,425. That is 27% of doctors. Shouldn’t the AMA board raise the alarm and focus on the hollowing of its base?
Or should we just follow the money? The non-warmist RACGP has more than doubled its revenues since 2012, while AMA has trickled up 10%. Not surprising AMA revenues have stalled when it has sought to get medical students, which now represent over 1/3rd of members to sign up for free in order to pad the numbers in the hope they’ll join the save the planet cabal.
Even the financial sector is blowing the alarmist trumpet. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) stated earlier this year, “there is no excuse for inaction on climate change, warning there is a high degree of certainty that financial risks will materialize as a result of a warming climate.”
Why isn’t anyone asking what APRA is doing by shaming companies that do not meet voluntary climate risk disclosure targets which are set out by the Task Force in Climate-related Financial Disclosures, a private sector body chaired by none other than global warming alarmist Michael Bloomberg? Where is the independent thought? Talk about taking one’s eyes off the ball.
Our own central bank is burning witches too. In a speech given by the Deputy Governor, the RBA is basing its assertions on the prophecies of the IPCC and BOM, two of countless organisations which have been caught red handed manipulating climate data. Why doesn’t data malfeasance constitute a red flag in the RBA’s internal analysis? Do they apply the same rigour to interest rate policy?
Or our mega banks that refuse to lend money to the Adani project, not based on any valid financial risk assessment but ideological moral preening. Shouldn’t shareholders be concerned that banks are making such irrational investment policy when they need to offset the alarming imbalance in their mortgage loan books? Never mind.
Or the revelation that a band of 29 former fire chiefs, who are proclaiming global warming expertise, are backed by the even more alarmist Climate Council, who we called out on their own “colossal bullshit.” Yes, the Climate Council’s Chief Councillor is none other than Tim Flannery, a man with an absolutely terrible record of dud predictions about our climate.
FNF Media couldn’t hold a flame to these gentlemen in understanding fire behaviour and how to extinguish them, but feels justified questioning the extent of their expertise in climate science.
Because therein lies the problem. The list of supposed experts keeps growing. Yet the ever compliant media falls into line and joins the cheerleading squad. Throw a Cate Blanchett into the mix and get celebrities to espouse their superior intellect to the rest of us.
Perhaps we might ask our click bait journalists whether they consult their bank manager for climate change wisdom anymore than they do the Bob Jane T-Mart tyre fitter for relationship advice?
There is a sad truth that more and more think tank tomes are succumbing to ideological clickbait group think rather than pushing rigid processes to come up with meaningful outcomes. TAI just adds to the growing list of those reverse engineering a narrative. Perhaps the TAI carbon tax solution should also include the manufacture of the raw materials that go to making solar cells, wind towers and battery backups (all derived in part from fossil fuels).
Oh and yes, there is no doubt Syrian men and women would trade a trimming of the health and survivability gender gap to add 15-20 years to their lives.
Is anyone surprised that nothing was achieved at the COP25 summit? How is it possible that 27,000 disciples knelt at the altar of the UNFCCC to listen to a pigtailed teenager and came up empty handed?
UNSG Antonio Guterres lamented, “I am disappointed with the results of COP25…The international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation and finance to tackle the climate crisis.”
What annoys FNFM is the sanctimonious shame culture that consumes these meetings. Heretics are outed and slammed. Australia is never far away from a beating. Yet the show goes on. COP26 will misuse data and amplify the hysteria.
Even more disturbing is how this woke behaviour is finding its way into our financial institutions.
Instead of looking to diversify earnings and maximize shareholder returns they are taking stands on climate change. The Big 4 Aussie banks refuse to invest in anything related to the Adani coal mine. Another 35 global banks will do likewise.
One could make a clear case against investment were the Adani coal mine to carry excessive financial risks but it doesn’t. The end user in India has a giant thirst for decades. This is money for jam.
Bank boards should ask themselves, since when did any customers seek climate advice from their loan managers? It is ludicrous.
APRA should forget regulating the banks over fees or charging dead people but question the economic rationale behind decisions like Adani. It is not to say banks don’t have a right to deploy capital as they deem fit but there should be a sensible purely financial explanation behind it, not one wrapped in ideological dross.
The ultimate irony here is that banks, forever showing diversity in the workplace, don’t seem to want to apply it to the loan book which is so ridiculously skewed to mortgages. There is nothing prudent about that.
So maybe the UN COP summits are having the desired effect behind the scenes. Howl at the moon long enough and get teenagers to scream “how dare you” to shame our banks into folding to local public pressure, which in reality amounts to a handful of misguided students with placards and Twitter accounts who wish to wag class.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if a housing collapse sent some of our heavily geared Aussie banks toward insolvency which could have been averted were they to have made a rational decision to lend to Adani, the very business they told us would kill them.
On a final note, how do we have banks disinterested in taking advantages where little competition exists? Isn’t that the holy grail of financial strategy?
The beauty behind Adani (and other projects like it) is simple. No need to embark in competitive intelligence to find out what their banking rivals are doing. Just listen to their public statements on what they aren’t doing and take the spoils. Higher margin and lower risk. It is not rocket science.
Yet more ridiculous climate alarmist rubbish was published from the taxpayer-funded SBS claiming we rank dead bottom (true) in one of the lower weighted (it didn’t mention that) categories of the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI). The CCPI measures the emissions, renewable energy share and climate policies of 57 countries and the European Union. It released the document at the COP25 summit to bathe in the spotlight with alarmists pals. Where was the journalistic rigour?
Who were the Aussie based “experts” (activists) the CCPI relied on to provide really in-depth qualitative opinions on our climate policy evaluation?
Doctors for the Environment Australia
Australian Conservation Foundation
The Australian Institute
All climate activists. Precious little objectivity there. It is isn’t hard to work out why Australia scored a 0.0 on climate policy. Seriously? Any think tank with the remotest thirst for integrity in reporting and data collection should have questioned a zero score.
According to Bloomberg NEF, Australia has the 3rd highest clean energy spend per capita! We spent twice as much as France yet these climate alarmists marked us down because our democracy supported Adani. No doubt the experts just hurled toys out of the pram.
Why can’t the SBS do the slightest bit of fact-checking? What prevents it from reading the document and finding out that the credentials of the experts handing out the lowest score (relative to what?) with a lower weighting in the overall score is pretty low. Note the other three categories are based on actual data, not the whims of activists with an axe to grind against the current Morrison government.
And the summary for Australia was as follows,
“National experts observe a lack of progress in these areas with the government failing to clarify how it will meet the country’s insufficient 2030 emission reduction target and inaction in developing a long-term mitigation strategy. While the government is not proposing any further targets for renewable energy beyond 2020, it continues to promote the expansion of fossil fuels and in April 2019 approved the opening of the highly controversial Adani coalmine. Experts note that the new government is an increasingly regressive force in negotiations and has been criticised for its lack of ambition by several Pacific Island nations in the context of this year’s Pacific Island Forum. The dismissal of recent IPCC reports, the government not attending the UN Climate Action Summit in September, and the withdrawal from funding the Green Climate Fund (GCF) underpin the overall very low performance in the Climate Policy category.”
This CCPI document is frankly laughable. Such is its desire to heap scorn and shame on nations, the Top 3 overall rankings were withheld from all nations. CPPI noted,
“Still no country performs well enough in all index categories to achieve an overall very high rating in the index. Therefore, once again the first three ranks remain empty.”
And would you look at the softball it tossed China,
“National experts emphasize that China exerted huge efforts to cut fossil fuels and emissions in a coordinated way, however due to the turbulence of economy and trade still performed under expectation from the international community. Further, the national experts acknowledge that China put a lot of effort to overachieve its 2020 goals in the run-up to national GHG emissions 2030 targets. However, more efforts are needed to be in line with a well below 2°C compatible pathway. As the country is on track to fulfil its targets and promises made in Paris, experts hope that China will increase its targets next year. While the country could further increase its share of renewable energy in the energy mix over recent years, the rating in the Renewable Energy category remains medium. Despite a positive trend, current shares of renewable energy are rated low and national experts critically note the country’s high dependency on coal. By implementing a pilot emission trading scheme, China is showing positive efforts in national climate policy, which leads to a high rating in the Climate Policy category.”
So could the CCPI tell us why renewables investment in China has slumped 40% as the government has said it won’t approve any such projects unless it can compete with coal?
USA’s overall emissions & emission per capita have declined since Trump took office but the CCPI could restrain its TDS.
“National experts emphasise that the national climate policy has worsened under President Donald Trump’s administration and they highlight the importance of state-level measures. While renewable energy and energy use reduction targets are in place in some states, these vary greatly in terms of strength and implementation. At the international level, the performance completes the picture on a national level, with the US acting as a destructive player in international negotiations on all levels. The very low performance is further underpinned by the Trump administration officially having started the process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, due to be finalised on 4 November 2020.”
Yep, capitalism has allowed the US to experience declining emissions. No need for a socialist construct to hand over billions of dollars to rent-seekers. CCPI asked more activists including the Union of Concerned Scientists for the US bashing.
So take the CCPI report with all of the irrelevance of its compilation. Based on subjectivity. Just like the 11,000 signatories to a climate emergency, where the site that pushed the narrative overlooked the fact that Mickey Mouse, Aldus Dumbledore and Araminta Aardvark were included.
It is worth quoting Thomas Sowell again,
“Those who cry out that the government should ‘do something’ never even ask for data on what has actually happened when the government did something, compared to what actually happened when the government did nothing.”
Well done on the SBS for yet more splendid journalistic integrity.
Boeing reports airlines will need around 44,000 new commercial aircraft worth $6.8 trillion by 2038, vs. 43,000 planes worth $6.49 trillion estimated in 2018. The biggest demand will remain for single-aisle jets. 32,420 narrow-body planes are likely to be built.
So much for the fear of global warming induced by air travel. In total, planes are 2% of human induced CO2. Or 0.00024% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Although the International Air Transport Association (IATA) wilted to the gun held to its head by the UN. The IATA has got behind the movement to do its bit for climate change. In a two page flyer, it covered the idea that we reckless passengers must consider our carbon footprint but at the same time help the U.N. raise $40bn in taxes, sorry ‘climate finance,’ between 2021 and 2035.
The reality is if Greta Thunberg receives an invite by the Queensland government to lecture on climate change she can rest easy that the footprint in the air will be so tiny because there isn’t a diesel electric train to get here.
Sydney is hosting its biggest anti-capitalist conference in August. Elitist wage earners pay $80 for the weekend. Concession or unemployed pay $45. High school students pay $20 or they can bundle the ticket and a copy of the “Introducing Marxism” book for $60! Or one can sign up for the $85 2-yr four issue Marxist Left Review theoretical journal. How lazy to only have a 1/2 yearly review?
CM questions how many socialists will pay full freight? Guessing not many.
At 10am in August 24th, ‘Marxism 101: Climate strikes, climate justice: A socialist response to global warming‘ kicks off the conference with the following summary,
“Capitalism is fast destroying our planet, seen nowhere more clearly than the drive to build the Adani coal mine, against mass community opposition. This session will look at why a profit-driven market system inevitably leads us to environmental disaster, and how we can turn the situation around while looking after the most vulnerable.”
Good to see the speaker will ignore the last election result, especially in the Adani coal mine’s backyard of Queensland. Despite this, recommended readings come from the Red Flag magazine, one with undoubtedly balanced credentials.
Perhaps CM will wait with baited breath for Sunday’s topic, “Why we feel shit too often: Marx on alienation“
Could it be that living as a socialist causes one such misery?
The closing panel looks at “whose side are you on?” Presumably dissenting opinions will be howled at.
CM is half tempted to enter the surreal world of the loony left.
Venue yet to be announced.