What would a Dutton Liberal leadership mean for the Liberals and the country?

Remove this Banner Ad

A vote for Dutton is to remove protections for abortion.

If you're a woman, you simply cannot vote for this disgusting human.
Not sure that is true.

Protection to abortion rights is a state/territory issue and, as you like me are from SA, it's important to remember that in 1969, South Australia became the first Australian jurisdiction to legislate for the lawful medical termination of pregnancy when necessary to protect the life or health of a pregnant person. (back in the days when South Australia was at the forefront of social reform - those days are long gone with the religious right with a firm foothold in both the SA ALP and Liberal parties).

Abortion has now been fully decriminalised in all states and territories of Australia - although I think that references to the provision of abortion care is still in the criminal codes in Western Australia. There are also variations between states/territories with respect to the particular medical procedures available at certain gestation periods.

The danger to protections for abortions is real - but at the state/territory level from the religious right who are seeking to wind back the reforms of the past 50 years and taking legislative action to take it out of the hands of women and their medical carers. As we saw in the SA Upper House last week, BOTH the ALP and Liberal Party have shied away from taking a firm policy position on this issue and have allowed individual members to take a conscience vote - this has allowed religious organisations to exert leverage and intimidation on all sides of politics, although that influence is far more visible and pervasive within state L/LNP branches than it is within the ALP.

I have no doubt that Dutton and certain other conservative aligned politicians at the Federal level would love to use abortion rights as a Trumpian style wedge issue in the lead up to the next election. But my point of clarification is that the very real danger to abortion rights in Australia lies elsewhere and is already upon us.
 
Last edited:
There are prominent members of Dutton's party room coming out against Jacinta Price's comments on abortion. I would tap the brakes on any suggestions that this is something the party will pursue, but there's no denying there are party members who would be very happy with Price's comments.

As more and more of these "conservative" political action conferences pop up, we're going to see more and more stuff like this come out from them.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

That is a complete lie.

Back it up.

Also note the seperation between Crisafulli and Dutton. They are never seen together. Dutton is pragmatic, not batshit crazy.

People said the same republicans in the US would never let it happen, despite what their base supporters wanted. That turned out well
 
Got a link to pics of this?








 







These all say things like "The U.S. Department of Defense is pursuing the concept".

I thought the way you were talking about it that it had been achieved.
 
Call me crazy but maybe there’s a strategy to price making her statements so that other liberals could come out to confirm that there is no plan to wind back abortion rights (there may have been suspicion of it with the conflation between the right wing here and the USA right wing)
 
These all say things like "The U.S. Department of Defense is pursuing the concept".

I thought the way you were talking about it that it had been achieved.

But that’s not the case is it?

I have disclosed my position is to not invest in Gen 3.5 technology when the next Gen is just around the corner (2028).

We should be planning now but given Gen 3.5 reactors last 80 years, we need to consider whether living with this for 75 years is the right decision.


The first customer of this is civilian at chalk river, two for Idaho state power, one for Illinois Uni. Poland wants 60-80, Korea a similar number and 20+ being investigated for Snowy Hydro. All of these are civilian applications
 
This is just gaslighting. But I guess not as bad as Turnbull buy your kids an investment property at birth



I suppose of you build acres of shit boxes with poor thermal performance on the fringes it’s more power for your nuclear plants to sell.

But it’s not much of a life. Really wondering why we are still an attractive destination for folks
 
Last edited:
This is just gaslighting. But I guess not as bad as Turnbull buy your kids an investment property at birth



I suppose of you build acres of shit boxes with poor thermal performance on the fringes it’s more power for your nuclear plants to sell.

But it’s not much of a life. Really wondering why we are still an attractive destination for folks
Jeez they hate super don’t they.

Labor introduced Medicare, Super, NDIS.

Liberals have devoted their entire existence to winding them back.
 
But that’s not the case is it?

I have disclosed my position is to not invest in Gen 3.5 technology when the next Gen is just around the corner (2028).

We should be planning now but given Gen 3.5 reactors last 80 years, we need to consider whether living with this for 75 years is the right decision.


The first customer of this is civilian at chalk river, two for Idaho state power, one for Illinois Uni. Poland wants 60-80, Korea a similar number and 20+ being investigated for Snowy Hydro. All of these are civilian applications
But nothing has been built - even in testing?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

This is just gaslighting. But I guess not as bad as Turnbull buy your kids an investment property at birth



I suppose of you build acres of shit boxes with poor thermal performance on the fringes it’s more power for your nuclear plants to sell.

But it’s not much of a life. Really wondering why we are still an attractive destination for folks

what dutton isn't appreciating is the more investment dollars, "by itself" being pumped into property demand, simply adds to higher prices.

Once prices are higher, they can't go down without breaching banking ratios.



The logical things to do is increase supply (and question why supply was stopped during covid). Build social housing with a islamic banking model. remove stamp duty on first home owner purchases. introduce a properly structured wealth tax.
 
But nothing has been built - even in testing?

Take a step back

1) We know renewables have failed to deliver clean energy; as there is not one jurisdiction on the planet with a renewable energy strategy that has delivered clean energy unless supported by hydro and nuclear
2) Germany's 45 year plan & USD$1.5 trillion investment is delivering 400-500g CO2 per kwh
3) Leading jurisdictions achieved 14-70g CO2/kwh in the 1980s (France, Ontario, NZ, Tassie, Sweden etc) with hydro or nuclear
4) Gen 3.5 reactors exist today but are almost 60 years old in terms of maiden design

Would you:

1) build renewables and only renewables knowing they are not effective in delivering low CO2 in a climate emergency?
2) build a mountain and a river to dam?
3) build a 60 year old technology, knowing it will be around for another 80 years. Making it 140-150 technology when being decommissioned (using just 0.02% of the uranium)
4) Start planning now for the various Gen 4 reactors that are demand responsive, a fast breeders so they can burn the waste of past reactors, burn the majority of the uranium, fail safe design, can not catch fire, modular, low CAPEX, low OPEX and dispatchable. oh and produce heat for industry including produce hydrogen


oh and of course they are testing. Nuclear reactors are tested and optimised by a combination of computer modelling (reactors are well understood and easy to model) & fuel rods are manufactured and tested long before construction or in the case of SMRs manufactured. In the case of Chalk River the permitting is the long lead item. Once done, this will be the blue print globally.
 
Jeez they hate super don’t they.

Labor introduced Medicare, Super, NDIS.

Liberals have devoted their entire existence to winding them back.
It's odd their hate for it given so many rich people use super to avoid tax.

not to mention super provides money to invest in equity and boost industry.

You would think they would want to expand it.
 
It's odd their hate for it given so many rich people use super to avoid tax.

not to mention super provides money to invest in equity and boost industry.

You would think they would want to expand it.

it’s a labor policy, so it must be opposed. bit like medicare. that’s ‘thugs’ strategy spread fear, oppose, and abuse.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

What would a Dutton Liberal leadership mean for the Liberals and the country?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top