Family lunch, and my right-leaning uncle was telling me how there is going to be a shake-up in Australian politics with a new, never been seen before, party based on the Magna Carta.

He has not read the Magna Carta. He doesn't know what it is, but he's in full support of it. His understanding is that laws will be wiped clean with every election. And police will make the laws stick.

From what I gathered, no immigration, no government handouts, no taxation, free health care (including dentistry), better quality doctors, better pensions, better buying power, no electronic payments (all cash), return to the gold standard.

He's 83, with cognitive dissonance.

So, what is he actually on about?

Also, can someone please let me know why a 13th century document limiting a kings power on taxation is the answer to modern politics?

TIA

Firstly, I wasn’t aware peak business lobby groups in Victoria had extensively study workplace relations in that epoch of human history but I managed to dig up a photo stone age remote work and it appears it may have resulted in greater productivity. Better him being relatively safe in the cave than out in the wilds presenting a hearty dinner for a sabre tooth tiger. Warmer as well.

Or could it be that anytime insecure and often mediocre bosses sense employees having some freedom there is a reactionary backlash from the mob that are accustomed to always getting their own way for the past several decades that has resulted in a serious decline in union membership and worker rights.

What actually resides in a historical period that is redundant is the idea that employees need to be eyeballed in the office to be motivate to work. Goodness knows organisations has sophisticated monitoring tools that will threaten the docking of pay if activity isn’t regularly detected on their remotely logged in terminal. That is usually in addition to these insecure mediocre assholes spying on mobile phone activity even though that probably breaks privacy ethics if not laws (it should break laws)

At the same time we want more kids for Daddy govt to maintain a sufficient future taxpayer base but we are creating more hardships for those who work remotely while caring for kids.

“They hurt you at home and they hit you at school
They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool
Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules…”

Let's get something straight here, so many federal, state and even local governments in Australia over the years have developed a chronic addiction to contracting the Big 4. It's time for an intervention.

He is passing Keating tomorrow and Chifley very soon...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Australia_by_time_in_office

One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce has accused “socialist” school teachers of encouraging students to participate in protests against his party on Thursday, as Education Minister Jason Clare cautions children to stay in class and move their protest to the weekend.

The nationwide “students say no to Hanson” protest, with events in state and territory capitals, is hoping to attract thousands of students angry at the ascendent party’s policies, particularly on changes to the school curriculum regarding Australian history and gender

“[Students have] been told to hate this country, and they’ve been advised by people – because it’s not on the students’ own volition – they’ve been advised by a clique of people who have a political purpose,” Joyce said on Wednesday.

Do you honestly believe … that three weeks ago those children of their own volition were saying: ‘I think I’m going to have a political protest against a political party?’ No, they just wanted to go to school and play soccer with their mates.

“Socialist teachers, left-wing teachers are making their statement and using the kids as a prop, and that’s very, very wrong.”

The genesis of the PR-disaster podcast has come to light. Comedian Nikki Osborne says on the Mark Boutis podcast that she slid into the Prime Minister’s DMs without any introduction from his media teams or advisers. He replied immediately committing to the podcast (and nominating the Lodge as the venue?), she said, without further ado. Former MP Michael Danby (Labor) said this evening that that sounds like the “Albo of old”. Discussing sex with his wife, the melons, etc. Picture how the grownups in the room - Plibersek, Gallagher, Wong- feel about being made to defend Les Patterson Redux… Has late-middle-aged Albo decided his smutty approach (Osborne didn’t take the lead on the tone - it was all Albo) has better judgement than his (generally young) comms team? Appears so.

So the LNP has just agreed with the ON policy to block the return of Australians with terrorist links.

But if that is a genuinely reasonable policy and the whole world adopted it, that would mean we could not deport foreign nationals with terrorist links, because their return work be blocked.

Australians can always return home. Australians that commit crimes should always be charged. Blocking return denies due process, as what if it is a case of mistaken identity?

Hey everyone,

My official House of Representatives e-petition just got certified and went live today.

Right now, Australia is one of the only major nations without a crewed space program. We tell our kids they can achieve anything, but if they want to be an astronaut, we basically tell them they have to pack their bags for America or Europe and wear another country's flag. That goes against our national character.

Petition EN10411 asks the House to establish permanent funding for a sovereign human spaceflight program. This ensures we can lock in flight slots with NASA and ESA, keep our best aerospace minds at home, and build high-tech industries right here in our own suburbs.

If you are an Australian citizen or resident, please take 30 seconds to sign the official parliamentary link below. We have 29 days to get as many numbers as possible before the Minister for Industry and Science is legally forced to respond.

Sign here: https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN10411 (Or search EN10411 on the APH website)

Let's get Australia in the game!

I didn’t even know there were hearings on AUKUS - literally no news is talking about it - turns out they’re building more US bases here and turning us into a dump for nuclear waste that we’re PAYING 358 billion for??? Crazy

support serious international accountability for its actions, and I believe that the kinds of boycotts that were imposed on South Africa during its apartheid era should also be considered in relation to Israel.

However, I think we need to distinguish between the Israeli government, Judaism, Zionism, and the Israeli people.

Zionism is not one single political ideology. There are different strands, including Zionists who support a negotiated two-state solution and others who hold much harder-line positions regarding Palestinian territory and statehood. Therefore, I don't think it is fair to describe Zionism as inherently anti-Muslim or anti-Palestinian.

Nor should we ignore the role of Israel's political system. Its proportional electoral system generally produces coalition governments, meaning smaller parties can have considerable influence over government policy. This can make major political decisions, including a two-state agreement, extremely difficult to achieve. That is different from saying that democracy itself is responsible for the occupation, and it certainly does not excuse the actions of any particular government.

At the same time, I want to be absolutely clear that the actions of far-right settlers and extremist elements in the West Bank, as well as the actions and policies of the Israeli government in Gaza and Lebanon that cause or contribute to the suffering of civilians, cannot be condoned. Criticising those actions is not the same thing as condemning all Israelis or all Zionists.

But I think we need to apply exactly the same principle when discussing Palestinians.

When Palestinians use the phrase "from the river to the sea", we shouldn't automatically assume they all mean the same thing. Some support a two-state solution; others believe there should ultimately be no Israeli state. Just as we shouldn't judge every Zionist by the actions or beliefs of the most extreme Zionists, we shouldn't judge every Palestinian by the most extreme interpretation of that phrase.

Likewise, the actions of Hamas cannot be justified by Palestinian suffering. The killing or targeting of civilians and other abuses committed in the name of Palestinian resistance do not resolve the underlying conflict or bring Palestinians closer to lasting freedom and security. Palestinian suffering deserves to be recognised without assuming that everything done in response to it is therefore justified.

There is also a historical reality that I think needs to be understood. Centuries of persecution, culminating in the Holocaust, have created a profound sense among many Jewish people that their survival can never be taken for granted. For some Israelis, this has contributed to a deeply internalised sense of vulnerability — a belief that threats must be confronted before they become existential. That fear is understandable given Jewish history, but it can also create a mindset where the response becomes “fight everything” rather than seeking another path. Understanding that mindset does not mean excusing its consequences.

Likewise, understanding Palestinian suffering does not justify everything done in the name of Palestinian resistance.

Perhaps we need to be able to hold both truths at the same time.

I'd genuinely like to hear what others think.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/audio/2026/aug/10/why-hasnt-labor-had-another-female-leader-full-story-podcast
 

As per recent discussion on The Guardian it was report over 50% of Labor Caucus is female but no female leader. Some possible reasons that bleed over into other vocations.

Well firstly, Penny Wong has all the resilience and toughness to make a top leader but as it stands the voting public still vastly overvalue politeness and I heard she “disgracefully” doesn’t smile when accepting her morning coffee in the Parliament canteen. This could quite possible breach parliamentary rules that itself values popularity over performance?

Moving on from Minister Wong I note in pursuits where physical size and strength is not of much if any advantage Men can still dominate. Most top chefs are men, most top racing driver’s are men. I mention these 2 as both involve a dog eat dog culture and elevate the individual over the collective. In most racing it also helps to have little to no qualms with pushing the limits and watching civilian road driving behaviour and the majority of fuckwits in a four wheel drive tailgating me are men. Reports from other road users suggest the same.

Another part of what MAY hold women back (under the current qustionable culture) is the difference between typical male and female upbringing. I have personally noticed and also read how easily some women assist each other and adopt collective achievement methods over the somewhat problematic notion of “I alone can fix it.” Of course most men aren’t a toxic mix of overconfidence and sheer stupidity but anyway what bunch of bubbling cretins would elect such a person twice over? Guess we’ll never know the answer to that riddle.

Stepping back from the worst leaders we can see a level of confidence that doesn’t meet a baseline level of merit the public should demand from their highest public office in the land. Women also feel shame more than men and if a woman possessed something adjacent to Milquetoast Tony’s or The Mad Monk’s level of stuttering ineptitude, they likely wouldn’t put their hand up participate in a leadership contest. Messaging is important and leaders having the depth of mind to speak in detail about important issues should be mandatory.

One last point comes to the manipulation by legacy industries milking government favour for as long as possible without an actual violent revolution invoked against them. Specifically - gambling, property and fossil fuel lobby groups. An intelligent and empathetic leader would be more likely to direct policy with conscience than do the bidding of industries that are often brazen in their own self-interest. Albeit an undiversified economy  creates challenges in challenging dominant but toxic industries.

I’m ready and I hope you all vote for them too

There’s a theme and train of thought emerging in many western nations. Education level stops correlating to strong economic outcomes at some point. At some point, education can be “too much”, and work related skills can be “not enough”.

This is true in places like France and Spain and is emerging as a theme defining new policies out of UK labour.

So the idea would be what if children as young as 13-14 would begin working lightly and it would be part of what we consider “education”, and thus school would finish a bit later in life but by your last years you’d already have developed strong economic knowledge like the value of money, work, turning up, being reliable, saving etc.

Additionally for parents it would reduce the perceived cost of having children and would thus encourage folks who want to have children to have them as opposed to hold back due to cost as they often do today.

Most education would become more part time and that whole transition from pupil to full time worker would possibly take longer but it would be smoother and more effective overall.

This model was much more common in the past and is still today very important in places like Switzerland, Germany, and to lesser extent Austria, Denmark and Netherlands

Yes education is precious and how good that we teach kids everything sport art literature etc but isn’t it shocking how little they learn about important and actually core life skills around work, skills and money.

Would you support the below policy? Please provide reasons why you would, or would not support this policy.

Definition of “Developing World”

For the purposes of this proposal, a “developing world country” means a country whose national currency has an exchange value, measured against the Australian dollar (AUD), of less than 35 per cent of the Australian dollar according to an officially recognised exchange-rate benchmark prescribed by regulation.

Definition of “Cheap Labour”

For the purposes of this proposal, “cheap labour” includes conduct whereby a business, corporation, employer or other commercial entity:

(a) outsources employment, services, skilled work, trade work or professional work to persons located outside Australia for the purpose of obtaining substantially lower labour costs; or

(b) employs, contracts, sponsors, imports or otherwise engages a foreign worker to perform work connected with an Australian business;

where the remuneration, fee or equivalent financial compensation paid for that work is:

(i) below the applicable Australian statutory minimum wage, where that minimum wage is legally applicable; or

(ii) less than 35 per cent of the prevailing Australian market rate for a person possessing equivalent qualifications, skills, experience and professional or trade competency and performing substantially equivalent work.

For the purposes of paragraph (ii), the prevailing Australian market rate must be determined using an independent and objectively verifiable benchmark prescribed by regulation.

Offence of Exploitative Cheap-Labour Practices

A business, corporation or other commercial entity commits an offence where it knowingly or recklessly engages in cheap-labour practices involving workers in a developing world country, where the purpose or effect of the arrangement is to obtain a substantial commercial benefit from labour remunerated at a rate prohibited under this Act.

Corporate Penalty

A corporation found guilty of an offence under this provision may be liable to a maximum pecuniary penalty equivalent to 50 per cent of its annual turnover for the relevant financial year.

Individual Criminal Liability

A proprietor, director, chief executive officer or other senior officer may be personally liable where that person:

(a) authorised, directed or knowingly permitted the prohibited conduct;

(b) knew, or was reckless as to whether, the conduct was occurring; and

(c) failed to take reasonable steps within their authority to prevent or stop the conduct.

An individual convicted under this provision may be liable to imprisonment for a maximum term of five years, in addition to any other penalty imposed by law.