soldiers were being wrongly accused and illegally investigated for war crimes.

Is honestly pretty unambiguous wording.

And the other evidence against your claim is, why would McBride had been pissed off by the ABC’s reporting of his leaked files? If you were right, the ABC’s angle would be completely aligned with McBride’s. Why would Oakes allege there was disagreement there?

Did you ready the article? McBride initially posted on his personal blog, which caught the attention of ABC journalist Dan Oakes. The information was leaked to Oakes and the ABC from there.

My reading of the article was McBride didn’t initially think there were war crimes committed but:

ADF leadership alleg(ed) that SAS soldiers were being wrongly accused and illegally investigated for war crimes.

“If there is political bullshit going on against soldiers, and it doesn’t matter whether they’re SAS or not, you need to stand up for it,”

McBride didn’t think war crimes had happened which is why he asserts that the soldiers were being wrongly accused and investigated. Oakes disagreed.

Now the question is, why is Oakes making this allegation allegation against McBride if it’s not true?

I’m sorry mate you are a terrible first aider and you should reconsider your approach before someone dies on your watch. As an EMT, loss of consciousness is absolutely something that warrants clinical assessment by a healthcare professional.

As a first aider you should understand the chain of survival, one of which is “early access to advanced care”. Delaying calling the ambulance completely violated that training. You should understand that the protocol DRSABCD has “send for help” after any response less than “alert” is identified. Your anecdote already shows you cannot follow the protocol and are not acting within your training. It also doesn’t say “go back and cancel the ambulance if they regain consciousness”. The training is simply “put them in the recovery position” which implies “and wait for ambulance to arrive”.

The reason it is taught that way is, you are not a doctor qualified to diagnose whether someone’s complex condition is an emergency or not. The absolutely worse thing you can do is make the wrong choice and delay necessary care. The best case is the paramedics come, assesses the patient, and decided they don’t need to go to hospital and they go on their merry way (at no cost to the patient). So for you, you always make the worst case scenario.

It’s not your responsibility as a first aider to consider the strain on the ambulance or the financial outcome to the patient. Your duty of care is to the medical outcome of your patient, nothing else.

No it’s not. People don’t generally lose consciousness, so even if they regain it, they should still be escalated to advanced care to be clinically assessed.

On a completely unrelated note, I was scrolling down the article and saw a big X and clicked it thinking it was a popup or ad and hit it out of habit, but it was actually the embedded tweet.

Another reason why the X rebrand is dumb.

Think there’s a greater relevance here. He’s speaking to a newly formed political think tank that current members of our parliament are actively engaged with. It speaks to the underlying values that one of our major political parties is actively leaning into.

What’s the difference between “respect their culture” and “Federation of tribes and culture”. Either you take the view that “respect their culture” means allowing people to retain and freely exercise their culture in public, e.g. speaking their language and celebrating their cultural events publicly, in which case it’s really indistinguishable to a federation of cultures. The alternative view is, people can only speak English and practice English cultural things in public, in which case is that really “respecting their culture”?

I suspect Howard is dog-whistling the latter, because Australia is doing the former, and it certainly doesn’t sound like he’s supportive of that, otherwise why would be have so much trouble with it?

There was a podcast episode, I think from Democracy Sausage, that talked about how historically referendum no campaigning parties actually do poorly in the subsequent general election since they lean in to absolutely insane arguments during the campaign, which gets them the referendum win, but the loss in the general election. I hope that happens here.

I thought voting no was supposed to end the division?

You only need to look at the West Bank for an example of how things would play out with a more cooperative Palestinian government. Same shit, no autonomy, no say in its future, no say in its foreign policy, with the added bonus of a slow ethnic cleansing as Israel slowly annexes it’s land.

There are no good guys here.

Well looks like we know what Price has got for selling out her people. Now we just gotta find out what Warren Mundine’s pay day is.

So you want to help people who are born into disadvantage but you don’t want to hear from those very same people?

Oooooookay?

Literally pulled a Mark McGowen. But to be fair, probably the best way to go rather than have it drag on for ages.

I actually find state politics to be very different than federal or even local politics. Here in NSW, Labor have massively ramped up development, even more than the Coalition did (their head of the department of planning suggested some corruption is acceptable for accelerated development). However they put the brakes on public transport projects started by the Coalition.

Local council level Greens and Labor are all anti-development NIMBYs though.

Probably goes to show that “left” and “right” aren’t really monolithic terms.

I don’t think the left and right divide on this issue has ever been that clean. The left are generally anti-development (to maintain local characteristics and heritage) but pro high density developer (but always in someone else’s suburb). The right have been pro-development but mostly in poor or outlining suburbs.

There’s so much self interest at play it’s hard to actually implement a good sensible centre policy.

It is, but unfortunately it’s the smallest increase in representation that we could offer to our First Australians that could actually get up. I don’t need to comment on how even that little increase in influence that I’d bring proposed is going down.

Completely agree. That property value grows over time in a fixed area is natural behaviour, as an area develops, density grows and demand increases. But that growth is not necessarily “productive”. The only time that value is productive is if it incentivises redevelopment into higher density dwellings to meet the demand in that area. However this has been perverted into property owners who have paid off their property to just sit on the valuable land and reap the capital gains.

Capital gains from land value really needs to be taxed in a special way as you suggest. I would propose two approaches:

• Adding land tax (and abolishing stamp duty on property) that’s not based on your property value but on the value of a property you’re on (so high density apartments would end up with minimal land tax

• increasing capital gains from land tax by either having a progressive taxation rate on capital gains due to land value (which would ignore increase property value from renovations etc) or capping it entirely (so gains above that are taxed at 100%).

This smells like the owners left the car for an extended period of time for a trip and decided unplugging the battery would be a way to maintain its charge during the time, like a normal AAA battery.

Except that’s not how an EV’s lithium battery works at all, and by manually disconnecting it, they’ve either damaged it, or disconnected it from any active monitoring that’s needed to keep it stable.

Wouldn’t be surprised if it comes out that the owner is some tech enthusiast or amateur mechanic/electrician.

I think your first paragraph nails it. Developers are holding off development not to introduce artificial scarcity, but to maximise development. So they keep the land empty until either they can convince the council to approve a higher density, or a change in state government gives them an avenue to bulldoze through the council roadblocks.

At least in NSW a single graph is needed to show this relationship: https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/housing-supply-insights/quarterly-insights-monitor-q1/trends-in-housing-supply the correlation between number of approvals and number of constructions is basically exact. Which means, the roadblock to construction is council approval, not corporate greed or developers gaming the system to generate artificial scarcity or any other conspiracy you can think of.

I do agree that removing infrastructure charges is not a solution. From my perspective, this won’t do anything since developers aren’t blocked because of costs, but either materials supply or council blockades. Removing infrastructure charges solves neither of these issues.

The opposing viewpoint is that the reason apartment building is slowed is because developers are incentivised to maximise profit, and thus they are disincentivised from building too many apartments at once, creating an artificial scarcity and keeping home prices high. Developers are land-banking to the detriment of society as a whole.

I find this hard to believe. Every time council releases land, or the state government increases allowable density, developers are licking their lips and inundating councils with applications. Why submit an application, with the architect and application costs to get a DA to sit on, if they want to create artificial scarcity. Just don’t sit on the land without a DA.

The reality is, since covid, building companies have been collapsing left right and centre due to supply chain issues which has led to way higher building materials costs. Projects builders have started are now operating at a loss and causing builders to go bust. Furthermore, the lack of building supplies means projects can’t proceed, despite the record demand for construction work. It’s really one of those rare situations where a highly in demand industry is in recession.

Just just way more convenient and fits the narrative to, once again, put it down to pure corporate greed.