The Liberal Party - How long? - Part 2

[The Punter]

How many Nationals are farmers and how many Nationals are ex mining?

I don't know, but many farmers don't want massive transmission lines through their farms because they want to use that land to continue to grow food. And they were growing food on that land before Sky After Dark was a thing.

 

[The Punter]

Nationalise the farms and pay the farmers a fair wage.

Not enough of them marching on parliaments for your liking, huh?

 

[nut]

I don't know, but many farmers don't want massive transmission lines through their farms because they want to use that land to continue to grow food. And they were growing food on that land before Sky After Dark was a thing.

How does transmission lines stop food production?


And any farmer against solar panels on grazing land is stupid.

https://www.farmprogress.com/livestock/solar-grazing-sheep-help-manage-vegetation-at-solar-farms-boosting-agricultural-productivity

 

[The Punter]

How does transmission lines stop food production?


And any farmer against solar panels on grazing land is stupid.

https://www.farmprogress.com/livestock/solar-grazing-sheep-help-manage-vegetation-at-solar-farms-boosting-agricultural-productivity

You can't grow potatoes under them. Huge part of the Ballarat and surrounds economy.

I didn't mention solar panels.

 

[nut]

You can't grow potatoes under them. Huge part of the Ballarat and surrounds economy.

I didn't mention solar panels.

How much potato farming area is being affected?

 

[QuietB]

I don't know, but many farmers don't want massive transmission lines through their farms because they want to use that land to continue to grow food. And they were growing food on that land before Sky After Dark was a thing.

You don't know or it is not convenient to know?

On you second point, clearly that is an an insurmountable problem

You can't grow food in an open cut either but that didn't stop Yallourn and surrounds being swallowed up for the sake of progress.

 

[kalex6251]

I don't know, but many farmers don't want massive transmission lines through their farms because they want to use that land to continue to grow food. And they were growing food on that land before Sky After Dark was a thing.

now do fracking

 

[The Punter]

now do fracking

They don't want fracking and we don't need to frack.

 

[The Punter]

You don't know or it is not convenient to know?

On you second point, clearly that is an an insurmountable problem

You can't grow food in an open cut either but that didn't stop Yallourn and surrounds being swallowed up for the sake of progress.

I'm not a member of the Nationals so I don't have access to that information.

Renewables need mining too...

 

[kalex6251]

They don't want fracking and we don't need to frack.

there are sections of the right (here and interstate) who have been openly hostile towards victorias ban ..... openly hostile

 

[The Punter]

there are sections of the right (here and interstate) who have been openly hostile towards victorias ban ..... openly hostile

Victoria's ban is on all kinds of on-shore gas exploration. Fracking being banned is a bipartisan position in Victoria the last time I checked.

And let's be fair to those sections of the right... is there anything they are not openly hostile about? Openly hostile is their wheelhouse.

 

[QuietB]

I'm not a member of the Nationals so I don't have access to that information.

Renewables need mining too...

Well The Nationals are writing your parties policy, so....

As it stands The Nationals are insisting that nuclear is included in the coalition agreement and The Liberals are folding.

Why nuclear policy would be included in the coalition agreement because The Nationals insist is beyond me. It seems like democracy is going swimmingly at Liberal HQ.

 

[The Punter]

Well The Nationals are writing your parties policy, so....

As it stands The Nationals are insisting that nuclear is included in the coalition agreement and The Liberals are folding.

Why nuclear policy would be included in the coalition agreement because The Nationals insist is beyond me. It seems like democracy is going swimmingly at Liberal HQ.

I mean, there is no agreement as I write. But the idea that legislation should ban any form of power generation is ridiculous, and that's what we're down to. The market will decide like it is doing right now with coal.

The Nats wanted their members of Shadow Cabinet to be able to speak out when Shadow Cabinet decided something they didn't like. They're not insisting on that anymore and negotiations are ongoing. In the real world you have to try and work with people sometimes. If the Greens Party recognised that we would have had a CPRS fifteen years ago and we'd probably be talking about something else.

 

[nut]

The market will decide like it is doing right now with coal.

What? The market has chosen to invest in renewables… is that what you mean?

 

[The Punter]

What? The market has chosen to invest in renewables… is that what you mean?

Yes. Remove the legislative ban on nuclear and let the market decide.

 

[nut]

Yes. Remove the legislative ban on nuclear and let the market decide.

I sought of agree because it simple can’t compete against renewables.
But is that the will of the people?
I would have thought the election result showed a clear decision on that.

 

[GrayRanga]

I mean, there is no agreement as I write. But the idea that legislation should ban any form of power generation is ridiculous, and that's what we're down to. The market will decide like it is doing right now with coal.

The Nats wanted their members of Shadow Cabinet to be able to speak out when Shadow Cabinet decided something they didn't like. They're not insisting on that anymore and negotiations are ongoing. In the real world you have to try and work with people sometimes. If the Greens Party recognised that we would have had a CPRS fifteen years ago and we'd probably be talking about something else.

The market is champing at the bit to go nuclear?

If the market is so important, why aren't consortiums investing now to start building without any public experditure?

 

[kalex6251]

Yes. Remove the legislative ban on nuclear and let the market decide.

lets do the same thing for cannabis

 

[Pie eyed]

Yes. Remove the legislative ban on nuclear and let the market decide.

I agree.
If it were simply a matter of "allowing" nuclear and opening the market to private industry making a case for nuclear I can see no reason not to do this.
That however is so far from what Dutton and the Nationals are suggesting in their policy that it's not even in the same country.

You will see that if it's left to the market, without government intervention ie taxpayer funded bribes, grants, subsidies or bailouts, no nuclear plants will ever be proposed.

 

[The Punter]

I agree.
If it were simply a matter of "allowing" nuclear and opening the market to private industry making a case for nuclear I can see no reason not to do this.
That however is so far from what Dutton and the Nationals are suggesting in their policy that it's not even in the same country.

You will see that if it's left to the market, without government intervention ie taxpayer funded bribes, grants, subsidies or bailouts, no nuclear plants will ever be proposed.

Well Dutton is gone, and my analysis is Ms Ley can see that Nuclear is not a political winner but wants to keep the Coalition together and can see this as a way forward.

I also think there is a good chance the energy landscape looks a bit different in 24 months time when it comes time to start locking in and announcing election policy. Decisions might end up getting made for parties by, you know, developments.

nut

The will of the people expressed at the last election would appear to be they don't what we proposed, which was the government constructing nuclear power plants. Removing the legislative ban is not this.

 

[Dazzler9]

Yes. Remove the legislative ban on nuclear and let the market decide.

Indeed, lets.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Yes. Remove the legislative ban on nuclear and let the market decide.

Will the market decide where the nuclear waste will go? Allowing them to be built by private industry if enough $$$ are invested assumes that we must have agreed that we want to put the waste somewhere, it can't just be an afterthought.

After seeing the lack of detail about nuclear waste in the last election cycle, I have zero confidence that any member of the coalition has any better idea where the waste will go now than they didn't know previously.

 

[Pie eyed]

Well Dutton is gone, and my analysis is Ms Ley can see that Nuclear is not a political winner but wants to keep the Coalition together and can see this as a way forward.

I also think there is a good chance the energy landscape looks a bit different in 24 months time when it comes time to start locking in and announcing election policy. Decisions might end up getting made for parties by, you know, developments.

nut

The will of the people expressed at the last election would appear to be they don't what we proposed, which was the government constructing nuclear power plants. Removing the legislative ban is not this.

Also agree with the general tenor of your post.
The problem will be the Nationals, who are driving the entire Nuclear issue, the problem being it's a Trojan horse for more coal, the taxpayer funded refurbishment of defunct coal fired power stations and even rolling back of already initiated renewable projects.
The biggest danger with removal of the no nuclear legislation is who will take advantage of it, why, who pays and who profits.

If the answer is "the electricity consumer" to "back up nationwide renewables" paid for by "private industry" for the benefit of "electricity consumers" then I'm all for it.

The fact is it will be "the coal mining industry and a few politicians " to "continue mining coal and delay the uptake of renewables as long as possible" paid for over several generations by "the taxpayer" for the profit of "mining companies and several politicians".

Tell me I am wrong.

 

[The Punter]

Will the market decide where the nuclear waste will go? Allowing them to be built by private industry if enough $$$ are invested assumes that we must have agreed that we want to put the waste somewhere, it can't just be an afterthought.

After seeing the lack of detail about nuclear waste in the last election cycle, I have zero confidence that any member of the coalition has any better idea where the waste will go now than they didn't know previously.

You set strong regulatory requirements (not bans) on the waste and let the market operate under those requirements.

 

[The Punter]

Also agree with the general tenor of your post.
The problem will be the Nationals, who are driving the entire Nuclear issue, the problem being it's a Trojan horse for more coal, the taxpayer funded refurbishment of defunct coal fired power stations and even rolling back of already initiated renewable projects.
The biggest danger with removal of the no nuclear legislation is who will take advantage of it, why, who pays and who profits.

If the answer is "the electricity consumer" to "back up nationwide renewables" paid for by "private industry" for the benefit of "electricity consumers" then I'm all for it.

The fact is it will be "the coal mining industry and a few politicians " to "continue mining coal and delay the uptake of renewables as long as possible" paid for over several generations by "the taxpayer" for the profit of "mining companies and several politicians".

Tell me I am wrong.

I think it politicians are talking about "energy prices are more important net zero" then they're pulling the curtain up. See Canavan, M. The energy market, traditional and renewable alike, is full of companies and investors making profits from government decisions and support. As I said, the landscape will probably look different in 24 months. I'm not keen on re-nationalisation of the industry. But there are weaknesses and improvements than can and need to be made.