Fox reporting Jack Williams is being targeted by PNG for 2028.
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
Replies are closed for this discussion.
This reply was deleted.
More stuff to read
"Daz,
No posts have been deleted.
No-one's been suspended.
Everyone's said their piece.
The discussion is now degenerating into trash-talk identity politics: ‘Leftie’ this, ‘Right Wing’ that.
So, I’m closing the blog. Let's move on, please."
No posts have been deleted.
No-one's been suspended.
Everyone's said their piece.
The discussion is now degenerating into trash-talk identity politics: ‘Leftie’ this, ‘Right Wing’ that.
So, I’m closing the blog. Let's move on, please."
"The dog ain't that hot anymore Krupty, but with a bit of sauce and a touch of mustard..... you never know? lol"
"They will, question is by year 2 or 3 how many of those signings see it out."
"He's been on record saying he would never play against his dad again."
Replies
Thanks Daz, but again you have the wrong answer here but thats your view.
Cut immigration and re-skill/upskill everyone on welfare - problem solved.
We'll be rolling in revenue. But no, we can't expect everyone who is physically capable to actually contribute to society now, can we?
Agreed Anguillidae, but that is common sense and unfortunately will not win votes.....you only need to see how many people receive welfare and also how many govt jobs have been made in the last few years to see where $$$ go. And that is votes. NDIS has been shown to have been rorted, and good old Bill Shorten is now gone and Vice Chancellor in Canberra.
Mitchy, it something wrong was said. Can you show the error in reasoning? Not just fall back on the rhetoric, but the actual error?
For instance, the IMF counts government subsidies as budget outlays. By the same logic you're calling for NDIS cuts, for example, why not cut the $10 billion per annum forked over to mining companies to lower their diesel costs?
So I'm just asking you to identify the error in the view that calls to "cut migration" or "cut government spending" is actially an over-generalization that is good rhetoric but fails to target specifically enough.
Cut migration and reskill "everyone" on "welfare". Which skills? Who decides which skills? How do we decide those skills? Who pays for those skills?
Given this cure-all of cut migration and reskill has pinged exactly what to do, I'm sure you have answers?
Also, "everyone on welfare". So reskill pensioners? Work all your life but, heh, damn migrants means you're 83 but gotta reskill and go to work? Family tax benefit? That's welfare so I guess that will be helped by reskilling who, the kids? Mothers working part time? Single parents? NDIS? Reskill those "on NDIS"? It's predominantly paying service workers for those with special needs. You don't think those service workers have skills? They need other skills? Which skills? Jobseeker. Income support while looking for work. I guess if talking reskilling job seekers you mean paying them to get skills? Also called Jobseeker.
I am mostly saying here that if the idea is good it would not be so vulnerable to straight mockery.
OK, Mitchy, how many receive welfare? You've implied this is easy to state so I take it you're able to state it? Is it:
A) 50%, or B) 20%, or C) 10% ???
Or if you cannot say exactly despite implying it's easy to state exactly, which from A, B or C is closest to the truth?
Daz, it was simple, I implied your answer was wrong and that is my view, as you mentioned Lib policies. I base my views on my own thoughts / ideas.
NDIS has been proven to have been a failure in its current method; another one. We have different views Daz, and that is ok. Nothing wrong with that.
The more Govt spend with money they borrow and subsidise things ( i.e. Net zero rubbish) it all adds to debt and not to mention bringing in people from o/seas who many do not work; and claim govt benefits.
You change the ratio to bring in skilled workers (in areas of need) and cut off the welfare. Like they did many years back -- snowy scheme etc.
Mining employees people and you may have an issue with that but hey, that is ok. My issue here is we should be keeping more for us; and use our uraniam for us here! We should also Daz be looking at Nuclear for electricity too and using the coal....Net Zero is a scam and another one....
But now you have just doubled down on the same error, Mitchy. I asked you to show what was wrong about me saying straight calls to cut migration or cut government spending were mass over-generalizations.
Now, take two examples in your reply. Apparently I have a problem with "mining employees" if I ask if we should just cut the fuel tax rebate? Should we not expect your response IF "cut gov't spending" is the cure-all you claim to be "yes cut that spending"? Instead you claim I have a problem with mining employees. So THAT gov't spending is OK? Which was my point. 'Cut gov't spending' is a mass over-generalization. And FYI my little bro is a mining employee and I love that guy.
Another example of yours is nuclear power. Advocates for nuk power in Oz explicitly admit the market won't pay and insist the government should. So how does that fit with cut government spending? You then turn around and argue for the most expensive electricity generating option with the bill footed by taxpayers.
Again, if it is the case that "cut migration" and "cut government spending" is actually a fix, shouldn't both be free from straight contradictions and clear favoritism?
Typical 'over-the-top' response from a leftie. It's quite obvious that we are talking about those who quite capable of work (not pensioners or those on disability support etc) yet choose not to.
Riddle me this, genius... Would it be cheaper to train someone in retail, customer service or hospitality or pay them to be on welfare their entire life? Or your alternative. Don't train them, leave them on welfare their entire life AND bring someone in from another country to do the job?
Asking for a friend.
Sadly, the idea of mowing a lawn or working in a bar or cafe appears to be beneath some people. Yourself included. Talk about mockery.
Agree it will be 'dad's army' roster, just like when Gold Coast came into the comp. I guess they're hoping by the 10th year, there will be some PNG players ready to step into NRL. Those 8-10 year olds now aspiring to one day play NRL. Its a real possibility given it is their national sport, unlike Melbourne who after all these years and all their successes, have fck all juniors come through. Perth will be the same as Melbourne. I'd rather a second NZ team over Perth.
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
of 15 Next