Ranty Snippets

My first Ranty Snippet on @SpectatorOz Facebook Page

 

We can’t afford Albo’s phoney election campaign

Asking a question at the National Press Club address, 19 March 2025

From the National Press Club: Australia is in a phoney election campaign. We’re in that period where we know an election must be held by May 17 at the latest, but no election has been announced. The last day for the government to announce the election is April 14. The government must then enter caretaker mode and cannot make any major decisions. In my opinion, the Albanese government is deliberately using its position to campaign at public expense in the meantime.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, We can’t afford Albo’s phoney election campaign.

When it comes to workers - I don't know a single worker - Union or non-Union - who is not working their butts off right now.

In my opinion, our standard of living sucks 😠 and this has been caused by the Albanese government’s ideologically driven economic policies.… pic.twitter.com/LIGp56x0nk

— The Spectator Australia (@SpectatorOz) March 24, 2025

Paying for elections every three years is worth it

Imagine another year of this government?

 

There’s an old joke about divorces. Do you know why they’re so expensive? Because they’re worth it.

Elections are no different. Mr Albanese wants four-year fixed terms. Apparently, Mr Dutton used to want four-year terms but then he didn’t, and now he does again.

Four-year terms might make their job easier. It might also save us some $60 billion in the next two decades. But do voters really want the federal government to have four years to mess with us? Or is it worth $3 billion each year to make our politicians work harder for us?

Writing in the Unfiltered newsletter, Alexandra Marshall had this to say:

What do you reckon – give politicians an extra year in power? Albanese and Dutton are keen for four-year fixed terms, and it would save $60 billion over two decades, but Michael de Percy writes with a warning when it comes to extending the lifespan of the federal government. What do you think, is the risk worth the saving?

Writing in the Morning Double Shot newsletter, Terry Barnes had this to say:

A recent think tank paper suggested that Australia moving from three to four-year electoral terms would save taxpayers $60 billion in direct and indirect costs over 20 years. Michael de Percy will have none of that. Three-year terms are more democratic he says. ‘If our governments really suck, they can be ended sooner’, pointing out that four-year lower house terms means eight-year Senate terms for all the crossbench fruit loops in the unrepresentative swill. But four-year terms also mean more reform and less playing to the peanut gallery, and some relief from the endless campaigning of three-year terms. If the Constitution must be amended on terms, why not make it a fixed four-year term for both Reps and Senate? That at least would keep the riff-raff factor down, especially if, at the same time, the nexus is broken between the size of the two Houses, so the Senate can be cut down to size and proportional representation with too-low quotas doesn’t throw up a clutch of numpties.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, Paying for elections every three years is worth it.

FOUR-YEAR fixed election terms might save $60 billion over two decades.

Both Albanese and Dutton want them.

But do we really want to give the Federal government four whole years to make a mess?

Look at the UK and their five-year terms. 😬https://t.co/XhwMAWjfJ1

— The Spectator Australia (@SpectatorOz) March 19, 2025