6th of November not October.

Un f@*%ing believable.

Perplexity recognises it as a metaphor with a number of different meanings. The one I associated Lidia’s comment with is:

“Conflict and Protest: It is often used to express intense anger or a call for radical action, signaling dramatic upheaval, rebellion, or destruction of the status quo.”

And finally Trump is threatening the Insurrection Act. It was only ever a matter of time. Any guesses on how long before he actually invokes it?

I’m not enamoured of Albanese, but I don’t quite see him being duplicitous. I think he was really bitten by the Voice referendum and is going out of his way to avoid anything too contentious. I don’t like that. I’d prefer a more courageous approach, but at least he’s being clear about no referendum

I think he’s wrong. I don’t think we’re going there anytime soon. While I agree that it could happen here, our biggest safeguard is not having an elected president with constitutional powers. This alone makes it harder for one person to take control. Not impossible but a lot harder than the USA.

Ah interesting now his take makes sense.

Could it happen here, yeah. I don’t think that we’re immune. Some of Scommo’s actions suggested ways that level of control could be established. But, his suggestion that we’re next is rubbish. There’s a few other countries already well down the path.

I expect better reporting, headlines and analysis from the Guardian than this article represents. The Guardian should remove this article and provide a new more detailed and accurate reporting of the situation. 6/6 /end

Reducing interchange fees means that the banks lose income. This is what they are objecting to. They claim that their higher interchange fees enable them to provide rewards and interest free periods. It’s arguable how true that really is and this is what the Guardian should be investigating. 5/6

…thus surcharging began. The current proposal reverses this and would prevent businesses from adding a surcharge. Of course business will increase prices to cover for these costs. A return to the pre 2003 status. 4/6

Removing surcharges impacts businesses as they wear the burden of the merchant fees. Interchange fees impacts the banks directly.

Until 2003, the merchants forbid business from passing on fees to customers. In 2003, the RBA changed the rules allowing businesses to pass on fees…3/6

Surcharges are what businesses pass on to customers based on the fees they pay the banks. Interchange fees are what the banks pay each other and the merchants for each transaction. The RBA proposal is to remove surcharges and reduce interchange fees. 2/6

I think this article is misleading. It’s conflating the banks lobbying against reducing the interchange rate with removing surcharges. These are two distinct aspects of the proposal and the article doesn’t make this clear.

The banks are supporting removing the surcharges 1/6

Howard (& Costello as treasurer) wasted all those billions in windfall minerals profits buying votes rather than investing in the future. No sovereign wealth fund.

Also enabled the mining lobby to become the super powerful group they are today.

Some one give him a copy of The Life of Brian:

REG: Right. You’re in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the xxxing Judean People’s Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah.
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People’s Front.
REG: Oh, yeah. And the Popular Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Splitters!