THERE is a hilarious moment in the Hitchhikers’s Guide to the Galaxy when it is explained to one of the last remaining humans, Arthur Dent, that things are not what they seemed.

Shattering his life-long assumptions following the Earth’s destruction - that’s intergalactic progress - a higher being explains to the hapless Dent, that all those white mice in labs that humans thought were part of various experiments, were in fact, conducting an experiment on us. Humans were not as wise as they thought and now, their planet had been obliterated to make way for a hyperspace bypass.

I thought of this on two counts in recent days. First, there is the parallel with what Malcolm Turnbull, has been telling his troops: do nothing about climate change and the Earth as we know, will be destroyed.

``This is about the future of our planet and the future of our children and their children,’’ he said on Thursday night, bloodied but unbowed by a mass walk out of Right wing shadow cabinet members.

``It is one of the great challenges of our time ...as Margaret Thatcher said, right back nearly 20 years ago in 1990, this is about risk management. Or as Rupert Murdoch said, we have to give the planet the benefit of the doubt.’‘

And he went on in his inimitable ` no-backwards-steps’ way.

``Australians expect their political leaders to act responsibly ... we must be a party committed to action on climate change ... if where we are heading is for an election on the issue of should Australia take action on climate change or not, and if the Coalition is on the take no action side, then it will be a catastrophe for us and that is perfectly clear. We cannot be a responsible or credible political party unless we are committed to taking responsible action on climate change.’‘

Now that’s conviction. There is of course, plenty of good scientific evidence for this position but it is not enough for many Liberals and all of the Nationals. Despite most of them being ardent believers in God, for which, lets be frank, there is no evidence, many say a scientific consensus means nothing. Some even say we should take no action at all to lower emissions or conserve energy; that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and that the Earth is not warming at all. To them it’s all part of a giant leftist conspiracy motivated by anti-capitalists. Quite how the millionaire businessman, Malcolm Turnbull can be construed in this light remains unresolved.

The other prompt for recalling the Hitchhiker’s Guide was in relation to what was often called ``the Turnbull experiment’‘. This was the reluctant acceptance by some (but not all) conservatives in the Liberal party-room as the Nelson leadership disintegrated, that despite serious misgivings about him, the party may as well accept this undeniable force of nature and have its ``Turnbull experiment’‘.

The term was no accident. It was a deliberately pejorative description, recalling Labor’s disastrous ``Latham experiment’‘. Indeed, one conservative predicted that Mr Turnbull would be ``a rich, Liberal, Mark Latham’‘. Former treasurer, Peter Costello, whose relationship with Mr Turnbull was always acrimonious, had also warned colleagues considering Mr Turnbull that he would ``destroy the Liberal Party’‘.

But now, as the party elects to destroy itself rather than follow him to the middle, it may be more accurate to see the experiment in precisely the opposite terms - not so much their experiment with him but Turnbull looking down the microscope.

There is some evidence for this. More than once, and to the great ire of conservatives, supporters have referred to Mr Turnbull’s valiant attempts to modernize the party - to prepare it for election to office.

And it looks as though that was how Turnbull himself saw it - a kind of long-overdue intellectual renovation. After John Howard, he wanted to reshape the conservative party into a progressive, business-oriented outfit - and importantly, to re-assert the liberal aspect of the party thereby appealing to the same middle ground Kevin Rudd had captured. His plan was to encourage the Liberal Party to look forwards.

He saw climate change as a key factor in John Howard’s demise because it allowed Kevin Rudd to cast the ageing Liberal as yesterday’s man. And he knew that a clear majority of Australians are worried that the Earth is warming and want decisive action on it.

Boiled down, the plan was to see if the Liberal Party could be updated in line with broader community attitudes and thus be brought on to the middle ground of Australian politics. Mr Turnbull believed this could be done through sheer force of argument.

But now it seems, the results are in.

Political parties are not like companies where you can restructure them and so dramatically change their culture. Rather, the culture of a political party does not move quickly even if some elements within it do. Reason does not always prevail.

A final thought. This issue has now been instrumental in taking down three conservative leaders - Howard, Nelson, and Turnbull. It is, as one colleague observed, the party’s curse.

Who will be next?

Most commented

43 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Adam says:

      10:10am | 28/11/09

      The original TV series was better.

    • Colin says:

      10:12am | 28/11/09

      Mark, with all due respect, the edifice of the “scientific consensus” is blowing apart by the day, for a whole week now. ClimateGate up to 9.8 Million Google references now. UK and USA lawmakers calling for criminal investigations. And now, one of those same UEA / IPCC lead author scientists has come out and indicated that the ClimateGate leaked emails, documents, and computer model source code means the IPCC is finished -

      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018192/climategate-the-ipcc-is-over-says-uea-climate-scientist/

      Time for the “believers” to wake up, and abandon ship, methinks.

    • Ian Matthews says:

      10:17am | 28/11/09

      The emails from the CRU slip by you did they Mark?

    • Yon Toad says:

      10:30am | 28/11/09

      Started well with the Hitchiker’s analogy, but turned into the usual majority press gallery stodge that has given Kevin the Liar a free ride since 2007.

    • Charles says:

      11:15am | 28/11/09

      Mr kenny; ‘.......plenty of good scientific evidence for climate change’ written by yourself in this article.  Have a think about that, did you see that evidence for yourself, or did someone tell you?

      If you got out and had a look at the science, you would see how much science is actually NOT on the side of the AGW theory.  I know that the Canberra press gallery operates on the theory of group think, but after a while it becomes quite cringeworthy.  I would appreciate if you were to use the argument of science supporting the AGW theory, and providing some supprting evidence, then I could credit you with being able to think for yourself.  But making the comment supporting the science without even making an effort to understand the science, just makes you look like a victim of propaganda, and does nothing for the integrity of your writing.

    • phil says:

      11:51am | 28/11/09

      Hopefully the next will be all the rightards that hide behind a liberal flag, which shows their real nature. Will they have the guts to live under a conservative flag for all to see. Let the true Liberals and progressives be free of the curse of conservatives once and for all.

    • DigiDave says:

      12:20pm | 28/11/09

      Mark, the problem with yourself, and others, is that you have chosen one side of an ongoing debate, and instead of accepting other opinions, you use words like ‘consensus’ and ‘denial’ to belittle and bully others. This is rude, and the sign of an intolerant individual.

      Why are you against more scientific research being done before we commit to billions of dollars in new taxes, and thousands of job losses ?  Hundreds of scientists have not concluded that man was mostly responsible for 20th C warming, and since there has been no warming for the last 10 years, what is the rush ?  Lets get this right.

    • iansand says:

      01:00pm | 28/11/09

      Which bit of the science is wrong?  Don’t you believe that CO2 can act to retain heat in an atmosphere?  Or don’t you believe that burning fossil fuels creates CO2?  Maybe you just don’t believe that things are getting warmer?  So, denialists, which is it?

    • Colin says:

      02:09pm | 28/11/09

      iansand, re “do you believe that CO2 can act to retain heat in an atmosphere”, suggest you read the 2009 peer-reviewed paper by world-leading climate scientists Lindzen and Choi.  In a nutshell, it shows that excess CO2 escapes our atmosphere, thus, the IPCC warming estimates are exaggerated by a factor of +6.
      Suggest you check out some of the (now) 9.8 Million Google references to the rapidly growing ClimateGate scandal. Funny how things change in only 7 days - now it’s the warmist “believers” who are going into denial… a delicious irony.

    • Jack says:

      02:10pm | 28/11/09

      What a load of bullshit.

    • DigiDave says:

      02:11pm | 28/11/09

      @iansand - CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Do 100% of scientists agree on how much influence it has on climate ?  No.  Have well respected and peer-reviewed scientists presented other possibilites for 20th C warming ?  Yes.

      Ok, now that I’ve answered your question, here is one for you.  How do you explain that no warming has been observed for the last 10 years ?

    • Belle says:

      02:54pm | 28/11/09

      You are missing the point.  The issue is not ‘science’ or ‘evidence’ about climate change or the environment.  The issue is that the government’s scheme is inequitable, unfair and too complicated.

      The ETS is unworkable and is just sets up another financial instrument like those which caused the GFC.

    • Brendan says:

      03:19pm | 28/11/09

      Why do we have to keep having the same ridiculous argument?  We need to get with the program NOW and try to fix this problem.  I would love to know the proportion of people who have religious faith that are also climate skeptics.  I suspect there is a very strong correlation.

      Furthermore, this issue could finally see the emancipation of the word “Liberal” in Australian politics.  It is about time these arch conservatives, who rally under that misleading banner, finally identify themselves as Tories.  Perhaps there could be a significant realignment.  This issue may be the proverbial straw. 

      The National Party has for years been losing electoral relevance.  A new conservative party could be formed between the current Liberal right and the Nats.  The Liberal moderates could form their own party.  A kind of fiscally conservative version of the Democrats.

    • John A Neve says:

      03:48pm | 28/11/09

      Colin @1529hrs.
      “Lindzen’s paper destroys the entire basis for man-made climate change argument”.  Not true, all Lindzen says is that previous finding have been exaggerated, no where does he state that CO2 has no impact on global warming.
      The trouble is Colin, is that you see, but you don’t understand.

    • Purlease says:

      04:00pm | 28/11/09

      What a load of bollocks on here by the climate change deniers.  Mark’s article hits the nail right on the head - the science to prove global warming exists and deniers refuse to believe it.

      Anyone interested in what the University’s CRU has to say in response to the hacked emails, read this: https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

      Some of the key points:
      - “That the world is warming is based on a range of sources: not only temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier retreat and less Arctic sea ice.

      Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Center in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.”

      and, “A selection of these emails have been taken out of context and misinterpreted as evidence that CRU has manipulated climate data to present an unrealistic picture of global warming.

      This conclusion is entirely unfounded and the evidence from CRU research is entirely consistent with independent evidence assembled by various research groups around the world.”

      As for Lindzen and Choi’s paper?  Do a google search and you’ll find lots of information showing how flawed their conclusions are.  It’s also based on only 15 years of sea surface temperatures from one source - not the 100+ years of data from multiple sources used by climate scientists.

      Bottom line is:
      - average global temperatures have risen over the past 100+ years (and will continue to do so)
      - humans are the cause of this through releasing carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels.

      The scientific consensus is crumbling? Pur-lease.  Only in the minds of deniers desperate to prove their conspiracy theory of a world-wide Communist plot.
      .

    • iansand says:

      04:07pm | 28/11/09

      CO2 “escapes the atmosphere”?  Why only CO2?  Why hasn’t the whole of the atmosphere leaked away?  I suspect that you may not have a handle on how the thing works, and are parroting crap you get from others.

      Haven’t you worked out that Lord Monckton is a nutter?  He is the loony who thinks that the whole thing is some sort of world government conspiracy, probably orchestrated by the Lizard People.

      And I have no idea why there has been no measured warming for the last 10 years (assuming that statement is correct) but I am reasonably sure that 10 years would only be a blip in a longer process.

    • Paul Prentice says:

      08:32pm | 28/11/09

      Australia is land of droughts & flooding rains as every one knows, Rudd and Turnbull come our freedom goes, as climate change covers our eyes we can not see the truth within the skys, as the media tells us lies, Rudd plays communist in disguise!! Turnbull brings our demise ,but too our plight we will fight, we will remember what you did on that Thursday night.

    • orangecrush says:

      08:44pm | 28/11/09

      Good research iansand.  Something the deniers are not fond of.  It’s utterly hilarious the way they spend hours Googling to find a single (non-peer-reviewed) article and then nail their flag to it unquetioningly, but somehow fail to stumble across the hundreds of scientific papers and statements from well-renowned organisations supporting Climate Change.

    • Andrew Goff says:

      09:36pm | 28/11/09

      Oh for goodness sake.

      A) Temperature have risen in the last ten years. Just because you say it a lot doesn’t make it true. 1998 was the hottest year in 10,000 years (or since God created the earth if you prefer). the decade 2000-2009 will be the hottest decade in the same time. The average temperature for the decade continues to rise. Saying temperatures haven’t risen in the last ten years by comparing them to the hottest year EVER is ridiculous.

      B) Articles by James Delingpole about climate change have about as much link to reality as articles by Katherine Deveny do about Feminism (or articles by her about anything come to think of it).

      C) CO2 escapes the atmosphere??? That is the funniest one yet. Escapes it TO WHERE? It is HEAVIER than Oxygen (correctly, O2)... so if CO2 escapes into space why doesn’t oxygen? Maybe God has a divine straw sucking it away?

      D) Finally, and I know this might surprise you, but most organisations have idiots in them who use language such as some of the IPCC e-mails. Do Godwin Grech’s e-mails mean eveything the Liberal party has ever done is tainted? Of course not. Issac Newtown was a lunatic, who regularly destroyed lives just for the perception that someone didn’t like something he said (or even just for the fun of it)... doesn’t make the science of Gravity any less well founded. The e-mails are serious. Now lets look at if any of the numbers were actually changed. If they were, this is indeed a disgrace… but early independent peer review suggests that they were not. In which case this “end of climate change” claptrap is like saying the CBA will collapse because you waited in a queue for 20 minutes.

    • stephen says:

      05:09am | 29/11/09

      It’s getting hotter, and someone’s gonna pay for it, and that’s us.

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      05:49am | 29/11/09

      This has become a religion for the true believers and to argue a different view make one a heretic. Any one would think we said GODS a girl or something. Climate change is happening, YES, but not because of little old us. Clean this mess up we have made, YES, but not at the expense of our economy and future and not with some dingbat plan being rushed through by KRUDD and WRONG!!!! .

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      05:57am | 29/11/09

      And,Purlease says: 05:00pm | 28/11/09
      Not much in your link there but a couple of deniers.. 9I would do the same if I was them) but are we talking about those same ground temp readings that are proven to be unreliable because they were taken in carparks and up against walls? Lets look to the satellite readings which indicate a different set of numbers. They don’t look good on their data so they ignored those ones. I will post a link when I can find it again but if your interested just do a few basic searches. It’s not to hard to find shit loads of damming evidence against the perpetrators of fraud against the world for greed.

    • DigiDave says:

      08:02am | 29/11/09

      @Andrew Goff

      QUOTE - “Temperature have risen in the last ten years”.  Sorry, but you would almost be on your own now to assume this.  Even the CRU admits this, as well as Tim Flannery, Monbiot and almost every lead author of the last IPCC has come out and agreed.  And they all agree it’s preplexing as to why.  And this isn’t compared to 1998, it is with this “El Nino” pushed year completely removed from the equation.

      As for this being the hotest decade in 10000 years, that claim has been dismissed many times now.  Consensus agreement is that for several centuries during the medievil warm period it was hotter than it has been for the last ten years.

      Maybe you should research some facts yourself before spouting nonsense and telling others they are idiots.

    • Charles says:

      09:55am | 29/11/09

      Andrew Goff and iansand, so much silliness wrapped up in a couple of e-mails.

      Firstly, 1998 was the warmest recorded year at airports around the world in the last 50-60 years.  2000-2009 will be the warmest decade recorded since we started taking measurements, mostly at airports over the last 50-60 years.

      The last time a continent set a maximum daily record was in 1974, and that was in Antarctica.

      The Medieval Warming Period had temperatures that were in excess of 3-4C more than they are today, and we know that because among other things the Vikings were able to settle Greenland for approximately 350 years, and they haven’t been able to do it since, and cannot do it now.  Ergo, it was warmer then than it is now. (So your claim it is the warmest for 10000 years looks a bit silly).

      Finally, Antarctica has more sea ice around it than it has for the average of 1980-2000, and the Arctic had a warm spell lasting from 1917 - 1939 where records show there was far less ice than there is today. 

      None of the material quoted here has been peer reviewed as it is empirical data that requires no peer review.

    • frank says:

      11:05am | 29/11/09

      The only fact is, no one really knows what will happen in the future.  However, there appears to be strong scientific support for global warming and our influence on it.
      How many of you own a house?
      How many of you insure it by paying ever increasing premiums each year?
      How many of you would risk not insuring against fire destroying your house?
      Finally, how many of you have ever had a house burnt down?
      So why do you bother with insurance for such a low risk?
      Because the consequence and the cost of the risk eventuating is too high to contemplate for most people.  So we convert a catastrophic risk into a manageable cost. 
      So why wouldn’t we insure against climate change?
      Just dumb live for today mentality.

    • iansand says:

      12:01pm | 29/11/09

      Charles

      The best lack all conviction
      And the worst are full of passionate intensity.

      Unlike you, I do not know whether human activity is causing or contributing to climate change.  I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  I know that we have been pumping extra CO2 into the system over the last couple of centuries.  It seems to me that the climate is changing.  However I am too smart to confuse correlation with causation.  What I do know is that correlation is a pretty good starting point when analysing causation.

      I also know enough about science to know that many denialists abuse and misrepresent the process.  This makes me suspicious.

      I am also quite certain that the vast majority of scientists take what they do quite seriously.  I know that they have heard of the Mediaeval Warm Period.  I know that they are aware of data about the extent of ice (although I am reasonably sure that the stuff you have written is not 100% accurate).  For example, if there is more ice floating around Antarctica this is explicable by the acceleration of glaciers caused by the lubrication of meltwater.

      But I don’t know anything for sure.  Unlike you, Charles, and being sure makes you look foolish.

    • Colin says:

      12:32pm | 29/11/09

      John A Neve, iansand, et al,
      I see you obviously have not even read the Lindzen/Choi paper for yourselves. If you had, you could/should have picked me up on my error.
      I wrote that the Lindzen paper shows that “excess CO2 escapes our atmosphere”.  A simple error in my haste… and you did not pick it up. I meant to write that the paper proves “excess radiation” escapes our atmosphere. In other words, the paper is not denying that CO2… and other GHG’s… affect the atmosphere. What has been proven, is that the additional radiation (Greenhouse Effect) caused by GHG’s escapes the atmosphere.
      Again, if you had read the paper yourself, you’d have immediately picked that up. But then again, it’s much easier to just parrot, rather than research and try to use your own mind, isn’t it.

    • slugger says:

      12:39pm | 29/11/09

      her’s a peer review for you,barnaby joyce walks through rural dust bowl as cattle die of thirst and tells the true believers its not man made.you have my vote.

    • iansand says:

      01:27pm | 29/11/09

      Colin@1:32 You haven’t read it either, or, if you have, you have not yet provided links to it.  And I do apologise for taking what you write at face value.  How foolish of me.

    • stevet says:

      01:46pm | 29/11/09

      Colin says
      Lindzen & Choi’s credibility has been shot. They are paid & financed by ExxonMobil who also finances the UK group. Plimer, manag.direct of 3 mining corps here in Aust. paid over 300,000 in the last two years with options for 2million shares. Hugh Morgan the organiser and financial backing for these scientists is a manag. direct of WMC mining.
      Leaked emails. Out of volumes that were stolen a chosen few were held up as some conspiratorial plot. Akin to having half the conversation. Deniers have all said that Gore & his ilk have vested interests in CC. It’s time to put all the vested interests from both camps in the public domain for scrutiny.
      We have so-called credible scientists making incredible volumes of money as mouthpieces for the oil/mining industries.
      The deniers are being suckered by corporations to fight their battle of power & profit.  Who is suckering who here?

    • orangecrush says:

      02:38pm | 29/11/09

      Barnaby and the National Party don’t believe in Global Warming because they have noticed no fading of their curtains ..... unlike the effects of daylight saving!!

      Siding with the Nationals on a scientific issue .... priceless!!

    • Geoff says:

      03:12pm | 29/11/09

      I’d just like one person to be able to table in parliament 1 piece of evidence that proves that man-made CO2 emissions is causing catastrophic global warming.
      hasn’t happened yet… not likely to happen.
      I’d also like the alarmists to stop spouting theory and opinion as if they are proof.  Then they’d have nothing to say.

    • iansand says:

      04:07pm | 29/11/09

      So Geoff - what “proof” do you have to the contrary?

    • Geoff says:

      04:59pm | 29/11/09

      Well in the words of many an alarmist…  you can’t prove a negative and the onus is on those making the claim fto supply the proof.

      so Iansand feel free to PROVE something…  that would be a nice change.

    • iansand says:

      05:12pm | 29/11/09

      But Geoff - one more time.

      Temperatures appear to be rising.  We are adding CO2 to the system.  CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  What do you want?  Divine revelation?

    • Colin says:

      05:16pm | 29/11/09

      stevet, iansand,

      Ever heard of the “ad hominem” fallacy? Thought not.

      Try addressing the substance of the argument, rather than attacking the man (Lindzen/Choi). Lindzen/Choi say that (in a nutshell) any extra RADIATION generated by GHG’s radiates out beyond the earth’s atmosphere, and thus, the claims that MMCo2 will cause the planet to experience runaway GW are exaggerated by a factor of +6.

      This conclusion comes from direct OBSERVATION i.e, measurement. Not fudged computer models that have constantly been shown to be wrong - they cannot even accurately reproduce the past!

      What is your response to the scientific argument they put forward?

    • charles says:

      06:23pm | 29/11/09

      iansand, yes we have been putting CO2 in the atmosphere, probably for 200,000 years or more.  However, since the IPCC TAR report in 2001 noted that only 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere was of anthropogenic origin (i.e. via burning fossil fuels), therefore, we are not responsible for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere with only 17 ppm of the current 388 ppm being of our fault. 

      There was also a recent (2008) paper released which showed that this ratio has not changed much over the past 15 years or so, and in fact it has gone down a bit, and we are now responsible only for about 3.2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere

      You are also right in that the climate is changing, and has probably been for the 4-6 billion years this planet has been in existence.  In the short term, we had a warming period from 1978-2000, we had a cooling period from 1948-1978, and prior to that we had a warming period from about 1918-1948.  We are now in a cooling period from 2000 to present, and it is anticipated to go until 2035, although there is some suggestion due to recent low solar activity that it might be a deeper than usual, and be similar to a Dalton or Maunder Minimum which was enjoyed in the Little Ice Age (1350-1720).

    • iansand says:

      06:52pm | 29/11/09

      Colin - I posted a link some time ago that raises some issues about the methodology (and before you attack the critic you should do a little investigation about him).

      Charles - What?  What do those numbers mean/  I suspect that they have something to do with the fact that there is a carbon cycle in which carbon goes round and round, but that we have loaded extra carbon into that cycle.  But I may be wrong.  You are not very clear.  Lots of percentages without any reference to base figures.

    • Geoff says:

      07:02pm | 29/11/09

      ah iansand….  we put lots of stuff into the atmosphere.
      last time I read, natural CO2 (as opposed to man made) was 97% of it.
      If for argument sake CO2 was 400ppm, then we’d be contributing12ppm.
      Now…  if we stopped completely there’d still be 388ppm.

      Now iansand…  if the models were in anyway correct and the theory behind them there would have been over the last 10 years a corresponding increase in global temperature.  But you see…  and here’s that divine revelation you asked for…  climate is a lot more complicated than just CO2…  and we Australians only produce a foopteenth of it.

      As for the alarmists claims of; warming, cooling, warming, dimming, warming….  of late last century…  is there little reason they finally decided on calling it climate change?
      Rudd, Combet, et al… have recently proven they don’t even know what climate is…  be a sheeple follow them all you like…  but don’t expect me or people of reason to follow you.  I’m happy to wait for some real proof.

    • iansand says:

      07:15pm | 29/11/09

      Charles - I forgot to mention your 200,000 years thing.  I hate to tell you, but the industrial revolution started about 250 years ago.

    • Geoff says:

      02:02pm | 30/11/09

      Yes, but the Earth and its ever changing climate have been around much, much longer.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter