I would assume that none of us find Peta Credlins political leanings to be surprising, but I am hopeful it may be starting to more apparent to the general public.

I think the answer to the headlines question is easy, there is a strong possibility Credlin is a Murdoch shill, and protentially always has been. If you haven't already you should watch 'Nemesis' on the ABC about the LNPs tenure from Tony to Scummo.

During Tony's tenure, he keeps getting more and more advice from Credlin, or only discusses issues with her, and ignores the position of the remaining MPs in his party, prioritising Credlins positions. After Tony got toppled, all of a sudden you see Credlin on Sky News as a host dishing out opinions about the direction the country should take and screeching whenever the government goes against those 'opinions', as sky news does.

According to the below report from the guardian, there was a rumour floating around that Sky News offered Credlin a position after she left the Fedral government when Tony was toppled (published 21/3/2016):

"Sky News has declined to confirm a rumour that former chief of staff to Tony Abbott, Peta Credlin, is considering an offer to join the 24-hour news channel as a commentator for the federal election."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/21/the-bolt-report-to-be-resurrected-on-sky-news-five-nights-a-week?CMP=share_btn_url

Followed by this article 10 days later (31/3/2016): https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/mar/31/peta-credlin-joins-sky-news-as-2016-election-campaign-commentator?CMP=share_btn_url

I also found this statement from the above article very interesting, though I can't say it is still the case as these articles are from 8 years ago

Sky News is one third-owned by Rupert Murdoch’s Sky Europe, with the rest owned by Nine and Seven.

Credlins Wikipedia page states:

As a political commentator and self-described journalist, Credlin has been described as a partisan

And has her credentials listed as:

She graduated with a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Melbourne with a concentration in constitutional law, politics and history in 1998

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peta_Credlin

This is potentially a better source, or a least is a second source giving the same info:

Peta Credlin has a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Melbourne with a concentration in constitutional law, politics and history. Peta is admitted as a Barrister and Solicitor in Victoria and has a further post-graduate qualification in law from the Australian National University.

https://www.mckinnonprize.org.au/panellists/ms-peta-credlin/

The below article refers to a book written by Niki Savva who, according to Wikipedia, is an author/journalist and former senior advisor to Johnny H and Peter Costello. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niki_Savva

"It wasn’t just those rumours, it was everything else to do with their behaviour. Their behaviour, the way they ran the office, the way they ran the government, ultimately led to their downfall,” Savva said. “That is what people inside the Coalition genuinely believe and so many people told him [Abbott], they warned him about this, and he wouldn’t listen.”

And naturally some heavy hypocrisy from Peta in her response

"Niki Savva never made contact with me or my office on any of the claims in her book,’’ Abbott told News Corp on Sunday. “I’m not going to rake over old coals and I don’t respond to scurrilous gossip.”

Credlin said, also to News Corp: “After 16 years in politics, I’ve always made it my practice not to comment on gossip or stories from unnamed sources.

“Sadly, modern politics is full of both. So I’m hardly going to change this practice especially when the so-called journalist didn’t make any effort to contact me. This book says a lot more about her lack of ethics than it will ever say about me.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/mar/06/abbott-and-credlins-destructive-approach-led-to-downfall-says-author?CMP=share_btn_url

There is also this article from 2014 (published 24/2/2014), though the article doesnt go into a great amount of detail, and the link to another report in it is broken, but at the same time AFR is a fairly right leaning publication and it doesnt seem Tony sued them for defamation, which seems to be the general way people in the political class seem to want to obfuscate their involvement in such things. I guess he wasnt as concerned about his hat as Bruce was:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has denied any knowledge of almost $900 million that the Tax Office paid to Rupert Murdoch ’s News Corporation between September and January.

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/news-to-me-abbott-says-of-882m-cash-for-murdoch-s-news-corp-20140218-ixrok

And then there is when Tony made comments like this in 2014 (published 16/7/2014):

The Australian newspaper is Rupert Murdoch's 'gift to our nation'' Prime Minister Tony Abbott has told a gala dinner in Sydney to celebrate the publication's 50th birthday.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/tony-abbott-praises-the-australian-as-rupert-murdochs-gift-to-our-nation-20140716-3bzwg.html

Now, somewhat unsurprising, Tony was offered a position on the Fox News board of directors in 2023, which he accepted, because supposedly Australia's LNP MPs are all experts in media and therefore deserve to have obtained these prestigious positions within News Corp without any prior experience in media. Oh whoops, my mistake, according to the below source (Fox's own website), Tony worked as a journalist at The Bulletin and The Australian (strange he worked for these institutions prior to entering parliment according to the below):

Tony Abbott AC was elected as a Director of Fox Corporation in November 2023. Mr. Abbott served as the 28th Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015. He was Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia from 2009 to 2015 and a member of parliament from 1994 to 2019. Prior to entering parliament, Mr. Abbott worked as a journalist at The Bulletin and The Australian.

https://www.foxcorporation.com/management/board-of-directors/tony-abbott-ac/

So, there appeared to be a strong relationship between Tony and Murdoch before he was toppled as PM, potentially even going back to before he entered politicas, according to Fox itself. The person who Tony was closest to in the parliament (which, again, can be seen documented further in 'Nemesis'), his chief of staff, an employee of the government, not an elected official, were making decisions for the majority of the party and direction of the government, without consulting the rest of the party's elected representatives, which is, you know, the whole point of having political parties and representatives in a democratic nation.

While none of the above conclusively connects Credlin to Murdoch prior to her being hired by Sky News in 2016, I think it definitely leaves questions needing to be asked about Credlins credibility throughout her political career, her subsequent career as a political commentator, and what has now been further demonstrated as her having direct connections to members of the VIC LNP, who she is actively "dispensing advice from the sidelines" to.

Who knows, maybe she is just a useful idiot who got hired to be a commentator by Murdoch after she demonstrated herself (the Barrister and Solicitor) to be such a useful idiot, under the other useful idiot Tony in parliament, and it was just a match made in arrogance from then on. But I think there is also fair reason to suspect that she wasn't just a useful idiot, and was instead complicit in everything, but I can't say (or demonstrate) for certain (please don't sue me for defamation Peta, I havent stated certainities, just speculations, plus your hat isn't that important).

Did a quick google search of his name, turns out his time at News Corp was limited, and it didn't end on good terms

Early on Friday morning, News Corp Australia announced that Williams had resigned, just 20 months into the job. In a letter to staff, Williams thanked his colleagues, while admitting that "the issues encountered have at times been frankly really confronting". Confronting, indeed. In his short and tumultuous tenure, Williams had managed to not only alienate some of the company's most senior editors, most notably Chris Mitchell, editor of The Australian, and Paul Whittaker, editor of The Daily Telegraph, but infuriate Lachlan Murdoch, the man who had originally got him the job. "News Corp might be a publicly-listed company run out of Delaware, but there's never any mistake that you are working for Rupert," former Sunday Telegraph editor Neil Breen says. "It's a family company. You run it the Murdochs' way or you don't run it at all."

The source of the above quoute: https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/making-the-wrong-enemies-how-williams-was-cut-down-at-news-20130809-2rnsx.html Which was a Wikipedia citation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Williams_(media_executive)

If he managed to anger them so much while he was employed by them, hopefully he can anger them even more de-shitifying the ABC.

This actually seems pretty positive, but I guess also demonstrates how responsible Howard is for helping set in motion Australia's apathy towards environmental destruction, especially when it gets in the way of fossil fuel operations.

Possibly, but Turnbull did take over as head of https://murdochroyalcommission.org.au/ after K Rudd stepped down to take whatever diplomatic job it was he took.

I think the Murdoch press had a big hand in Turnbull being replaced as PM, because he was actually considering implementing renewable energy policies https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/19/turnbull-warned-rupert-murdoch-trying-remove-him-prime-minister

That same day the Daily Telegraph had warned of “a toxic brawl” over energy policy. On Sky the night-time commentators Peta Credlin and Andrew Bolt ramped up their negative assessments of the national energy guarantee and of Turnbull himself.

So he is probably butthurt for other reasons too

I cant say for certain, but I can definitely speculate. I do know cotton requires a fair amount of water to grow, but I don't think it would use as many petrochemicals in the production. Though it would still use some, even if that is just in the supply chain through things like diesel for trucks and ships. The chemicals they use (like pesticides) may be derived from petrochemicals, but even if they aren't they could be damaging to the environment in many other ways. So I think polyester could have the greatest emissions of the two.

I guess it could depend on the scale of production too. Like if we were to try and replace all polyester clothing with cotton, that could have a massive impact due to the amount of land and water needed to produce such quantities of cotton clothing and such. But at the same time, creating clothes out of plastic isn't going so well either.

Ultimately we will probably still have to have some diversity materials for sustainable clothing production. It will really come down to a balance of land use, water use, what uses the least amount of chemicals, and probably a lot of other considerations.

Yeah I'm at the point of life where a lot of my friends are having kids and I am terrified for their future, but hate the idea of having to have these kinds of conversations with them because they deserve to have hope for the future, for their kids future.

But I'm also torn because I think these discussions need to be had if we want people to get active, so we can effect the necessary change in time. And if anyone deserves to truly be angry, its parents.

Am I being crazy thinking that if Australia was reamed by extreme weather this summer it would be better than not, as all the climate change deniers will use non-extreme weather as a 'see the climate isn't warming' argument. At least if this summer was fucked up, they would then have a more difficult time arguing climate change doesn't exist, which could be good timing as extreme weather is still dependant on local and global climate patterns, so there will be a return to less extremes once La Nina returns.

At the same time, more extreme weather is the last thing I want people to have to experience, especially as those who suffer the most from the extreme weather will probably be those least likely to deny climate change.

In summary, I think I'm being a little crazy sitting here hoping shit burns to the ground to prove a point.

I guess maybe, a $15k fine might not be high enough if they are willing to keep doing it.

Just another example of a fines being seen as the cost of doing business.

I think the reason why the working class continue to undermine themselves (especially people from the older generations) is the main stream media channels (9, 7, sky, any Murdoch newspaper) are owned by billionaires with vested financial interest in getting the working class to vote against their own financial interest, by convincing them it is good for the economy, when really the billionaires consider themselves to be the economy, and what they mean by it will impact the economy is that it will impact them.

This is why those news sources have always actively promoted the LNP, while actively demeaning the Labor party. They don't even need to say any of these things outright, they get away with it by allowing LNP MPs to blame everything wrong on labour while the LNP are the government, but actively promote the LNPs active opposition as good when they aren't in government. This is completely contradictory to how they neg Labor for being an opposition to the LNP when they are in opposition.

Ultimately, they created a cognitive dissonance within the working class to get them to vote against their own interests.

Is this the great Factorio Square spitter massarcre?

I identify as 'meme'

“It became clear that they’re motivated by profits,” said Roberts, adding that the drive is unsurprising, since CEOs of public companies can be removed if they do not maximize profit growth.

We really need governments to force triple bottom line accounting onto corporations for the very reason stated in the above quote. While CEOs are only accountable to the shareholders of the company (single bottom line accounting) then they will only ever work for profit.

With triple bottom line accounting, CEOs would not only be accountable to the shareholders (economic accouting), but to stakeholders (social accounting) and the environment (ecological accounting).

To use fossil fuel companies as an example, a stakeholder to that company would be any person who has to breathe in the pollution that said fossil fuel company released into the atmosphere. The way in which companies would be accountable to the environment is that they could no longer ignore the externalities of their product (e.g. pollution from fossil fuel use) and the cost of those externalities would need to be included in the upfront cost of the product. Accounting for these things would then allow us to see the true upfront cost of fossil fuels, which should aid in actually getting companies to act on these issues, as it will less profitable to sell such a damaging product. It will also further demonstrate that the upfront cost of renewable is far lower than that of fossil fuels.

It still isn't a perfect solution, and we will still be living under capitalism and the idea of infinite growth, but it would at least be a step in the direction of corporate accountability.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line