Because it would sure be fun to watch Sharma explain himself about how he knew to buy shares in companies right before the government announced taxpayer funded bailouts and contracts with them.
Labor has said their ICAC will indeed be retrospective
That is fabulous. Hopefully the greens and independent cross bench hold them to it.
If Labor were somewhat competent you'd see less independent success. As is it's a repudiation of the major parties.
Absolutely. My district is a very safe labor seat, but had a massive swing away from Labor this time around, most of which went towards minor parties. Disappointingly, the biggest swings were towards the Liberal Democrats (libertarian "small government" types) and One Nation....
Because it would sure be fun to watch Sharma explain himself about how he knew to buy shares in companies right before the government announced taxpayer funded bailouts and contracts with them.
Labor has said their ICAC will indeed be retrospective
I should fuckin' hope so, what's the point otherwise?
Brisbane CBD results are getting interesting, its swung back and forth between Labor and the Greens, and as of right now there are less than 50 votes in it. If they don't win it this time they probably will next time, it would be nice to think that we might be on the way towards a three-party system!
Brisbane CBD results are getting interesting, its swung back and forth between Labor and the Greens, and as of right now there are less than 50 votes in it. If they don't win it this time they probably will next time, it would be nice to think that we might be on the way towards a three-party system!
There's an irony to the fact that because the LNP got so completely destroyed, it's likely* that Labor will have a majority government, and so Greens/Teals won't have the kind of influence that would be beneficial, assuming (and it's a big ask) that Albanese can keep all his ducks in a row. A slightly less humiliating defeat of ScoMo, and the country would probably be in a better place going forward.
* Still not seeing confirmation of a majority, AEC has it at 75 (5 in doubt). Most outlets I've checked don't have a majority called, 73-75 seems to be the published numbers, 76 needed for a win.
They’re also going to have to cooperate with a senate crossbench correct?
Exactly; this really seems like a pretty good outcome even if Labor do get a majority. For starters it will be an incredibly slim majority, meaning the Greens and Independents will only have to convince one or two labor MPs to make or break a given piece of legislation. Then even assuming the Labor MPs in the lower house all vote in lock-step, that means that they can propose any legislation they like, but to get it past the senate they will have to convince either the Libs or Greens to join them.
They’re also going to have to cooperate with a senate crossbench correct?
Assuming everything continues as expected, Labor plus the Greens block and one other senator, either Pocock or one of the two Jacqui Lambie senators will be sufficient to pass legislation through the senate.
Kelor on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited May 2022
What is the basis for the Lambie Senators or Pocock?
Pocock is a former captain of the Australian Rugby squad. From the research I've done, strong focus on Climate and particularly ensuring that the ACT isn't lost in the shuffle of bigger states.
Fairly boilerplate on Defence, Business and Equality, good on Climate, Health and accountability of both politicians and government departments.
Funded partially by Climate 200 as were many of the other independents. From what I could find he says that he received donations from 400 individual donors in addition to C200, but I haven't had the time to dig into that.
Jacqui Lambie is an odd case, she originally ran with mining billionaire Clive Palmer's party, having attempted to challenge from within the Liberal party. Bailed on the party, then went independent, and has been elected since. Has seemed over her head at times, but bucked the Coalition several times and dragged them on key legislation. Was bullied by them into immigration legislation, which seems to be what finally caused her to break away from the Coalition.
Is a wildcard, but I think could be convinced of supporting good policy.
yeah her thing seems to be polling-based populism when she feels out of her depth, which makes her much more receptive to public opinion and resulted in her coming out on the surprising side of some issues (surprising from an ex-Liberal, ex-Palmer member, that is).
What's the difference between the Liberals and the Nationals? Liberals lost seats and the Nationals kept theirs. Is that because the Liberals were "the face" of the govt and so when the govt loses face it mainly affects the Liberals? Or are the more rural Nationals just in areas less likely to change?
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
What's the difference between the Liberals and the Nationals? Liberals lost seats and the Nationals kept theirs. Is that because the Liberals were "the face" of the govt and so when the govt loses face it mainly affects the Liberals? Or are the more rural Nationals just in areas less likely to change?
Presumably, the Liberal seats are more marginal than the Nationals.
yeah bit of a combo really. Liberals have historically been strong in affluent urban centers, which are swinging green nowadays, and a lot of their seats have become more vulnerable in a way that's not tracked across National seats.
From the general vibe of most National voters I've talked to or seen polled, they feel that neither libs nor labour have any concern for non-urban areas, while the Nats spend a lot of time and effort shoring up support in the rural areas and being very visible about fighting for farmers etc (even if those fights are often stupid). I suspect most would continue to vote national even if the coalition dissolved. (Nat->Green swings are probably still unlikely because of demographics and the perception in the outback of greens as urban hippies, but I know the Greens have been doing a lot of outreach to rural areas over the past few decades, and climate is a significant concern for a lot of rural residents, so maybe we'll see more Nat->Teal at least)
Long story short, Traditionally Nationals = Right wing country issues, Liberals (Outside QLD) = Business focused Moderates (Although it'd be more accurate to say in the last couple decades it's been a mask). Liberals went more overtly right, their traditional power base said fuck off we're voting independent. Nats survived because they still cater to their base. (Although the climate denial does seem to be getting on the nose, but there just isn't a strong alternative for those seats that country voters are likely to go for at the moment. Hopefully we'll see some similar independent movements to what the teals managed).
This isn't unusual, it's standard practice for them to spill leadership positions following an election. But Barnaby might not be unopposed. I'll certainly be hoping that they turf out the beetrooter.
Take this with a massive grain of salt, because I'm definitely a city guy, but my take on the Nationals is that yes, they talk about rural issues and pick up votes from farming communities, but of course those communities aren't monolithic. What it looks like to me (from admittedly a long way away) is that if you're a farmer who wants an easier time leasing or selling land to mining operations for big bucks, the Nationals are keen to make it possible for you. If you want to hoover up as much possible water in an area and fuck everyone downstream of you, the Nationals have got your back. If, on the other hand, you are less inclined to have a coal mine next door to you, or you're downstream of all those massive cotton farms, then the Nationals as currently constituted might not have the right platform for you.
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
This isn't unusual, it's standard practice for them to spill leadership positions following an election. But Barnaby might not be unopposed. I'll certainly be hoping that they turf out the beetrooter.
Take this with a massive grain of salt, because I'm definitely a city guy, but my take on the Nationals is that yes, they talk about rural issues and pick up votes from farming communities, but of course those communities aren't monolithic. What it looks like to me (from admittedly a long way away) is that if you're a farmer who wants an easier time leasing or selling land to mining operations for big bucks, the Nationals are keen to make it possible for you. If you want to hoover up as much possible water in an area and fuck everyone downstream of you, the Nationals have got your back. If, on the other hand, you are less inclined to have a coal mine next door to you, or you're downstream of all those massive cotton farms, then the Nationals as currently constituted might not have the right platform for you.
They did! Thumb Dutton got the big chair unopposed, but Beetrooter Barnaby got the arse too!
Dunno who David Littleproud is, but given he made leadership in the coalition, I'm betting he's a full-on dickhead. I mean, it's definitely more likely than not.
Article spells out that the "forgotten Australians" being referred to are indiginous (and not the "heartland" shit, ie white bigots, I was expecting), and that the elevation of a woman to Deputy Leader Sussan Ley is a pivot on women's issues.
"We aren't the Moderate Party. We aren't the Conservative Party. We are Liberals," the post said.
Get the fuck out of here, Thumb. Prove me wrong, and I'll apologize, and vote for you. But your party is the reason I have to explain to any non-Australian, why our Liberal party is actually conservative. Until then, get the fuck outta here. Wanker.
+1
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
How long until the right wing of these guys parties get rid of various leaders here because they aren't going hardline Christian white nationalist or supporting climate change policies.
Isn’t ‘hardline Christian white nationalist’ what Dutton already is?
I definitely get non denominational authoritarian vibes from him, hes an ex-gold coast cop. Never really picked up a religious bent, can anyone confirm/deny?
edit: weird quote thing
bezerk bob on
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are. -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
lol get wrecked Zed
Excited for David too of course.
But also glad I don't have to be embarrassed about one of my senators any more, especially as it seemed only slightly more than 25% needed to vote Liberal to get one in.
Man it's so good that I don't have to be reading the news every day wondering what new absolutely monstrous thing my government is doing today.
Right?
The novelty(and relief) of reading "Labor addresses problem X pragmatically, without crushing the poors" is probably never going away over the next 3 years.
I don't have the emotional energy for it, but I surely hope someone keeps track of everything Labor does this election cycle. God knows Labor historically can't.
Man it's so good that I don't have to be reading the news every day wondering what new absolutely monstrous thing my government is doing today.
Right?
The novelty(and relief) of reading "Labor addresses problem X pragmatically, without crushing the poors" is probably never going away over the next 3 years.
I don't have the emotional energy for it, but I surely hope someone keeps track of everything Labor does this election cycle. God knows Labor historically can't.
Part of that is the news media. Get ready for several years of "petrol prices, inflation, interest rates, wasn't it all better under the LNP?" media articles.
As if that's an Australian problem.
Murdoch media is a fucking blight across at least three nations.
So the power market across the Eastern states is going to shit.
There's actually reasonable reporting on this crisis available, but of course on twitter and in some opinion pieces, there are the usual suspects trying to put their particularly bad spin on it. One take I see, of course, is that "private companies are just profiteering, the whole thing should just be nationalised!" Well, that's not completely wrong, but it misses a lot of the detail of what's happening. Energy is a HIGHLY regulated market. Energy companies are reacting to a lot of complex rules coming out of a lot of interacting policies that are managed by the government. Although it was close to a decade ago now, I used to work for the energy regulator, so I think I still have a reasonable feel for what's going on.
The current circumstances come from global events, and I'd also suggest a decade or so of bad energy policy by governments. A few things at the moment are unfortunately driving prices higher than ever. Some of this is arguably the result of policy (depending on your default ideology) and some is from global events.
Over the past twenty or so years, Australia (or companies based here) has increased its ability to export gas by bringing online LNG terminals, and building pipes to supply them. This means Australia (or companies based here) can profit from exporting our gas. Because of the Russia/Ukraine thing, energy prices are spiking globally. So Australian gas can flow offshore more than ever. So generating power from gas is expensive at the moment. The Government does not reserve gas for domestic use (W.A. does, but they're not connected to the Eastern States). Arguably, a policy to reserve gas could be implemented, which means the domestic price of gas should come down. This would understandably attract squeals from those companies and investors that spent all that money on LNG terminals and infrastructure to supply them, because they'd be forced to supply domestically at less profit than they'd make by exporting overseas.
Also, the coal plants that supply much of Australia's power are ageing and having to shut down for maintenance more often. This takes supply offline, meaning generators left online can charge more for their power. Adding to this, the current price of coal is also high.
There are existing coal plants that can run at higher capacity, but this is tricky - these big plants are locked into contracts with retailers saying that they'll supply x megawatts this month, x megawatts next month, x megawatts the month after that, et cetera. If they boost output and burn more coal today, their supply of coal could run low. Coal is delivered to some of these plants at a certain rate that can't be easily increased - the trains bringing them coal can only bring it in certain quantities, and expanding capacity is not something that happens quickly (and why would you expand capacity when coal power is being phased out?). If these plants run harder and burn through their stocks, they will be at risk of running out of supply in later months, but they are still contracted to supply, so they would be in breach...
Now, with the spot price of energy generation running higher, there are market safeguards in place to cap the price of energy - partly, the reason for this is to try to protect retailers (who contract with the generators to buy power and then sell it to you, the consumer) from extended periods of high prices. The market price can go very high, but if it stays high for a long period of time, the capped price comes into effect. What happened recently was the capped price came into effect (because of aforementioned discussion on high generation prices), but then a few generators said "actually, this capped price is below our actual cost of generation at the moment, so we will not offer energy into the market." This has happened before, but as I understand it, not quite to this extent. So now there is a supply crunch.
A problem with the simplistic narrative of "Well the generators should be nationalised and then the government just orders them to produce more power" is that it doesn't really get you out of this situation in the medium or longer term. Forcing generators to sell into the market at below their cost of production is unsustainable in the short term, and then it probably leaves you with a result of no-one being particularly inclined to build more power plants (because of the high costs and risks of this exact situation happening again).
I already wrote a ton so I don't particularly want to go and double the length of this post by talking about possible solutions, and furthermore since I haven't been in the industry for years I have a better grasp of the historical circumstances rather than any particularly good forward-looking insight. What I will say, and I think everyone here understands, is that energy policy has been haphazard and crap since Tony Abbott decided to ruin any sense of certainty over energy policy Australia could have had. The Liberals, during their near-decade in power, wanted to shackle Australia to coal-fired power for another generation, but didn't actually follow through in a way that at least ensured security of supply. But they did manage to slow down the transition to more sustainable energy! And here we are.
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
edited June 2022
When our entire lives are dictated by the flow of electricity to buildings and houses, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that domestic energy companies supply the country before exporting.
When they’re saying ‘hey hospitals, don’t use too much mmkay? Shareholders want their dividends’ It’s gone beyond the pale.
I'm not going to go digging, but there were people saying as much when all this investment into gas export capacity was being built. Of course, would've been better to have systems in place before it turned into a crisis, but can-kicking is just so appealing in the moment.
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
When our entire lives are dictated by the flow of electricity to buildings and houses, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that domestic energy companies supply the country before exporting.
When they’re saying ‘hey hospitals, don’t use too much mmkay? Shareholders want their dividends’ It’s gone beyond the pale.
By the proxy of "what are my inlaws telling my partner" it sounds like Sky News has leaped on blaming renewables.
That's certainly the LNP line. But, if I recall correctly, the LNP was insisting that some existing big power company should build more coal capacity or substantially update their plants. Those power companies said "lol no it would lose us money hand over fist because of the way renewable energy keeps getting cheaper, how about you, the government, pay us a shit ton more money and take all the risk then we'll talk."
And the LNP hemmed and hawwed and looked at the ground.
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
Yeah, there are a few 'it's the renewables!' but seeing as Canberra has been largely inured from both rising power costs and black outs thanks to our solar plants and wind turbines, it's not that easy a sell. Our power prices have remained pretty static and/or reduced - gas prices are through the roof though, but they're looking to phase that out for heating across new suburbs and eventually older ones too, so with luck that'll help further. I get that not much is going to really convince boomer sky news watches, but if there's any hope for them then it's waving a power bill to show that no, renewables are helping not hindering.
Posts
That is fabulous. Hopefully the greens and independent cross bench hold them to it.
Absolutely. My district is a very safe labor seat, but had a massive swing away from Labor this time around, most of which went towards minor parties. Disappointingly, the biggest swings were towards the Liberal Democrats (libertarian "small government" types) and One Nation....
I should fuckin' hope so, what's the point otherwise?
There's an irony to the fact that because the LNP got so completely destroyed, it's likely* that Labor will have a majority government, and so Greens/Teals won't have the kind of influence that would be beneficial, assuming (and it's a big ask) that Albanese can keep all his ducks in a row. A slightly less humiliating defeat of ScoMo, and the country would probably be in a better place going forward.
* Still not seeing confirmation of a majority, AEC has it at 75 (5 in doubt). Most outlets I've checked don't have a majority called, 73-75 seems to be the published numbers, 76 needed for a win.
Exactly; this really seems like a pretty good outcome even if Labor do get a majority. For starters it will be an incredibly slim majority, meaning the Greens and Independents will only have to convince one or two labor MPs to make or break a given piece of legislation. Then even assuming the Labor MPs in the lower house all vote in lock-step, that means that they can propose any legislation they like, but to get it past the senate they will have to convince either the Libs or Greens to join them.
Assuming everything continues as expected, Labor plus the Greens block and one other senator, either Pocock or one of the two Jacqui Lambie senators will be sufficient to pass legislation through the senate.
Fairly boilerplate on Defence, Business and Equality, good on Climate, Health and accountability of both politicians and government departments.
Funded partially by Climate 200 as were many of the other independents. From what I could find he says that he received donations from 400 individual donors in addition to C200, but I haven't had the time to dig into that.
Jacqui Lambie is an odd case, she originally ran with mining billionaire Clive Palmer's party, having attempted to challenge from within the Liberal party. Bailed on the party, then went independent, and has been elected since. Has seemed over her head at times, but bucked the Coalition several times and dragged them on key legislation. Was bullied by them into immigration legislation, which seems to be what finally caused her to break away from the Coalition.
Is a wildcard, but I think could be convinced of supporting good policy.
Presumably, the Liberal seats are more marginal than the Nationals.
From the general vibe of most National voters I've talked to or seen polled, they feel that neither libs nor labour have any concern for non-urban areas, while the Nats spend a lot of time and effort shoring up support in the rural areas and being very visible about fighting for farmers etc (even if those fights are often stupid). I suspect most would continue to vote national even if the coalition dissolved. (Nat->Green swings are probably still unlikely because of demographics and the perception in the outback of greens as urban hippies, but I know the Greens have been doing a lot of outreach to rural areas over the past few decades, and climate is a significant concern for a lot of rural residents, so maybe we'll see more Nat->Teal at least)
This isn't unusual, it's standard practice for them to spill leadership positions following an election. But Barnaby might not be unopposed. I'll certainly be hoping that they turf out the beetrooter.
Take this with a massive grain of salt, because I'm definitely a city guy, but my take on the Nationals is that yes, they talk about rural issues and pick up votes from farming communities, but of course those communities aren't monolithic. What it looks like to me (from admittedly a long way away) is that if you're a farmer who wants an easier time leasing or selling land to mining operations for big bucks, the Nationals are keen to make it possible for you. If you want to hoover up as much possible water in an area and fuck everyone downstream of you, the Nationals have got your back. If, on the other hand, you are less inclined to have a coal mine next door to you, or you're downstream of all those massive cotton farms, then the Nationals as currently constituted might not have the right platform for you.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/peter-dutton-promises-to-target-forgotten-australians-after-elevation-to-liberal-leadership/37epa6xcu
They did! Thumb Dutton got the big chair unopposed, but Beetrooter Barnaby got the arse too!
Dunno who David Littleproud is, but given he made leadership in the coalition, I'm betting he's a full-on dickhead. I mean, it's definitely more likely than not.
Article spells out that the "forgotten Australians" being referred to are indiginous (and not the "heartland" shit, ie white bigots, I was expecting), and that the elevation of a woman to Deputy Leader Sussan Ley is a pivot on women's issues.
Get the fuck out of here, Thumb. Prove me wrong, and I'll apologize, and vote for you. But your party is the reason I have to explain to any non-Australian, why our Liberal party is actually conservative. Until then, get the fuck outta here. Wanker.
I am referring to his “moderate” deputy leader. I think Lord Potato should be fine until next election.
I definitely get non denominational authoritarian vibes from him, hes an ex-gold coast cop. Never really picked up a religious bent, can anyone confirm/deny?
edit: weird quote thing
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
WE HAVE A SCIENCE MINISTER AGAIN
Excited for David too of course.
But also glad I don't have to be embarrassed about one of my senators any more, especially as it seemed only slightly more than 25% needed to vote Liberal to get one in.
The novelty(and relief) of reading "Labor addresses problem X pragmatically, without crushing the poors" is probably never going away over the next 3 years.
I don't have the emotional energy for it, but I surely hope someone keeps track of everything Labor does this election cycle. God knows Labor historically can't.
Part of that is the news media. Get ready for several years of "petrol prices, inflation, interest rates, wasn't it all better under the LNP?" media articles.
As if that's an Australian problem.
Murdoch media is a fucking blight across at least three nations.
There's actually reasonable reporting on this crisis available, but of course on twitter and in some opinion pieces, there are the usual suspects trying to put their particularly bad spin on it. One take I see, of course, is that "private companies are just profiteering, the whole thing should just be nationalised!" Well, that's not completely wrong, but it misses a lot of the detail of what's happening. Energy is a HIGHLY regulated market. Energy companies are reacting to a lot of complex rules coming out of a lot of interacting policies that are managed by the government. Although it was close to a decade ago now, I used to work for the energy regulator, so I think I still have a reasonable feel for what's going on.
The current circumstances come from global events, and I'd also suggest a decade or so of bad energy policy by governments. A few things at the moment are unfortunately driving prices higher than ever. Some of this is arguably the result of policy (depending on your default ideology) and some is from global events.
Over the past twenty or so years, Australia (or companies based here) has increased its ability to export gas by bringing online LNG terminals, and building pipes to supply them. This means Australia (or companies based here) can profit from exporting our gas. Because of the Russia/Ukraine thing, energy prices are spiking globally. So Australian gas can flow offshore more than ever. So generating power from gas is expensive at the moment. The Government does not reserve gas for domestic use (W.A. does, but they're not connected to the Eastern States). Arguably, a policy to reserve gas could be implemented, which means the domestic price of gas should come down. This would understandably attract squeals from those companies and investors that spent all that money on LNG terminals and infrastructure to supply them, because they'd be forced to supply domestically at less profit than they'd make by exporting overseas.
Also, the coal plants that supply much of Australia's power are ageing and having to shut down for maintenance more often. This takes supply offline, meaning generators left online can charge more for their power. Adding to this, the current price of coal is also high.
There are existing coal plants that can run at higher capacity, but this is tricky - these big plants are locked into contracts with retailers saying that they'll supply x megawatts this month, x megawatts next month, x megawatts the month after that, et cetera. If they boost output and burn more coal today, their supply of coal could run low. Coal is delivered to some of these plants at a certain rate that can't be easily increased - the trains bringing them coal can only bring it in certain quantities, and expanding capacity is not something that happens quickly (and why would you expand capacity when coal power is being phased out?). If these plants run harder and burn through their stocks, they will be at risk of running out of supply in later months, but they are still contracted to supply, so they would be in breach...
Now, with the spot price of energy generation running higher, there are market safeguards in place to cap the price of energy - partly, the reason for this is to try to protect retailers (who contract with the generators to buy power and then sell it to you, the consumer) from extended periods of high prices. The market price can go very high, but if it stays high for a long period of time, the capped price comes into effect. What happened recently was the capped price came into effect (because of aforementioned discussion on high generation prices), but then a few generators said "actually, this capped price is below our actual cost of generation at the moment, so we will not offer energy into the market." This has happened before, but as I understand it, not quite to this extent. So now there is a supply crunch.
A problem with the simplistic narrative of "Well the generators should be nationalised and then the government just orders them to produce more power" is that it doesn't really get you out of this situation in the medium or longer term. Forcing generators to sell into the market at below their cost of production is unsustainable in the short term, and then it probably leaves you with a result of no-one being particularly inclined to build more power plants (because of the high costs and risks of this exact situation happening again).
I already wrote a ton so I don't particularly want to go and double the length of this post by talking about possible solutions, and furthermore since I haven't been in the industry for years I have a better grasp of the historical circumstances rather than any particularly good forward-looking insight. What I will say, and I think everyone here understands, is that energy policy has been haphazard and crap since Tony Abbott decided to ruin any sense of certainty over energy policy Australia could have had. The Liberals, during their near-decade in power, wanted to shackle Australia to coal-fired power for another generation, but didn't actually follow through in a way that at least ensured security of supply. But they did manage to slow down the transition to more sustainable energy! And here we are.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
When they’re saying ‘hey hospitals, don’t use too much mmkay? Shareholders want their dividends’ It’s gone beyond the pale.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/469221/rainbow-youth-tauranga-drop-in-centre-destroyed-in-suspicious-fire
Police are treating the fire as suspicious.
There is a givealittle out there for the organization.
I'm... incensed a bit at all this.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/128910438/an-act-of-hate-pink-church-vandalised-with-homophobic-antisemitic-slurs
By the proxy of "what are my inlaws telling my partner" it sounds like Sky News has leaped on blaming renewables.
And the LNP hemmed and hawwed and looked at the ground.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com