Dutton’s shambolic campaign has made it easy for Albanese

Niki Savva usually gets it right about our politicians, this time Peter Dutton (“Dutton stumbles in race of his life,” May 1). His shambolic campaign has made it easier for a rather smug Anthony Albanese. Dutton’s Trump-like labelling of the ABC and SBS as “hate-media” impugns so many first-rate, unbiased presenters. His frequent back-flips on international relationships, his denigration of the teals, the Greens and Indigenous Australians, his preparedness to link up with the likes of Pauline Hanson and Clive Palmer, and his persistence with nuclear manifest has put off many voters. Moreover, the torpid Angus Taylor’s release of the Coalition’s costings a mere two days before the election shamefully ensures little time to assess their accuracy. As Savva suggests, all of this has jolted a complacent Albanese into action. Doing so might mean Dutton losing an election he might have won, had he not been so arrogant. Ron Sinclair, Windradyne

On top of Niki Savva’s criticism of Dutton, there’s the release of the Coalition’s financial statement just two days before the election, giving no time for examination and comment. That’s outrageous. Andrew Macintosh, Cromer

Alexandra Smith’s article brought back memories of my husband and myself reporting to vote for the first time since emigrating in 1982 (“How UberEats killed the democracy sausage,” May 1). In Scotland, we were used to sombre, quiet lining up under the watchful eye of the police. Talking was frowned upon. Think strict libraries of the past. So imagine our initial confusion, then delight, to discover that Australians prefer a colourful, lively, big street party, as they perform their civic duties. Pauline McGinley, Drummoyne

The Coalition circus continues. After a series of policy backflips, shadow treasurer Angus Taylor steps on stage to announce how he’ll cut the budget deficit by $40 billion over four years (“Dutton promises $40b debt cut as nuclear questions grow,” May 1). But instead of raising revenue – say, by properly taxing the resource sector – he plans to axe the $20 billion “Rewiring the Nation” fund, most of which has already been allocated for vital energy infrastructure. Cutting 41,000 public service jobs and shelving Labor’s student debt relief plan are also part of the act. This isn’t smart fiscal reform; it’s an unpopular high-risk stunt. And the grand finale? Wheeling out the big white elephant of nuclear energy – a fittingly extravagant and absurd end to the Coalition’s show. Amy Hiller, Kew (Vic)

The Greens are to the Labor Party what the Nationals are to the Liberal Party. Both are freeloaders, riding on the coat tails of the major parties. They’re not good enough or strong enough to govern in their own right, so they hitch their wagons to a senior party and then try and dictate the direction they should take. “If you don’t play ball, we’ll withdraw our support,” is the message. Remember Max Chandler-Mather? I’d rather vote teal than support Greens or Nats. Graham McWhirter, Shell Cove

It would be ideal to ban political spam texts but I would just like to be able to block them (“PM hates spam texts” May 1). I don’t seem to be able to because they are using the same methods as scammers. Is political spam just a scam? Surely not. Neil Reckord, Gordon (ACT)

The self-serving, often “pythonesque” process that politicians work the elections is like we’re watching a chaotic, absurdist play. If ethical reasoning, critical thinking, empathy, and intellectual humility became central pillars of education, over the “three Rs”, voting might shift from a transaction of personal gain to a process of collective responsibility. If people could think critically about the impact their votes have on others, especially those with less power or fewer resources, the whole democratic process could be transformed from a competition for resources to a genuine collaboration for fairness. Alas, I dream. Linda Mayer, Pyree

The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Dutton’s negativity knows no bounds. He criticises and flip-flops without providing coherent solutions. Dutton continues to promote division in our society through his culture wars. As for the Coalition’s economic performance, inflation was 6.12 per cent and trending up when they were last in power. Meanwhile, under Albanese inflation is heading down, wages are moving up, taxes are going down and unemployment remains low. This calm, methodical style of governance contrasts to the chaotic scandal-ridden previous administration. So what will the future hold? The opposition’s negativity and chaos, or Labor’s steady progress? Brian Hastings, Drummoyne

The politicians know it, the public knows it, the investors getting richer know it, “negative gearing” is the single most potent force causing the housing crisis. Other matters play into the mix, such as the deregulation of banks and foreign ownership of housing, but these are not as powerful as negative gearing. How is it that some of those who benefit most from this taxpayer-funded handout are the ones who decide that it will continue? We need federal politicians with the courage to make decisions that will benefit the whole community, not just themselves. Penny Rosier, North Epping

Churchill said “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Times have changed – now it’s a five-minute conversation with the average candidate. John Grinter, Katoomba

Public fooled by fossil fuel lobby

At this stage in human history is it incomprehensible that anyone should suggest that “the green transition risks losing democratic legitimacy altogether” (“Tide turning on politics of climate,” May 1). The ones who should be losing their democratic legitimacy are the fossil fuel industry, yet their lobbyists continue to wine and dine our politicians. They continue to obtain billions in subsidies, estimated at $14 billion in 2023-24, yet all the while their products are causing irreversible damage to the environment. Why does their “legitimacy” remain while the green transition is in danger of losing its? Money doesn’t talk, it screams. Neil Ormerod, Kingsgrove

It’s a mystery why so many people fail to recognise the hysterical propaganda disseminated by the $10 trillion global fossil fuel industry, which faces the prospect of reduced profits (“MAGA-style bid to derail clean energy”, May 1). In the US, voters literally voted against themselves after falling for Trump’s anti-renewables “drill, baby, drill” propaganda. Similarly in Australia, the big spending, self-interested anti-renewables lobby continues to demonise clean, cheap energy in support of the Coalition. Another piece (“Tide turning on politics of climate,” May 1) suggests that global anti-renewable lobbying has reached fever pitch with vague and unscientific claims of disaster for countries that abandon fossil fuels. It’s tragic. Alison Stewart, Riverview

Former British PM Tony Blair says we can’t afford the cost off getting to net zero quickly. On that logic, don’t spend money on your doctor until you’re terminally ill, your dentist until your teeth fall out or your house until it collapses. Prevention is better than cure. Jill Robinson, Randwick

Here’s a question for the Tony Blair’s of this world and their “we can’t afford to get to net zero quickly”. Can we afford the cost of dealing with the damage caused by not getting to net zero as soon as possible? Don’t forget, there is a cost to inaction, too. Michael Berg, Randwick

There’s been no comment about the disastrous Spanish and Portuguese renewables blackout by energy minister Chris Bowen, probably because he’s in hiding until Sunday. Paul Haege, Darling Point

Shades of green

I’m writing in response to the letters from Peter Brown and John Rome about the environmental benefits of EVs, solar power and windmills (Letters, April 30). It’s overly simplistic to focus solely on the lack of tailpipe emissions of an EV. What about the approximate 226,000 kg of earth that needs to be mined for a single battery, including child labor and fatalities in the rare earth mineral extraction, as well as the considerable waste generated and the eventual disposal of the entire battery system due to its limited lifespan. Ultimately, assessing the environmental friendliness of EVs depends on where one chooses to draw the line and what aspects of the entire lifecycle are considered. If we isolate the driving phase, then it is technically accurate to say EVs produce zero emissions. But who is that deceiving? Peter Phizacklea, Sydney

Songs of joy

Letter writers have questioned the strange workings of the Department of Home Affairs over the Ubuntu Africa choir – how do you come to this country for the first time when you are not allowed in because you haven’t been here before (“Joy for African choir over visa backflip,” May 1)? Now that public opinion has been informed by this paper, the Department has changed its mind and says the original applications cannot be used but new ones can be made (at extremely short notice). Along the lines of asinine bureaucratic reasoning, one would bet that the information, already stored on a computer, would have to be rewritten by each applicant. Donald Hawes, Peel

Cash converter

Yes, it’s appropriate to hold some of your super, or other funds you rely on in retirement, as cash, just in case things go pear-shaped (“How much of my super should I keep in cash?” 30 April). But if you haven’t made the switch yet, when should you do so? Switching a large amount of your super into cash is just like making a big, one-off withdrawal. Great if you do so before the market has tanked, but not so good if you do so afterwards. If you have the luxury of time, then maybe it would be best to do so gradually. That way the state of the market when you make the switch is averaged. You may not switch at the top of the market, but neither will you regret switching at the bottom. David Rush, Lawson

Age-old recipe

While I have the greatest admiration for Nagi Maehashi (best, most-used recipe books ever), and don’t know Brooke Bellamy’s efforts, these plagiarism claims don’t hold much water since the “caramel slice” and “baklava”, as well as Bill Granger’s “Portuguese tarts”, are all age-old recipes invented before any of the claimants were born (“Baking bad: RecipeTin Eats v Brooke Bellamy recipe row,” May 1). How different can any of these recipes be from the “originals” and still be called by their official names if the recipes are not almost identical. Let’s just say, none of you are the rightful owners of any of the recipes, so why don’t you have a nice cup of tea and a caramel slice to calm down? Maryan Glaister, Buderim

Nagi Maehashi and Brooke Bellamy need to get in line. That’s my Auntie Joan’s caramel slice recipe from the 70’s they are arguing about. Susan McMillan, Cherrybrook

Surely baklava and caramel slices have been around much longer than either of these cooks. But what a tasty little earner for their lawyers. Kath Maher. Lidcombe

• To submit a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, email letters@smh.com.au. Click here for tips on how to submit letters.
• The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.