Tony Abbott Is Not a Martyr & I'm Not A Traitor

The ‘Tony Abbott is blameless brigade’ is becoming tiresome, repetitive and boring. Their attacks on other Liberals many of us who have been members of the party for most of our voting life, have increased in their intensity. And their defense that they’re angry and in pain does not give them the right to label people scum and filth, treacherous traitors, and lacking in principles or morals, for nothing more than exercising the right to support their party. 

The truth is, Tony Abbott is far from a saint. Yes, he did many good things whilst in government. And he has done many noble things in his private life. Many people do. But that doesn’t elevate them or him to the level of situational martyrs when they lose their jobs. 

Tony Abbott excelled along with his ministers in dealing with the asylum seeker issue and securing our borders. Essential deliverables. His approach to climate change, I strongly believe is the right one, including the removal of the carbon and mining taxes. And the signing of FTA agreements will be good for the country in the longer term. 

However, on other issues like the economy and most importantly 'selling the message' has been problematic. If the economy is our greatest challenge, people need to understand that and support it. That doesn't imply that people necessarily like it. However, people will swallow the bitter pill as long as they know why they are doing it. 

It was unfortunate that another Prime Minster was removed from office. But we couldn’t continue the way we were. Like many, I was very critical of the backbenchers who in February signaled their lack of support for the Prime Minister. For me it was a personal thing I don’t like to see ‘dirty laundry’ aired in public. But the warning was given, nothing changed. Whilst I have an opinion, I’m not the one on the front line dealing with disgruntled and disillusioned voters from all sides of politics. For backbenchers and ministers hoping to retain their existing support and to pick up new voters come the election it must have been alarming. They'd endured after month of falling polls or no increase in the polls despite an appalling Labor opposition. 

Politics is a tough arena and you perform or you are taken out. That happens two ways. The party room replaces you or the electorate replaces you. If you are the Prime Minister and the voters remove you, the chances are very high that everyone else goes with you. The raging debate in the case of Tony Abbott is, who had the right to remove him. Under our system, the party room appoints the leader. Just as they did when they appointed Tony Abbott as the opposition leader in 2009. The most popular Liberal minister at that time was Joe Hockey but we weren’t given a say. So despite what people believe, we don’t elect the leader. We are not a republic and we don’t have a leader who is appointed by the electorate.

Mr Abbott has a well-earned reputation as a ‘hard man’. There are many unsavory events and about faces in his personal cookie jar. To now watch him being turned into someone akin to a moralistic, puritan who has never done anything wrong is rubbish. 

Who could dismiss the very active and instrumental role Tony Abbott played in destroying Pauline Hanson. Who could fail to remember all the questions about Abbott’s Honest Politics Trust Fund, which was proven not to be so honest on many levels? Whether you were a supporter of Pauline Hanson or not (and I wasn’t) the treatment she received and her jailing heralded in a very low point in our political history. And it wasn’t the behaviour of a saint either, in crafting the strategy to bring her down. It was very dirty politics. 

I now find it rather ironic, that many of those attacking other Liberals for sticking with the party and accusing them of lacking principles and morals are the same ones that turn up to Reclaim rallies to hear Paul Hanson speak, blithely ignoring Tony Abbott’s hand in her jailing.  

Likewise, we shouldn’t forget Tony Abbott’s personal attack on Bernie Banton, a dying man just trying to get a better deal for people in the same position as him. Now to his credit Tony Abbott apologized, but so he should have. But a highly valued individual wouldn’t have attacked Mr Banton in the first place, simple as that. 

The role that Tony Abbott played in the removal of Malcolm Turnbull in 2009 has been expunged from the minds of many. He wasn’t just a bystander. He, along with Nick Minchin by their very actions played an active role in removing Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader. Malcolm Turnbull had lost the support of a large percentage of the conservative side of the party over his support for an ETS.  

Support for an ETS wasn’t a criminal offense as many people were in favour. Joe Hockey as an example supported an ETS. John Howard was also a supporter, but for him it was more about timing, more evidence and when the electorate was prepared to accept it. Even Tony Abbott supported the ETS, although he now denies this, but the evidence is there for all to see if they bother to take a look. And the doyen of the right wing, Alan Jones himself even supported programs to address climate change based on a reduction in emissions. At one point Jones was extremely critical of anyone who tried to challenge the push on climate. I wrote many letters to Alan Jones complaining of his treatment of skeptics. In an interview with ex PM John Howard November 15, 2003 Alan Jones said “climate change has become a defining global issue hasn’t it.” & Jones in that interview was also promoting wind-turbines to John Howard. Now some people woke up a bit faster than others to the realities of what an ETS meant and Malcolm Turnbull when he was challenged in 2009 wasn’t one of them. 

So when Minchin and Abbott went to see Turnbull to get him to back-down on the ETS after Turnbull had survived an initial spill motion, Turnbull refused. Minchin and Abbott as reported at the time told Turnbull they had no option other than to resign and they ‘detonated a series of orchestrated explosions along the way’ as one colorful journalist wrote. One after another of the shadow ministers resigned. Turnbull lost 14 shadow ministers from his front-bench and another spill motion was called. Abbott took the opportunity to throw his hat in the ring (after he and Minchin triggered the revolt) and Abbott won by one vote defeating Turnbull with one voting informal.  Abbott became as they said at the time, the accidental leader.  I guess this proves that Tony Abbott isn’t above playing politics for political gain. 

Would the shadow ministers in 2009 have resigned had they been in government? I doubt it. But in opposition you can be more cavalier. If they had been in government, they probably would have behaved exactly as they did in February and issued a warning. As for those who say politicians were only looking out for their jobs in February. There is no crime in that. It’s utter rubbish to accuse people of treachery for losing faith in the leader. I bet you, most of the knockers in similar circumstances would probably have done the same. 

Tony Abbott is a politician. Whilst I would dearly love to see a political arena that was based on fairness across the spectrum, we don’t have that and I fear it will be a long, long time before we do. Tony Abbott plays the political game with the best of them. In 2009 he won and in 2015 he lost the round.  As Malcolm Turnbull lost by the slimmest margin of one in 2009 because of his inability to move away from an ETS, Tony Abbott lost by a margin of 9 in 2015 because of his inability to unite the party room and to unite the electorate in selling his message. It is a simple matter if you can’t sell your vision and people don’t like you or are not listening to you and you are unwilling to change then something has to give. Unfortunately, it did. 

Since the change a number of things have happened. The basic policy hasn’t changed apart from a few tweaks here and there. We have industrial relations back on the agenda. This is a thorny issue, but one that needs to be addressed.  The economy is front and centre. Treasurer Morrison is talking tax cuts, which is essential for the lower to middle income group and certainly spending will be getting a lot of attention. Now for those who chorus, but the Senate will block everything, I raise the point; Scott Morrison was very effective in gaining support for a number of unpopular initiatives linked to border protection and social services. He’s proven he can win the support of the cross-benches so I’m feeling confident that he will be able to achieve what’s required where others have failed. 

Josh Frydenberg (an Abbott supporter) pointed out on Bolt on Sunday, that innovation and the quality of our cities are a big focus. And for anyone who struggles to get to work on overcrowded public transport and roads, I bet they are breathing a sigh of relief. 

I’m staying loyal to the party that best suits my needs, my wants and my desires. I don’t want to go back to a Labor government and certainly not a Labor government that is owned and manipulated by unions.  I’m not going to do anything to divide the conservative vote because that would simply play into the hands of Labor and opportunistic new senate entries. That does not make me a sellout. It does not mean I have low morals or lack principles. It does not make me a sheep following the new leader over the cliff. If anyone was to be branded a sheep, it’s those who have engineered and cling to the myth of Tony Abbott the martyr and who are willing to sell out the party they profess to love all because of one man who failed to lift his game when he was asked to and who in that failure lost the trust of more than half of his team and a very large portion of the electorate. 

I voted for the Liberals, Tony Abbott came as part of the package. My local member is a good man who has served my electorate, the party and the country well for many, many years. He changed his support to Malcolm Turnbull in the last ballot. I respect his decision based on what he thinks is best. For me I support most of the LNP’s policies (not all); I support free enterprise and economic prudence among other things. I trust the party room to appoint the leader with the best chance of leading the team to victory. To vote for personalities rather than policies is utter folly. We now have a new leader, yet to be tested. Only time will tell whether it was the right choice or not. 

A Leopard Never Changes Its Spots : Not True

The narrative is repetitive when the knockers are trying to denigrate others, "A Leopard never changes its spots". Meaning that people do not change. Not never. Now even the most resistant change to some degree, although they will never admit it. 

The meaning of the phrase is that things cannot change their innate nature came from the Bible, Jeremiah 13:23. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil."

True a leopard can't change its spots, but they can and do change their behaviour dependent on their circumstances. Even down to their coats, dependent of their location. 

But people are people and it simply isn't true that people never change. They change all of the time. It's only natural and we can't help but change through our life experiences; needs, wants and desires. If we don't want change, we never develop, or grow or mature. And if we don't, we become stagnant and eventually irrelevant. 

Just because we liked and believed in some yesterday doesn't mean we feel the same today. Only those who continue to live in the past hang on to the belief that a "Leopard never changes its spots". 

So don’t believe it when people point the finger and say someone will never change or can’t change, that this is the way they are. It's not true. 

And with regards to the latest claims that Malcolm Turnbull can't change his spots, have you ever considered that it was perhaps Tony Abbott's unwillingness to change and to listen that lead to his demise? It would be very foolish of Malcolm Turnbull removed once because his ideas did not fit with the general opinions of the public to repeat the same mistake. 

LISTEN TO THE ELECTORATE

Over recent years, we have witnessed first hand, the destructive impact the media has, and the part it plays, in tearing down political leaders in this country. The right wing media were vicious in their attacks on Julia Gillard. Those attacks were cheered on by right wing conservative supporters and those praying for her demise. Last week, we witnessed the destruction of Tony Abbott and we recognised the role the left wing media played in that. This of course was cheered by those on the left-side of the political divide. The vast majority of Australians I suspect were somewhere in the middle in thinking surely this can't be happening again. 

Now, we have a new Prime Minister. One who has broader appeal, across the political divide and for the first time in a very long time we are seeing a Liberal Prime Minister given fair airtime by both the ABC & Fairfax. The cynics will claim it's because 'he's more like them.' Perhaps, but it's also somewhat disrespectful to the community where it is blatantly clear the Prime Minister has more support than either Ex Prime Minister Gillard or ex Prime Minister Abbott ever enjoyed. I say, thank heavens we see the likes of the ABC and Fairfax giving the Prime Minister a fair go to present himself and his credentials to the electorate. Then the ELECTORATE can decide on his merits, not some biased journalist with an axe to grind. 

The Essential Poll was out September 22nd. I've referenced this one, because the overall result was 50 / 50 where some others showed a significant lift on 2party for the Coalition. I know some people hate polls. I love them, but as I've said many times I like analysing the question details. And Essential always presents interesting questions. 

The key question for me related to the replacement of the Liberal leader. Did people approve or not. 58% of those polled approved of the change and the outcome. Of those, 58%, 59% fell into the LNP supporters bucket v's 27% disapproval. The overall Don't Know score sat at 18%. 

The poll asked a number of questions on the key attributes of both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten. Prime Minister Turnbull being declared a decisive winner.  

Those polled rated Malcolm Turnbull highly on intelligence at (81%), he is considered to be hard working (71%), a capable leader (70%) and that he understands the problems facing Australia (63%). 

People are crying out for strong leadership. And whether some people accept it or not, charisma and the ability to bring people along with you is a key component of leadership. It is in fact, in my view, the most important attribute for an effective leader. With 70% of respondents stating the Prime Minister is a capable leader that is a great platform to build on. 

Compare PM Turnbull's rating to that of the opposition leader Bill Shorten. Bill Shorten's highest rated attributes were hard working (61%), intelligent (58%), understands the problems facing Australia (48%) and out of touch with ordinary people (46%). Way down the scale in comparison. 

Since June, those polled considered the major changes in Mr Shorten are. His aggression has increased (+8%), he is more narrow minded (+7%), in their eyes, he is a less capable leader (-7%), he is more erratic (+6%), and in comparison to most politicians his honesty rating has dropped (-6%). His honesty is now sitting on a very dismissal (23%) and he is more intolerant (+6%). If this was a school report card it would be marked as 'must do significantly better' or you are out. 

In response to the question who would make the better Prime Minister; Bill Shorten or Malcolm Turnbull 53% of respondents think Malcolm Turnbull would make the better Prime Minister and 17% think Bill Shorten would make the better Prime Minister. Two weeks ago Bill Shorten was preferred over Tony Abbott 35% to 32%.

The breakdown of the 53% is even more interesting when you look at the support base with Labor at 35%  LNP at 84%, Greens at 41% and Other at 37%. Once again the Don't Know group is high at 30%, so a great opportunity for improvement for a new leader. 

Back to Liberal Leadership and the question; who do you think would make the best Leader of the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister won this by some margin with an overall score of 37%. In fact the next highest was Don't Know on 21% so lots to gain here. Followed by Julie Bishop on 14%. Not a bad a result given the PM has yet to be really tested. This question presented 8 options, which is perhaps too many but I will mention Scott Morrison only rated 4%.  

Now, it would be fair to say, that in opposition, Malcolm Turnbull rated very badly in the polls against Ken Rudd (the master salesman) and he split the Liberal party with his proposal for a carbon emissions tax. That led to his demise and overthrow by Tony Abbott when he lost by one vote in a leadership ballot. It's somewhat ironic now, that a major part of the contributing factors in Tony's overthrow was his unpopularity with the electorate (in comparison to Malcolm Turnbull) and the internal divide within the party room. This lead to a leadership ballot and Tony Abbott lost by 10 votes 55 to 44.

It's very early days, but based on polls, people have warmed to PM Malcolm Turnbull and indications are that a majority of LNP voters feels he is the right choice from the selection available to us. It's up to him to now to win the hearts and minds of Australians. I believe he can do that but time will tell. The radical right faction the (remnants from Nick Minchin Godfather era) if they don't adapt to the new circumstances will be wiped out. That's probably not a bad thing because it will bring back to the fold the lost middle ground including younger supporters. 

As for me, I am still taking a 'wait and see' approach. That said, it is such a relief to have an articulate leader who looks and sounds statesman like. I'm proud of my country, I want to be proud of the leader, after all he or she represents you and me. They represent who we are, what we believe and what we stand for. We are a young vibrant, innovative, high achieving and clever country. The leader has to match that. 

And I'd caution the media to present the facts and to respect people's rights to make up their own minds I've had enough of others forcing their opinions on me and destroying leaders in the process. 

And as Prime Minister Turnbull correctly pointed out, don't treat people as fools, their intelligence must be respected. 

Essential Poll: 

http://www.essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Essential+Report+-+22+September+2015&utm_content=Essential+Report+-+22+September+2015+CID_cdeaa6025e8cf03fd1f1b7669ba4b54f&utm_source=campaign%20monitor&utm_term=Federal%20politics%20%20voting%20intention

Time For Me To Move On

A wise friend with a deep spiritual soul said something to me this week that resonated. It was; "But raining and sunny are also rules of nature." His inference being, thus it is with mankind. 

When things of significance happen, my first instinct is to pick up my pen and write. I find it great therapy. It got me thinking about how people feel after such turmoil this week with a change of leader. Like many, I've been somewhat stunned by the level and the intensity of the outpouring of grief and anger. This has been balanced by a sense of relief and even joy in others. "Raining v's Sunny." 

I can't recall a similar reaction, in response to a political change ever in this country. The difference this time is this change has pitted people supposedly in the same 'camp' against each other. Liberal against Liberal. On social media, many of us have lost friends who we have networked with for years. We've fought together on social media campaigns; both federal and state and my greatest sadness is these relationships have broken simply because like many others I have stated; "I'm not over the moon about the change, but Mr Abbott has to accept some responsibility and the party is bigger than one man. I will give the change a chance and I'll reach my opinion based on the evidence not some 'I know what will happen' forecast. Whilst I've lost some social media friends, I've gained some lovely new ones. "Raining v's Sunny."

I know many of us have read in the news that there is still a lot of anger within the Abbott camp. The information I'm receiving from Canberra is somewhat different. I've heard that 99% of MP's regardless of whether they were in Mr Abbott's camp or Mr Turnbull's camp are now behind the change. They have finally come to terms with the fact that it was reasonable and sensible to let Mr Abbott go. Good performances at question time, had a lot to do with that. Like many, I'm very distrustful of news. I prefer to rely on my own sources. It's up to others to reach their own conclusions. I'm merely sharing what I've heard from a source I trust. 

Our representatives know policies won't change. Although Labor will try and turn that into a negative. It isn't. Policies were not the issue. It was the tactics of selling that was lacking. As I've said previously whether you like Malcolm Turnbull or not I think most reasonably minded people would acknowledge he could 'sell sand to the Sahara people.'. Although the Bolts of this world will try to convince you otherwise. They have their reasons for doing that. I merely judge on what I see and hear. 

There are no riffs or grudges inside either camp. People are sad, of course. I'm sad myself. I don't like seeing people hurt, but sadly that is part of life. I hear many are cautious and like me taking a wait and let's see approach. I think that's sensible. 

I know there is a lot of concern out there, that Mr Turnbull will fall back to his more progressive side. The concern is we end up with an ETS, weakening of border control and a new climate policy. These are not conservative policies and certainly not current policies. Mr Turnbull learnt a very bitter lesson last time when the 'machine' worked swiftly to remove him. And, only a fool makes the same mistake twice and he is far from a fool. So I'm feeling confident that it's onwards and upwards. 

Politics is a pragmatic science, it isn't a charity. At the end of the day personal interests are still the highest order. No one wants to be on a losing side or be told over and over and over that you are on the losing side. Spend a few years working for a struggling business and you soon realize what an absolutely soul destroying experience that is. 

The change has been made. Some people hate it others are happy and some like me are proceeding with caution. But I for one am relieved and I feel more comfortable with hearing that the party room is coming to terms with it. Whilst things have been tense for us, I can only imagine what it's been like for our elected representatives. The pressure must have been almost unbearable. 

As for me, I'm concentrating on looking for the positive. I'm not hanging the perceived 'villain' based on his perceived future crimes. I'm focusing on the 'sun' rather than the 'rain.' 

TONY ABBOTT A QUESTION OF LOYALTY

A lot has been said about Mr Abbott and loyalty. I've referred to it myself, many times. But as I'm prone to do, I analysis things to death and as a result, a few of the claims are not working for me anymore. As a result, I'm beginning to wonder if Mr Abbott really was that loyal or was it simply a matter of stubbornness, distrust, self protection, not having your successor to close or simply politics. Or combinations of all of them. 

I'm not making a judgement because, like many, I'm still a bit confused. I'm merely trying to rationalise things in my mind and to try and make sense of all of this. In doing that, I've looked at past actions, related some current actions to personal examples and asked myself some tough questions. I find committing things to paper and seeking input from others helpful, hence this update. 

Let's look at the Treasurers role. 

Mr Abbott was strongly advised to make Malcolm Turnbull treasurer. Scott Morrison as treasurer came much later. Whether you like him or not Mr Turnbull does have a sound economic brain. He sits much further to the right on economy than Mr Abbott. He comes from the business side of the divide. He isn't a career politician and he is certainly not a union plant. He is popular with the broader community (albeit he is extremely unpopular with the right side of the Liberal ledger). Mr Turnbull is a masterful orator (watch question time) and he can sell a vision. But it would be fair to say he has always posed a threat to Mr Abbott. So why give him the portfolio that would allow him to shine. So you keep your likely successor at arm's length? This happens a lot in business. So could this happen in the biggest business of the lot; government. It wouldn't be the first time it did. 

After the February challenge Mr Turnbull was branded 'turncoat' Turnbull. History will show that he wasn't, not then, but that is for another day. Turnbull was damaged. But Mr Morrison's star was rising. Brilliant job on border control. Although some are suggesting now that he really just reintroduced Howard's plan (I shake my head). But as usual, I've digressed. Despite pleas from inside and outside the party, Mr Abbott persisted with Mr Hockey and whilst the second budget was reasonably well received, we soon lost momentum and never really capitalised on the uplift. Remember, Mr Morrison was openly being spoken of the future PM. So once again, perhaps there was a reluctance to place Mr Morrison in the Treasurers role. The closest role to that of Prime Minister. 

Mr Morrison was left in the Social Services Portfolio. Nothing gets much profile, there anymore. However, the night of the spill, Mr Abbott offered Scott Morrison the treasurer  role. He turned it down. I would have as well given the circumstances. So was that offer merely an act of self-protection by Mr Abbott? He had defended Joe Hockey to the hilt for months but he was prepared to throw Joe Hockey under the bus at the last minute. So the question is. Protection v's Loyalty? Up to you to decide what you think. 

Poor Bronwyn Bishop. Now we have a new speaker who is doing a brilliant job we realize that Bronwyn wasn't the best speaker we've ever had. But did she deserve to be 'thrown under the bus' for doing what it seems nearly every other politician does. By the way I'm not condoning ripping off the tax payer, merely stating fact. Bronwyn's executioner Burke did far, far worse and unlike Mrs Bishop he never paid they money back. Mrs Bishop was Mr Abbott's friend. He executed her in the most brutal way and he lost a lot of respect from the middle of the road conservatives in the process. That could have been handled so much better but because in the end Mr Abbott was forced to act more as a result of Labor attacks, Bronwyn was just chopped; razored. So the question is. Self preservation v's Loyalty? 

Then we come to the Father of the House, Philip Ruddock. Another good friend who was dumped in the most humiliating fashion for supposedly not warning Mr Abbott of the level unrest. I think I can safely say, it wasn't for the want of trying on Mr Ruddock's part. So the question is. Retribution v's Loyalty? 

People had spoken at length about the dysfunction and leaking from the PMO. Ms Credlin was openly and behind closed doors discussed as being a problem and that she needed to go. Now some chat may be just that, chat and stirring. But when the chat reaches the level of an avalanche you have to start to think it's more than just chat. Mr Abbott refused to act. In fact he threatened others. He shut the door so to speak. The question is. Protection vs Stubbornness v's Loyalty? 

I don't profess to have the answers. I'm just looking a various scenarios and trying to make some sense of all this. To help me understand why certain actions were taken and when they were taken. And more importantly, why. I'm not sure if I am any clearer, but it helps to write it down. 

The question is loyalty, stubbornness, self-protection, retribution or simply politics. And why was loyalty afforded to some but not others. Loyalty does imply you don't act. You can be loyal and still deal with problems. The key is why, how, when and for what purpose. And most of all respect. 

LIBERAL PARTY, LABOR PARTY: NO COMPARISON

Day two under the leadership of Malcolm Turnbull and the social media trial continues. The witch-hunt for the ‘turncoats’ is in full swing, ably supported by the shock-jocks. The opposing Liberal camps are ripping into each other. I have a personal view that some of the comments would probably be best left unsaid, but expression is good and we do believe in free speech. 

What is really interesting, is the tactics now being used by our Labor chums. They are doing their level best to compare the Labor years to what happened on Monday. For them to suggest there is any comparison between Rudd-Gillard-Rudd and Turnbull-Abbott is ludicrous. But, it’s a deliberate tactic to brand Liberals as no better than Labor. We must not let them get away with it. Mr Abbott’s situation is very different. 

In February, Mr Abbott survived, as one journalist described as a ‘near death experience’ when MP’s called for a change of leader. This challenge came after months of the government's inability to gain support for key budget measures and to explain their vision to the electorate. People were also becoming frustrated with what they perceived were broken promises. Whilst I understood the reasons for actions taken, it would be fair to say the government did a very poor job of selling the reasons to the electorate. The electorate was very angry including many staunch Liberal supporters.  

I remember having discussions with some LNP social media activists. We were trying to defend broken promises, but we were losing the battle. The communications from HQ was almost non existent. Polls were declining and our elected members of parliament were trying to deal with the disenchantment in their electorates. Months of this finally led to the demand for a leadership spill as referenced. Mr Abbott survived, but he had received the most public and direct warning possible from the party room that he had to change. Mr Abbott was given six months.  

Over the ensuing months little improvement has been made. Mr Abbott has received multiple warnings of the potential consequences of failure. Elders of the party, i.e. Former Prime Minister John Howard (who by the way was an advocate of carbon pricing, but who had a change of heart), Peter Reith and Peter Costello also pleaded him to change and to make changes. Mr Abbott refused. 

I am well aware of some of the substantial help and advice that was offered to help bring the two warring camps together. Likewise, advice was given to change the line-up so that some of the performance gaps could be closed. That was also ignored. 

Mr Abbott’s stubbornness got in the way of good judgement. The merciless media attacks on him continued and the white-anting from within, grew in intensity and frequency as anxiety levels increased because nothing was changing.. Now, I am not supporting white-anting, but I do understand the frustration felt by many. 

Mr Abbott could have made necessary changes, but he didn’t. Not because he couldn’t but because he chose not to. I’ve read all sorts of comments related to the swiftness of the spill, but once again it was Mr Abbott, who called the vote for Monday evening, a few hours after Mr Turnbull made his announcement. Mr Abbott could have delayed the spill motion to give his supporters more time, but he didn’t. Unlike the first spill that Mr Abbott won, he was unfortunately not victorious a second time. 

Now we have an active campaign by some Liberals to paint Mr Abbott as a victim. He wasn't and isn't a victim. I'm sure he wouldn't want to be remembered as a victim either. And we have Labor and their ‘pointing the finger’ campaign; “see, see your party is no better.”

I’m sure Mr Abbott was deeply hurt by what happened on Monday. No one likes rejection. But as we would expect from him, he was gracious in his departure. And, he would NEVER do anything to wreck his party. We should respect that. We owe him that.

And, the next time someone from the Labor side tries to tell you the Liberal Party is as bad as Labor, put them straight. There is NO comparison, not even close. Assassinating someone behind closed doors is very, very different to extending the courtesy of giving someone six months to fix the problem, knowing full well what the consequences of failure are. 

As for the view, that the only the public should have the right to decide the fate of a Prime Minister, that simply isn’t how the process works. The Prime Minister isn’t The President. The Prime Minister's electorate vote him in, we vote for our own candidates, their party policies and local issues. The party room appoints the Prime Minister. If people vote for a party based solely on the leader, that probably explains more about them and their lack of understanding of the Westminster system than anything else. And it clearly explains how we ended up with the Rudd Labor government. We know how that worked out. 

One last comment. I happened to pick up 2GBS Alan Jones comments about both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten last night. I was frankly disgusted. That sanctimonious so call 'King of Radio' branded the  The Prime Minister hypocrite over what he said about Mr Abbott when addressing the parliament. It might pay Mr Jones to play back some of the things he himself has said about Mr Abbott. 

What really sickened me was Jones fawning over Bill Shorten!!!!! The same Bill Shorten who played a major role in knifing, not one but two Prime Ministers in a most sinister manner. Who himself has said some dreadful things about Mr Abbott. So if we are handing out Hypocrite Awards I think Mr Jones and Mr Shorten might be very worthy recipients. 

LIBERAL PARTY: DENIAL, ANGER & ACCEPTANCE

“Shooting the messenger is alive and well in Australia.” Some of the ‘darlings’ of the conservative movement are now being attacked and vilified because they supported Malcolm Turnbull. Hitlist’s of the ‘traitors’ are being compiled and circulated. Even one ‘shock-jock’ in Sydney was outing people today and he even resorted to hanging up on one MP who would not confirm who he supported. 

Like many, I was very disappointed with the dumping of yet another first team Prime Minister. However, if you read my Reflections Blog, you will be aware that I for one have been pleading for a number of things to be fixed or changed. And, I have warned that we were losing the support of moderate conservatives who, frankly, had simply had enough of the destabilization, the white-anting and the failure to cut through. 

Once people stop listening and simply turn off or turn away, then you have to take stock. We can blame and attack the media (as I regularly do) and we can attack the opposition and blame those groups for everything. We can blame the weak kneed within our party (I’ve done that as well)  but at the end of the day what was still missing was a change in OUR  tactics. 

Our communication has been appalling. We simply weren’t capitalising on Labor’s own failing, things such as; their leadership tensions, the Burke travel expenses affair, Shorten’s personal disclosures at TURC, Shorten’s & Union assault on the Royal Commissioner, Shorten & the Union’s ChAFTA campaign, Shorten’s 50/50 Climate blackhole (the list is endless). Despite this ‘gold mine’ our Liberal fortunes have languished badly in the polls. This has been going in for months. We can whinge all we like about poll driven politics, but that is the reality. We simply weren’t getting the message through, we weren’t lifting the needle and there was an overwhelming fear that the position was terminal. 

Tony Abbott is a genuine and loyal Liberal and a very loyal friend. He was a formidable opposition leader and as Prime Minister, he delivered some outstanding results in very difficult circumstances. Even John Howard said, Mr Abbott delivered on things he thought were almost impossible to do. But, Mr Abbott was not a good ‘team leader’ and he couldn’t win over the hearts and minds the electorate. He wouldn’t make the necessary changes to remove the deadwood within the party; be that backroom or ministerial.  As in business, if the leader fails, the team fails and the leader has to go. That’s often unfair and unfortunate, particularly when the leader is a nice person. But that’s the reality. 

Sadly, Mr Abbott has paid the price. He could have taken action, he didn’t. He let his loyalty get in the way of common sense and good judgement. He was far too passive for his own good. Sitting members were angry because the things he promised were not forthcoming; like greater consultation, and as an example more and inclusive decision making. I know the advice Mr Abbott was given was dismissed and ignored. So all the positive things that were happening and in fact did happen, were overshadowed by the relentless negativity. 

“If you don’t cut the snake off at the head, you run the risk of it whipping around and biting you.”

I’m no fan of either Malcolm Turnbull or Julie Bishop. I hope & pray that Malcolm has indeed learnt from his past failures and that he will in fact stick to the agreed plan. But what he can do, that Mr Abbott couldn’t is sell a vision and a strategy. Malcolm is the consummate debater. If you watched him in question-time today, he was masterful. He just beat the opposition off and highlighted their own incompetence in the process.  

Malcolm has been a very successful business man and he is no fool. Whilst his personal leanings tilt further to the left than Tony Abbott, I seriously doubt he will make the same mistakes twice. That said, we need to hold him to that commitment. Whilst many of the more active right wing social media, posters claim he’ll only pick up left supporters, that simply isn’t true. He will also pick up a lot of the middle ground we have lost and that is crucial. 

There are three things that are clear to me. We’ve been in denial for far too long. Our problems have been there for all to see, we had our chances, we didn’t take them. Like many, I’ve been hoping and praying things would pick up. Week after week my heart has sunk further and further. That has come to a head this week. 

Many of us moved quickly to the anger stage. I understand that. I’m angry. I’m angry with Mr Abbott for not taking action. I’m angry with the swiftness and the timing. I’m angry because I was hoping for a miracle that wasn’t forthcoming. But I know something had to change. 

So for me, I’m moving on to acceptance. The deed is done, now I’m focusing my time and energy on defeating Labor and the Greens. If others want to spend their time destroying the Liberal brand, so be it. I want no part of it. There is far too much at stake. The party is bigger than one man. 

We Have A New Leader

After waking to yet another Monday morning of media leadership spill speculation headlines, I pleaded with the party via my blog, to Put Up or Shut Up. Little did I know, when making that impassioned plea, we would end up with a new Prime Minister by day's end. 

Malcolm Turnbull called for a spill. Sitting Prime Minister Tony Abbott moved quickly to bring the spill on and he lost the vote to Malcolm Turnbull 54-44. A sad day for Australia and a sad day for many conservative Liberal supporters. But that said, something had to be done to bring the leadership issue to a head and whilst I am extremely disappointed with the outcome, I am relieved that it has been sorted. 

The reaction from many conservative voters is to be as expected. They are deeply distrustful of Malcolm Turnbull, and they did not want to see their party sink to the same lows as the previous Labor Government. They are very angry with regards to timing, with the Canning by-election this coming weekend. And they are deeply distressed that Tony Abbott has been executed by a previous failed leader who was ably assisted by a deputy who is looking very much like ‘the teflon princess’, never to be Queen. But the deed has been done, and the question is now, what do we do. 

A number of people have declared they are resigning from the Liberal Party. Others have declared they won't be voting for the Liberals at the next election. An understandable response. Perhaps just not the best one given the alternative; a Labor Government come the next election. 

Malcolm Turnbull’s press conference to announce his spill motion wasn’t inspiring. His underhanded swipes at Tony Abbott were disappointing. And I suspect Turnbull's comments about the Prime Minister only add to the distrust people have of him. That said, Turnbull's address to the press gallery following the spill was more positive toward Tony Abbott if somewhat full of hubris.

I don’t trust Malcolm Turnbull, I’ve made no secret of that. I trust Julie Bishop even less. Her doe eyed flirty looks at her ‘very dear friend’ Malcolm as he addressed the gallery after the spill were nauseating.

As mentioned, I’m disappointed with the result. And, I’m angry about the timing? But I won’t knee-jerk and cancel my membership or threaten not to vote for my sitting member. I will wait three months before I pass judgement. I expect Malcolm to his promises to support the agreed climate policy, stand by the commitment to hold a SSM plebiscite, stick with the existing immigrant policy and control of our borders, improve the economy, and to have articulated a clear strategy and vision for the country. 

For this leadership change to be successful and to start to go some way toward mending the bridges that have been broken, Malcolm Turnbull has to swiftly and decisively; 

Pick the right team. The team capable of delivering ‘the message to the electorate’ and the team to get this country moving again. He has to bridge the gap with the conservative arm of the membership base. He has to negotiable an agreement with the Nationals who are clearly fed up with the infighting and destabilisation of the previous regime. He has to prove to conservative voters that we can trust him. The trust element also applies to Julie Bishop. She lost a lot of support yesterday. Turnbull has to unite the team and with 44 MP’s not supporting him that won't be easy. He has to seek the cooperation of a feral senate and he has to stop the media assaults. Most important of all he has to turn the poll results around. 

There has been a very obvious, active and vicious anti conservative campaign being run by the media in this country. It destroyed Tony Abbott. Of course, it wasn’t the only cause of his downfall, but it did play a significant role. I expect Turnbull will be given the expected honeymoon. But if Turnbull does deliver a new style of leadership from his previous very green stance and he moves to the centre / slightly left of centre ground we may end up back where we started. Only time will tell. 

First things first. We have to win the seat of Canning on Saturday. We need a public declaration of peace from those MP's who supported Tony Abbott. And, we need to see the promised unity. For now, I'm looking forward to questiontime today. I expect it will be facinating to watch. 

Don't Label Women Victims

Julie Bishop is caught mouthing what looks like 'bitch', this was in response it has been suggested to something Tanya Plibersek said, or did in question time. As we have come to expect, because Julie is a conservative, it makes headlines. It is broadcast widely on social media which is simply another natural attack ground of the perpetually outraged. 

Now, I should point out, that no one mentioned what Plibersek said or did to generate such a response. Ms Plibersek as per her usual modus operandi was repeatedly interjecting whilst Tony Abbott was endeavouring to respond to a question he had been asked on aid funding and Syria. It is a serious issue and as per usual Ms Plibersek was mouthing off. She does in fact make some pretty ordinary comments in question time and in this instance, if Ms Bishop did mouth 'bitch' it was well justified. But it is what followed that is concerning.  

This little gem (gem used as sarcastically as I can muster), appeared in the equally reputable Daily Mail (yes another sarcastic reference) after that delightful (your getting the intent) South Australian Labor MP Nick Champion decided to play cheap politics.

We have the so called 'experts' interpret as faux feminists claiming no female should call another female a bitch. Now, if some female behaves badly, why should they not be called a bitch? It's as good a word as any in conveying the message. The faux feminists, who are up in arms about this, are extremely quick off the mark in throwing insults (dare I say at times deserved insults) at the male population. So why is it necessary for women to go soft on each other regardless of behaviour? 

I can honestly say, I don't recall ever calling any female a bitch (although I've thought it a few times). I personally don't like the word and I prefer to deal with bad behaviour in a different way. Although I must confess I did use the quaint term 'you absolute cow' when a colleague whom I trusted tried to stab me in the back. But I digress.

Everywhere you turn, social reformers and faux feminists are trying to highjack society. Janet Albrechtsen’s column  in The Australian today highlighted a perfect example. A man pays a female a compliment (in private, via a direct message on LinkedIn) and he is outed by the same female via social media and painted as akin to a sexual predator.  What utter lunacy is that. As Janet points out why are some women trying to turn women into victims. We aren't victims. 

Many of us have learnt to stand on our own two feet, to bat off the stereotype and to make it in business and society.  We learnt from our battles (and we've been called far worse than bitch) but we fought those battles with finesse, humour and skill and we won. Yes, we cried lots, but we never let people see that. And, we never played the victim card.

I fear, that after all of those hard earned battles the current crop of young women is being turned into compliant little faux feminist robots. Offended by something as benign as a word or a compliment. If you are a male don't dare say something nice. If you do, you run the risk of being named and shamed on social media and even run the risk of losing your job because of it. If you think that doesn't happen, think again. If you are a female, and mouth the word bitch, like Julie Bishop you are banished to the 'mean girls' fraternity.  How sad is that. 

So welcome to the new politically correct sanitised world the social reformers and faux feminists are trying to create. If we don't fight against this they will succeed. 

That isn't the world I want to live in.

I'm Successful

I Did It On My Terms

I Love Compliments

I'm Equal To Many Man 

I Will Challenge Bad Behaviour In My Way if Bitch Is The Term, So Be It...

It Was the Best of Times, Let's Pray It Isn't the WORST

In Charles Dickens novel, A Tale of Two Cities, he wrote,

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way- in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only." 

As we sit and observe from afar, what is happening in the middle east, Nigeria, Zambia, Horn of Africa, Libya, Burma, Afghanistan (so many places in the world) it's hard not to feel for those who are suffering through the very worst of times, their season of darkness.  What is really sobering at times like this, is just how many people simply don't care.  And even worse than that, are those who seek to cash in on the despair of others and seek opportunistic glory for themselves.

I can understand why people feel anger when they see what obviously appears to be economic immigrants queue jumping to get into Europe. The overwhelming number of young men in particular is worrying. It raises a number of questions. Why so many? Are the reports of women and children being thrown overboard from overcrowded boats true? It does make me suspicious that perhaps there is some truth to that. Is the story (attributed to an ISIS operative in Turkey) that ISIS is going to flood Europe with sympathisers true? 

Many are asking the same questions. So the combination of images of well feed, smartly dressed immigrants, coupled with serious questions, make people angry, suspicious and not so willing to offer compassion and help. As a result,  what happens is the real refugees who are in desperate need, fleeing for their lives, are often lost in the crowd and they are branded along with everyone else. People living in overcrowded camps in places like Lebanon, Syria, Egypt etc. are forgotten.

Whilst I know many are unhappy with what they see as a backdown by our government in taking a one off additional 12,000 Syrian asylum seekers, I'm not. I am so pleased we are taking people who have been proven to be genuinely persecuted and who are living in camps in the Middle East. The UK is doing the same. That is to be commended. 

What really sickens me, are the two bit, so called celebrities who are coming out now and offering rooms in their houses to immigrants flooding into Europe. What a bunch of self-serving opportunists, these people are. Millions of people have been languishing in camps for years. But not a word from this glory seeking bunch. But now of course, the world is focused on Europe, so they are very quick, to capitalise on this. They are as bad as those who used the picture of a little dead child to promote their cause. The same lot who said nothing about the children who died a horrific death in the back of a locked and abandoned smuggler's truck in Austria only the week before. Frankly, they disgust me. The lot of them. Sorry. I just needed to say that. 

I hope when people start arriving here around Christmas time we will accept them knowing we have done something good for those genuinely in need. Not those who have the money to pay smugglers to queue jump and country shop.  Let’s pray that in taking the action they have, that Europe isn’t foolishly opening itself up to their future ‘worst of times’ as a result of a social experiment in throwing the doors to the kingdom open. 

  

 

The Death of Truth

Arthur Schopenhauer wrote, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Sadly, we haven't as yet, moved beyond the first stage as witnessed this week. 

Over the past week, we have been bombarded by the media in all forms, as well as the usual 'many weeping' shallow and opportunistic vigils, tweeter campaigns etc. all promoting a story of the death of a small boy. In fact, two small children died, but the second child has largely been ignored. You see, there was no photo of him to be used in the cynical game of global manipulation. 

Little Aylan Kurdi was unknown in life, other than to his family. But in death he has become the global symbol of the chattering hordes. He has been used so shamefully, to push an agenda to open up borders to mass immigration. It didn't matter that the story of his death was a fabrication. He was there to be used. 

But, dare anyone speak the truth about Aylan's death, and wham. Aylan wasn't fleeing for his life from ISIS as claimed by his father. He had in fact lived in safety in Turkey for three years. Given he was only three years old and has lived in Turkey for most of his life, he's never had to fear for his life. We were to discover that Aylan's father had concocted a story, probably more to cover his shame and guilt than anything else. But that didn't matter, the machine had already been put into motion. The opportunists were up and running. Massive guilt campaigns thrown at us from every corner; globally and locally.  Our own Prime Minister, one of the few global leaders not to be taken in by mass manipulation was even taken to task by the @nytimes (simply a mouthpiece for the NWO). Some went as far as to blame him for Aylan's death. Really grubby stuff.

One Liberal politician had the courage to stand up and say. Hang on. This is the real story. Fair enough, you would think, would you not. You couldn't be more wrong. He was attacked from all corners. 

His Liberal colleague, the 'fringe dweller' Ewen Jones took a stab at him. 

The same fool who was sprouting to anyone would will listen to him that we should be bringing in 50,000 additional refugees.  Never mind that, that equates to a city approximately the size of Wagga Wagga. FIFTY THOUSAND to be fed, housed and supported. By the way, when he was asked how much it would cost, surprise, surprise he simply has no idea. I don’t recall Mr Jones giving a ‘tinker’s cuss’ about the plight of refugees in Malaysia, Indonesia, Horn of Africa anywhere for that matter. Like so many, he is merely an opportunist. 

I supported Mr Bernardi on Twitter, for having the courage to speak the truth and I was stunned to receive comments from fellow conservatives attacking him. I thought truth was a fundamental core of a conservative. It appears not feel the same. 

But I digress. Back to the point of the story. Speaking the truth is now an embarrassment.  I'll repeat that. Speaking the truth, is now an embarrassment. If what you say, despite it being the truth runs contrary to left doctrine you are an embarrassment. 

And there are people out there who still think the talk of a New World Order is a conspiracy. Those of us who cherish the truth need to move very rapidly to stage two 'violently opposed' to those who seek to silence the truth. If we don't stand with the truth tellers we are effectively caving in to the bully's. 

Time to stand up and be counted.

#NWO #Agenda21  

Whilst the world weeps for these people.

They ignore the plight of these.

 
 

The Greens Peril

Politics have become very poll driven over recent years. I, like so many eagerly await the poll results and then accept or dismiss the results depending on how our political party fares. When we are ahead, great. When we are behind, they are rigged. 

But, and there is a but, if we spend time analyzing the answers to specific questions or look closer at the detail, they do tell a story. I've commented before on social media, that the answers to specific questions (Essential Poll in particular) often don't correlate with the overall results on voting intention. 

Using a recent Essential Poll as an example. The poll asked a specific question ‘ who do you trust the most’  out of the two major parties. The results rated the Conservative Government as more trustworthy than the Labor opposition on the bulk of questions but, the Government was still behind in the overall poll. Now there are reasons why that might be so.

1. On primary votes Labor still trails behind the LNP in most polls but win the two, party based on preferences. The Greens preferences are making a big difference to the overall result.
2.  The 'don't know' percentage was high which indicates people are still waiting or are unsure. With all the rubbish printed in newspapers and promoted via radio and TV I can understand the confusion.
3. Or perhaps people trust the policies and are comfortable with the results the government is achieving but are unsure about or don’t trust the LNP Leadership. That said, in many polls the LNP are rated more highly on leadership but it's fair to say the Prime Minister isn't popular. 

Which brings me to the point of this update. As a conservative, there is an even more troublesome trend emerging and that is the rise in Green support. It's no secret Labor and the Greens are welded at the hip. In a move that defies logic, even the so called staunch conservative Clive Palmer has given preferences to the Greens. So the Greens are effectively the game changers at the next election.

The Morgan Poll of this week really set the alarm bells ringing for me and reminded me that as conservative 'political' social media activists we have to start paying a lot more attention to this group. Whilst we have been spending all of our time focusing on Labor and the Unions, the Greens are working away in the background slowly but surely picking up 'the vote'; both Labor and Liberal swinging voters. Whilst the numbers highlighted in the detail are state based, they are an indication that can't be ignored. 

Greens Leader, Richard Di Natale appeared on the Bolt Report on Sunday. It was intiguing viewing. 

Mr Di Natale's Greens party has benefited to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars Union money. Mr Di Natale himself benefited to the tune of $200,000 of Union money in his election bid. When quizzed on what did his Union benefactors expect in return, he stated nothing other than support jobs. Why? Because Greens support jobs? Really!!! If they supported jobs, why are they supporting Labor's 50/50 climate plan that will result in the loss of thousands of Australian jobs? The same plan the CFMEU backs!!! 

Richard Di Natale nailed his flag to the pole last week, with his confirmation that Greens senators will support a petition to the Governor General, to ask him to remove Royal Commissioner Heydon, if it is tabled by Labor on Monday. This is a massive waste of time. The Governor General does not have the power under his reserve powers to remove the Commissioner. This petition, if tabled, is nothing more than a cynical political power play and no sensible Senator would entertain it. 

Mr Di Natale made a good point when he stated Unions protect employees. Yes, some do. Just not the ones who are being exposed as a result of TURC. Those Unions, clearly put themselves and their Labor mates first. So if Mr Di Natalie really cared about employees and jobs, why wouldn’t he be supporting Commissioner Heydon against the cynical, politically motivated self-protectionist game Labor and the major Unions are playing?  It's appears obvious that by his very actions money buys support. Why else would Unions be adding to the Greens 'war chest' and Mr Di Natalie be supporting them and throwing unfounded accusations at the Commissioner? 

Mr Di Natale highlighted his naivety in stating, “If you find a few bad apples get rid of them.” Seriously, half the stuff that is materialising from TURC would have remained buried, so how do you get rid of what you don’t know? Or, is it a case of out of sight, out of mind. Mr Di Natale even went as far as to accuse Commissioner Heydon of being of a ‘clear political persuasion’ and having a clear agenda!! The same Judge that NSW Labor appointed to the NSW Court of Appeal. Grubby stuff Mr Di Natale, grubby stuff. 

So if the Greens cared about jobs, as referenced earlier, why are they supporting a Labor plan that will wipe out thousands of Australian jobs? Why are opposing ChAFTA & why is Peter Whish-Wilson calling on Labor to refuse to pass the agreement because of ISDS? And why are they demanding the Government send the agreement back to the negotiating table?  For heaven's sake, even Labor's Shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, said on September 3rd, “We want to see the China Free Trade Agreement implemented. Those concerns can be dealt with by the Government. They don't need to go back to Beijing and renegotiate.” 

The China Free Trade agreement has been 10-years in the making. This agreement will deliver an increase in beef exports, dairy products and even insurance and healthcare services which means desperately needed jobs growth and the Greens play games.

The Greens agenda is very clear, they are about supporting Agenda 21 and driving green plans that will result in thousands losing their jobs. They will open up our borders, they will bankrupt the country, they will oppose anything Tony Abbott tries to do on climate, border protection and trade deals that deliver economic recovery and jobs growth. They will take Union money and side with Labor (so they can control the agenda behind the scenes). Whilst Labor play at being ‘light green’ and betray their heartland the Greens are increasing their support and using any ploy they can to do it. 

If you think you can’t trust Labor then you certainly can’t trust the Greens. And Labor and Conservatives should be uniting to destroy this Green Peril before it takes a greater foothold. If they don’t, both parties pay the price and Australia pays the price. The question is, can we AFFORD to pay the price? That’s a question every thinking Australian has to ask themselves. I think you know my answer, it is a resounding NO, we can’t.  

Question of 100 Good Men & Women

The twitter post read. "The current two-party system is an epic fail." Suggesting what we need in Canberra is “100 good men and women." I would go one step further and say, they should ALL be good men and women, but that is another discussion. 

The 100 good men and women comment is intriguing, because it implied 100 independents. And so the discussion, albeit somewhat constricted by the limitations of Twitter ensued, what was best; try and fix the current two-party system or flood the parliament with one hundred Independents.

I think many will agree the current system is deeply flawed. Only a rusted on fool would conclude that we have an over abundance of the best quality 'good' people in Canberra. We clearly don't and that goes for all parties, including Independents. Although it is fair to say there are many good people there, not all the apples are bad, we just don’t have enough of them. 

I want to touch on the 100 Good men and Women (#100GMW) idea. 

Some of the questions that spring to mind for me are. 

Who determines what good actually looks like? 

You can define what personal values look like, but that doesn't always mean the person can or will deliver what everyone demands. So does, that make them bad? 

So is good based on personal values or doing what is best for the country, the electorate or us as individuals? 

Even within the electorate people have different demands, different wants and needs.  What is often in the best interests of the country isn't always in the best interest of individuals, particularly in the short term. 

So in electing these people is ‘good’ based on the majority view of policies or personal attributes? 

We could have the majority view now,  if we eliminated preference voting as per the UK and got rid of the senate. Personal attributes are sometimes harder to determine.   

How are #100GMW independents organised? 

Hundred Independents governing, who leads? How are roles divided up? How are decisions reached? Because I think it would be a fair bet the #100GMW all have their pet projects and personal beliefs. We see this in the senate now with our current group of Independents. And before you scream, but they are not 'good', well sorry to disappoint, but some people actually think they are. 

I consider a good person acts with integrity, honesty and fairness. But acting with fairness doesn't always mean you can be fair to everyone. Just consider the challenges the current government has battled in trying to address the budget deficit and welfare spending. Or the debates that erupt over mining. On one side the people who need jobs and on the other those who will not support mines because of their commitments to the green agenda. 

I am naturally cautious about independents ruling. I've seen the negative side of that with councils and the potential for that to be the reality on a bigger scale in the ‘House of the Law Makers’ fills me with dread.  

It also raises another question and that is, is the electorate mature enough to move to a more independent structure in Canberra. I'm sure this will get some peoples backs up, but I doubt that it is, but I'll save that for another day. The experiment of ‘self-managed’ work groups are rarely successful. 

I also have a sneaky suspicion that the advocates for the #100GMW are really just like the rest of us. They have their personal agendas and they don't see either of the two major parties delivering on those personal wants, so they think a bunch of independents who think the same way as them will. 

I'm squarely in the camp of, let's try and fix what we have, and then build on that to improve it. That comes from my natural tendency toward 'process improvement" leading to the creation of "Centres of Excellence". Yes I know it’s a motherhood statement, but it says what I think parliament should be. Anyone who is familiar with process improvement thinking knows, you have to identify the initial cause of the problem and work from there. So where to start. 

For me there are glaring issues that should be looked at.   

These are not necessarily in order:

No 1: Fix the initial selection process at the grassroots level. So often we hear the person who gets the jersey is the party pick not the members pick,  

No 2: Eliminate political donations and that definitely includes Union donations,

No 3: Get rid of preference voting,

No 4: Get rid of the senate,

No 5: All political advertising to be subject to existing Truth in Advertising laws,

No 6: Any initiative that impacts on our sovereignty needs to explained very clearly and perhaps in some instances it should also to be subject to referenda, 

No 7: Increase the house of reps term to four years and preferably five, 

No 8: Have a robust feedback system so the the voice of the people is heard, 

No 8: Improved auditing of politicians performance.  

These are the key areas for me, but first and foremost it gets back to the independence of the selection process. We have to get the right people in the party to start with. We have too many career politicians who are using parliament as a stepping stone toward their next career move and certainly too many ex Union organisers and Union lawyers who are not representative of the majority of the electorate. Their experience in the real world is limited. 

When it comes to political donations, there is no such thing as a free lunch and we are seeing all too clearly the negative impact of political donations. The level of corruption and manipulation that is being exposed in the Union Royal commission is testament in case as were the ICAC investigations. And independents are not immune, just look at the mess the Palmer experiment has delivered to us in the senate. Money buys favours and those favours rarely benefit us.  

How anyone can support preference voting is beyond me. It never ceases to amaze me how a candidate can achieve the highest number of votes in an electorate and not gain a seat in parliament because of preferences. That's like an Olympic javelin thrower ‘winning’ the gold medal, and losing out because the officials combined the distance thrown by the silver medalist with the bronze medalist and awarding  the gold the second place getter. The senate is even worse. People sitting in judgement who achieved less than a 1000 votes, but who got there because someone did deals with umpteen other micro parties; lunacy. 

We elect a party to govern and to deliver on the policies we voted for. Far too often they are thwarted in that endeavour by  a hostile or feral senate. I know many of us were stunned when we heard a bunch of independents supported the opposition to vote down the reintroduction of legislation to place better controls over Unions. Hence, increase penalties for misuse of members' funds and stamp out legal practices. 

The best example I know of a one house parliament is New Zealand. They don’t have a senate, they function perfectly well without one and they get things done in half the time.

It's insane that political advertising is exempt from the laws governing truth in advertising. In essence, anyone with a grievance can run an ad based on lies and fear and get away with it!!! And worse still, people believe it. The most recent proof is the Union ad lying about foreign workers and the China FTA. It simply shouldn't be allowed. Trust me, we will be swamped with Union ads like this leading leading up to the next election. It's frankly criminal behaviour in my opinion.  

Our sovereignty concerns many in the electorate. I’m one of them. There are two issues that come up with regularity because they do have the potential to impact on our future. One is foreign investment; what, who and the basis of (sale or lease of assets). Two immigration; who, what and why. 

I think all parties need to be more open about this. They need to make it very clear exactly what are they taking to the electorate and why. They certainly aren't as clear as they should be and this creates concern and suspicion.  They must address this. 

The question of the term in office needs to be looked at. Three years is not enough time to address many of the problems we face today. As an example, the Labor government left a minefield for the new government to deal with. Addressing the economic challenges created as a result of a Labor's out of control spending and unfunded initiatives, coupled with the significant decline in our resources market was never going to be fixed in three years.  If we have the right people in Canberra then four to five years shouldn't be an issue.   

Lastly, those we elect need to spend more time listening to their supporters and we have to have a much better process to assess performance. If we do get it wrong and vote in the wrong people or as recently discovered end up with people who abuse, taxpayer funds waiting for an election to get rid of them isn’t acceptable. Elected members need to be accountable to their local party members and that means greater disclosure of personal spending, achievements etc. If our representative isn’t performing them we should be able to remove him or her. 

Whether we like it or not, we are an island, but we can't operate as an island. Some people out there would like us to just close the doors to investment, immigration and being a global citizen. Nice idea but we wouldn't last long. That said, we have to ensure we do the best for our country, our people and our security and that means getting the fundamentals right. It starts with who we elect to represent us. That's where we need to start. Fix the basics and build on that. 

I think we have a man in Tony Abbott, who is trying to do that, at least in some areas. He gets little thanks for it, but he tries. Yes, he has many faults, but he is the only one who is endeavouring to clean up Union corruption, fix parliamentary benefits rorting and get the best deals on our free trade agreements. Let's not forget he also told the UN he would stop illegals flooding in on boats and he wouldn't buy into their green climate scams. As for the leader of the opposition, just rate him on these five key points and you come up with a big fat zero. Same applies to the Greens leader and independents. So my efforts leading up to the election will be helping the best of the two major parties get back into office. 

Let’s not create a bigger mess voting in a heap of independents that will achieve nothing. It’s the wrong time, for the wrong  reasons and it diverts our attention from the most important challenge that we face. Keeping Labor out and that includes their partners, The Greens.