Election 2016: Is It Time To Call A Truce?

We are a little less than two weeks away from the election. Many people are still making up their minds who they will vote for. For those who have, the polls are close. A hung parliament is looking like a real possibility. Fantastic I say, another three years of chaos. 

From the liberal/conservative side of politics the lead up to this election has been like no other I’ve experienced. Conservatives attacking conservatives. The far right beating the c##p out middle to left conservatives. Abbott supporters attacking Turnbull and party supporters. Labor supporters haven’t had to do anything. They must be in hysterics over the land mining that has gone on within the conservative supporters groups. 

I will ask the liberals and conservatives who support the conservative side of politics to call a truce. These are my reasons. I believe we have stuffed up the last three elections. Wait! Yes we did vote the LNP into Govt but it wasn’t a parliament that enabled the Govt to do their job properly. So let's drop the, it was an overwhelming victory for the Abbott Govt. It wasn’t. It was the worst senate result for the LNP for many years. That is fact.

So what are those choices? 

We return the LNP to Govt. This allows them to continue on their path of economic reform, and debt repair. To make sure our borders are protected and to deal with climate in a responsible way. Plus, deliver on the rest of the initiatives in the policy plan. But to do that they must be given a parliament that works. Not one based on ‘hedging bets’ which will deliver an unworkable senate controlled by Labor/Greens, single issue parties and untested and untried new comers. 

The electorate DID NOT give Tony Abbott a workable parliament in both houses. Instead, they delivered a senate controlled by Green's and cross-benchers. I use the word “they” because I voted for the Liberals in the upper house. I marked one above the line because I did not want to preference any party. I will be doing the same thing again this election.

People can continue with their ‘strop’ over Malcolm Turnbull and vote informal. Or vote for new parties like Xenophon, ALA etc. Palmer is back running candidates in the senate. We have dozens of opportunists running. There are choices but I urge people to think about that and the likely outcomes of voting for these people. It's important to check policies. I know for a fact many people don’t. They protest vote. Not smart people. There are nasties hidden in many of the policies dependent on your views. I've discovered a few. Policies that true LNP supporters would not support. Check who they are giving their preferences to and who they will favour out of the major parties. I’ve been surprised by a couple when I’ve checked. Although with Xenophon who would know. He won’t give us that information. But from Xenophon’s own policies we find this.

I read an interesting comment to a column by Paul Kelley in the Australian. It was from one of the ALA supporters. His sole argument for recommending the ALA was the candidates had real jobs. Any job is a real job? It's a stupid term. Anyway, how does a ‘real’ job translate into a good politician. There was no mention of policies. There was no mention of who the ALA will preference. It's a worry. There are some concerning policies within the ALA suite. Their senate preferences in NSW are enlightening to say the least.

Another example I recently read. “I want to protect what is left of the Liberals, so I’m voting for Bill Shorten.” It's not the only comment I’ve read along those lines. Beggars belief and graphically highlights the lack of intelligent thought applied by this voter. He isn’t a lone wolf. 

Ex Libs you can vote for Labor or the Greens. But let's get serious. We are talking politics so let’s dispense with the I couldn’t live with myself if I voted for Turnbull BS. It’s a choice between communism/socialism or capitalism. It's that simple. The electorate has already tested six years of Labor. Let's not forget how painful that was. Apart from new leaders, it's the same bunch you are voting back in. You are placing a lot of trust in their ability to have ‘gone to Jesus’ in three short years. I belief we've had a glimpse of what the next Labor Govt will look like thanks to Daniel Andrews and Victoria. The unions control the puppet Shorten and the left are poised for a take-over. 

I have read many comments urging people to destroy the Libs in a vain hope Labor will be defeated in three years. Well, they weren’t last time. Labor carried on with another three years of destruction and chaos. Regardless, they can do a lot more damage in three years. As for a new conservative party rising from the ashes that could take years and years. I don't hold out much hope for that.

Whilst many cannot stand Malcolm Turnbull he is but one man. If conservatives do the right thing, we will have a good mix of liberals and conservatives in a new Govt. I’ve said before I am not a big fan of Malcolm Turnbull. I wasn’t a big fan of Tony Abbott either. I vote for the party. It’s very important that Barnaby Joyce retains his seat. He brings balance. I would much prefer a Turnbull led Govt over the possible alternatives any day. We can deal with Turnbull. It will take three years perhaps more to remove what replaces the LNP if it comes to that.

Malcolm Turnbull has shown a lot of courage. He could have called an election earlier when his stocks were significantly higher than they are now. He didn’t. Anyone who believed Turnbull’s approval rating would stay in the 60’s plus for any length of time has rocks in their head. Malcolm Turnbull knew that and his advisors encouraged him to go earlier. He ignored that advice. Gutsy decision. 

Kitchen Cabinet this week with Senator Cash was interesting. Her comment to the question about Malcolm Turnbull just implementing Tony Abbott’s policies was spot on. Michaelia Cash pointed out, they are the policies of the party. It was a fair point. They are the policies of the party.

So to summarise the choice is:

A Liberal National Government.

A Labor / Greens Government. 

A hung parliament controlled by who knows who. It could be the Greens or Xenophon or a combo. It's the walking the plank solution.

I’ve said before when I asked the question, can we afford to gamble in this current climate with so much uncertainties. I believe the answer is a resounding no. I want no part in delivering chaos.

What the rest of you do is your decision and your business. But, I sincerely hope we can unite and call a truce until after the election when the LNP is hopefully returned? 

History teaches us that unity is strength, and cautions us to submerge and overcome our differences in the quest for common goals, to strive, with all our combined strength to make our nation stronger. That’s what is really important. What is in the best interests of the country and therefore our future.

I'm Becoming A Polygamist

Bill Shorten will appoint an LGBTI Commissioner should he win office. This will cost $1.4 million over four years; $200,000 year one and $400,000 year two onwards. The appointee will be tasked with being a “champion” of the community’s rights. The LGBTI Discrimination Commissioner will be appointed to Australian Human Rights Commission. 

In announcing this, our lesbian senator Penny Wong said, "An LGBTI Discrimination Commissioner will ensure lesbian, gay, transgender and intersex Australians can feel safer, more secure and more included in Australian society. 

“The Commissioner will address structural discrimination, work towards ensuring our schools, workplaces, and communities are free from discrimination."

Penny Wong said, "love is love." We are here because we reject hatred, we reject bigotry and we reject discrimination."

They don't. This would prove it. 

I've been giving this a lot of thought. I will become a polygamist. I shall have two husbands. One old and extremely rich. The other closer to my age. Someone who likes doing the things I like to do. Best of both worlds; someone to have fun with and someone to bankroll me. 

I'll love them both equally of course. I will be demand my rights. I know I can rely on Penny to go into bat for me. After all as she said "love is love". In this new Penny World the traditional idea of love between a man and a woman to produce children is just so yesterday. So why should those seeking to have two husbands be discriminated against. After all it is a relationship between a woman and a man. 

I wonder if Penny will defend me against the hatred that will be directed toward me. Will she decry the bigotry when I am accused of being immoral? Will she demand the appointment of a Commissioner to help stamp out the hatred and the discrimination? Will she support my plan to educate our children and the community on the imperatives of embracing my lifestyle choice? She said, “We are here because we reject hatred, we reject bigotry and we reject discrimination." Remember 'love is love.'

Do you think she would stand up for me if I went ahead with my plan? Will she fight for my rights because they differ from hers?  To quote one of my favourite Pommy sayings, "eck is like."

I don't care how people live their lives as long as they don't interfere with mine or hurt others. However, I do get heartily sick and tired of having LGBTI stuff rammed down my throat. Now, if Labor gets in we will have a Discrimination Commission to 'police' our workplaces, our schools and our communities. Big brother is alive and well. 

Where does this stuff end? By 2050 50% of the population has to be an alternative sex practitioner? Given the indoctrination of kids in schools and the constant barrage of media reports, demands to change the law etc I’m starting to wonder. 

I'll let you know how I go with the polygamy stuff. I'm off to find my rich hubby.. 

Question: How much are you prepared to pay?

Question: How much are you prepared to let the government spend for changes to our refugee intake policy. I have assumed (possibly dangerous) you don't want to see our debt position worsen as a result of the proposed Labor & Greens increases. What are you prepared to give up byway of benefits? Or conversely, what are you prepared to contribute byway of increased taxes and charges to pay for it? 

Remember this proposal isn't general immigration. This is for increases to the humanitarian refugee intake. This will means people from third world countries; predominately war torn. 

The LNP have committed and budgeted to spend $700million to cover the cost of the increase of 12,000 one off uplift. This is besides our current intake of 13,750; this increases to 18,750 by 2018 - 2019. 

Labor's proposal is an annual increase to 27,000 at a cost of $2.7billion over four years. 

If we adopted the Greens proposal of a staggering 50,000 annually the cost would be $7billion over the same period. To put this into perspective. That equates to housing a city approximately the size of Wagga Wagga every year. That doesn't even touch on the special needs of those people. 

It's easy when it's someone else's money conjured up by the mysterious government money fairy from the pot at the end of the rainbow. But it's yours and mine. We pay. 

So, it's a simple cost based question. What are you prepared to pay in increased taxes and how much are you prepared to give up byway of current benefits? Or, are you simply prepared to see the country go into more and debt leaving the legacy for future generations to deal with? 

A couple of comments on the Peter Dutton issue. A lot of people condemned him for what he said. Completely ignoring the fact that he was talking about the likely profile of our humanitarian intake today. Not the profile 50-40-30, even 20 years ago. In many cases a profile very different in both their religious and social maturity than those who came here following the Second World War. Whilst our country has developed, grown and matured economically and socially, the same can't be said for all countries. Particularly those where the bulk of humanitarian and boat people have come from. You may not like what he said and, many called him unAustralian. If anyone's acting in an 'unAustralian' manner it's the people attacking him. We have to be mature enough to debate thorny issues no matter how unsavoury and confronting the facts are. If we can’t then we forego the right to call, ourselves a mature and intelligent society. 

Research commission and published by the then Labor government back in 2011 confirms what Mr Dutton said. Although I'm not sure I totally agree with his comment about taking Australian jobs. As the jobs taken by people who come into the country are often those shunned by locals. The facts with respect to literacy, welfare and employment prove what he said is right. No amount of bullying or slurring Peter Dutton or those who defend him will change that. 

WARNING: BUYER BEWARE

"Bill Shorten will nearly double Australia’s emissions reduction targets if he wins government but will seek to counter a carbon-tax and electricity-price scare campaign with a range of measures including rolling out smart meters to manage home power use." 

However, the article by Sid Maher in The Australian today goes on to say "The contentious detail and price implications will be thrashed out by consultation after the election." So in other words, sign your life away and we'll tell you how much it will cost you later!!!! Now that's a deal worth signing up for....not.

Mr Maher also states Labor will promise to appoint a panel of consumers and family advocates to minimise the effect of policy changes on low-income households. But what about the impact on middle income households who are being squeezed at every turn? What about the impact on self-funded retirees? What about the impact on business? 

So buyer beware and if you trust Bill Shorten & Labor to do the right thing AFTER getting your vote I'd seriously be questioning your judgement with all due respect. 

We Shouldn't Just Dismiss Polls

Much has been said about opinion polls over the last few years. The merit of which often depends on the personal like or dislike of parties and leaders and the results presented. Someone recently pointed out if the results are what you want to see they are right. But if they aren't what you want to see they are made up and lies. Makes me laugh but it's true. 

Whether you believe the poll results or not, it should be remembered they are often the only mechanism us, the voting public has to tell parties and their leaders what we think. They are a pulse check. It's too late when it comes to the election, the only other opportunity we have to voice our opinions. 

The most recent Newspoll has been the source of great delight to the antiTurnbull brigade. Let them have their fun whilst we focus on what the poll told us. Whilst the majority  of voters prefer Malcolm Turnbull to the alternative Bill Shorten, they are less enamoured with the LNP. That is a collective problem not just the problem of the leader, Malcolm Turnbull. If it was just down to Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership, both the party rating and his personal rating would be below that of Labor and Shorten. 

So, my take is the voting public sees the LNP as a party that is lacking direction and that’s a combination of many factors not just leadership. From where I sit and from what I hear I can summarise that around four key points. 

There is no united front: In a broad-church party there will be conflicting opinions and views. That's fine but but once a decision is made it needs to be owned by the party. Petty squabbling must be kept behind closed doors. Please stop airing your opinions about others in the party in public. Let the media do that. 

Distractions: There’s too much noise being generated by the Liberal Taliban, the gang of three; Tony Abbott, Eric Abetz and Kevin Andrews. 

Leadership: Malcolm Turnbull has to toughen up and take Labor head-on. I know he is careful with language but you can still be considered in your response and get the message out. Please accept the invitation to go on 2GB and take the likes of Alan Jones head on whilst you are at it. 

Policy: The vast majority of conservative voters are not in the top percent of income earners. So policies that include retention of the super tax concessions and private school funding (particularly if we are taking a tough line on public schools) will be considered unfair. Repair the education system and that must include the massive problem we have with unpaid debt. Lastly, more money for health. That means hospitals NOT health care bureaucrats   

So the message from Newpoll was a simple one. We aren’t happy with you lot and you need to get your act together. Stop the squabbles and pull together, let Ministers do their job, drop unfair practices and Malcolm please, start to lead. 

I honestly don’t think the public will buy the hollow barrel policies of Bill Shorten and Labor. That said, if my party (the LNP) doesn’t get their act together post-haste that could be the outcome. Bill Shorten PM, and almost the same front bench that presided over our worst period in Government ever, back in charge.  

What a nightmare that would be. 

THE BATTLE FOR THE MORAL HIGHGROUND

I watched Bolt (again) this morning, despite my personal commitment never to do so a couple of weeks back. But hey, I’m a female, we are allowed to be fickle. Seriously, if  it wasn't for his guests I wouldn't bother, I find Bolt insufferable but he does have entertaining knowledge guests (usually).

The guest list  today wasn't up to the usual standard. It rarely is when Nicholas Reece is on the panel. We received the usual serving of Labor propaganda from him. Gems like:

"Bill Shorten is announcing 'brave' new initiatives." Fantastic, but even if he could deliver on them, we would be paying for them for the next 100-years. 

"The behaviour of TURC has been outrageous and it's 'politically' inspired mantra."  Not a word about the evidence of endemic Union corruption. 

As usual Mr Reece was left with egg on face over his claims that TURC had been raiding offices. He clearly wasn’t up to speed that a request was made and subsequently withdrawn. His face said it all. 

Of course Bolt was ever keen to push the Malcolm Turnbull is a 'lefty' mantra. I fail to see how showing a willingness to agree to minor compromises to get policy moving is 'tipping to the left'. When this was pointed out to Bolt his rebuttal was hysterical,”But wait until he wins the election, then he is free to do what he likes.” What utter rubbish. If Turnbull wins the election, then it will be on the policies heard the party  tables that the voting public agrees with. Turnbull will not be free to then turf all the policies out and bring in his own. Turnbull has committed to a cabinet government not the power of one government, a point that appears to completely escape Bolt. 

Of course Bolt made not one mention of the following: 

The Governments announcement of it's responses to the Financial Systems Inquiry (the Murray review) which was received positively by the public and with a notable lack of serious criticism of from either Opposition or business groups. Big tick and hardly tipping the dark side. 

After months and months of stand offs agreement was reached with Labor on the China Free Trade Agreement and although very, very minor concessions were made the essence of the agreement is untouched. This agreement will now swiftly pass through parliament and will be in effect by December. Big tick to Trade Minister Andrew Robb and the Government and once again hardly tipping to the dark side.

After a minor revamp treasurer Morrison, and social services minister, Christian Porter, have presented a revamped family benefits package forsakes many controversial measures first proposed in the 2014 budget, but still cuts around $3.5bn in government benefits (mostly from single-income and single-parent families) in order to pay for the $3.5bn childcare package promised in the 2015 budget. Despite what Bolt thinks & the posturing by Labor there is a strong held view the senate will pass the package in return for various sweeteners. Treasurer Morrison isn't one to walk away from change. Certainly not tipping to the dark side merely playing smart politics.

We had the usual firm stance on the asylum seeker issue with Peter Dutton's stance on the so called asylum seeker rape claim and subsequent pregnancy and abortion farce. Same on climate. 

We can only judge on what happens not what we think will happen based on the attitudes of the past as Bolt does and whether Bolt likes it or not Malcolm Turnbull has not lurched to the left and I doubt that will he. He isn't that stupid. 

One point struck me today about Bolt when he was discussing left leaning media and their attacks on Christians in the media segment with Gerard Henderson. Gerald mentioned that most of the left leaning Christian attackers were people raised and educated as Christians who are now atheists. As we see time and again, those who express the most intolerance are very often converts. Ex Christians now Atheists attack other Christians. Ex Christians now Muslim jihadists attack Christians. Bolt who spends the majority of his time attacking the left and middle of the road small L Liberals like Malcolm Turnbull is the same man who campaigned twice for the Labor Party. Perhaps just another case of the converted attacking what he once supported? I wonder.

Gerard Henderson summed it beautifully with this comment during the media segment. I will preface this in stating Gerard was referring to the left; media and supporters. But I think it applies equally to those who tilt a bit further to the right as well; the ultra conservatives. He said, "When you believe your morality is higher than everyone else's, when people disagree with you they are liars and lack morality."  We’ve witnessed ample evidence of that over recent weeks. If you disagree with the likes of Bolt and his supporters you are immediately accused of lacking morals, selling out your principles, you are deluded or simply dumb. The moral high ground is very crowded and it certainly isn’t the sole domain of the left. 

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. 

The Electorate: Misogynistic : Double-Standards

Questions:

• Is the electorate becoming increasingly misogynistic? 
• Or do people on all sides of the political divide simply treat Conservatives significantly harsher than Labor or Greens? 

I'm struggling to work out which one it is. Or, perhaps both apply.

I expected the polls to reflect the electorate's anger over the travel expenses scandals. 

What I didn't expect, was for them to unleash their anger on PM Tony Abbott and to reward Bill Shorten. The latest Newspoll was the final straw for me. So consider this. 

The argument that the electorate is increasingly misogynistic. 

Examples of two women; Julia Gillard and Bronwyn Bishop, hounded, attacked and abused over the same issues as men who survive.

Julia Gillard was not a very good PM and she certainly was not to be trusted, but people hounded her over a $5000 brown bag payment. The combination of that and her performance finally cost her, her job. 

In comparison, we have Bill Shorten. With a far, far worse footprint. Unions bully, adulterer, accused rapist and he has demonstrated vicious behaviour toward an innocent female shop owner. He has taken money, at the expense of workers, for self gain and only disclosed it when 'forced' to do so. There are very serious questions arising in the Royal Commission about his conduct and honesty. Yet, in the latest Newspoll taken over the weekend, Shorten's stock rise against a PM who has none of those shadows hanging over his head.

Bronwyn Bishop.  Foolishly took a $5000 helicopter ride. She was attacked unmercifully. She has been humiliated, abused and finally hounded out of office. Hounded out for excessive spends that pales into insignificance to Labor's Tony Burke her chief assassin. Burke is even given a free pass by none other than Christopher Pyne (who himself we discover has pushed the expense envelope) 

Tony Burke, is a serial expense abuse offender. He was Labor's attack dog, ripping into Mrs Bishop daily. However, over the past week, Mr Burke's own gross abuse has been highlighted. Flying girlfriends 1st class, business class holiday flights for his children, holidays for himself, $10,000 a day jaunts in Europe, lavish parties and $20,000 drinks bills. He's accepted free gifts; travel, entertainment, accommodation.  Fifteen times he had paid back travel claims. The list goes on and on and on. But, Burke  is considered to be operating within the rules, but Mrs Bishop isn't.

Mrs Bishop paid back the $5000 plus a fine. Burke under pressure is reimbursing one lousy ComCar bill. So why was Mrs Bishop treated so harshly when a serial abuser of expenses like Burke survives? Could it be because she is a woman. I'm rapidly reaching the conclusion that is the reason.  

Are Conservatives held to a significantly higher level of professional standards than Labor. 

Tony Abbott's personal ratings are down Bill Shorten's go up. That is almost inconceivable when you think about it. Now, there are those who are very suspicious of polls. Funnily enough, that usually only applies when they go against their preferred party, yes I am guilty as well. There are those who will say; but they only target Labor electorates.  I suspect in some cases pollsters pick and choose BUT surely decency and personal standards should be above political preferences when it comes to people.

Tony Abbott has worn the wrath of the electorate over Bronwyn Bishop. His ratings went down. 

Bill Shorten was unscathed over Burke. Shorten's ratings went up, astounding. This is despite the very serious accusations levelled at Mr Shorten at TURC. This is despite Mr Shorten's disclosure that he took a $40,000 payment from an employer and used that money to fund his political campaign. AND, kept it quiet for years. Let's face it, if it hadn't been for TURC that payment would never have been disclosed. None of these serious failures of personal conduct have been levelled at Mr Abbott, yet his ratings go down. 

So, as I've been committing my thoughts to paper I've now reached my conclusion that as an electorate, we are collectively guilty of both: 

1. We are becoming more misogynistic although many will dispute that 

2. We most certainly hold the Conservatives to much higher standards than Labor 

I will confess, I’m becoming increasingly disillusioned with society. We appear to be losing all sense of fairness. We punish people for other people's misdemeanours and we are inconsistent in our judgement. In Tony Abbott's case, the achievements of his Govt are ignored and he is attacked based on personality.  That is grossly unfair in my opinion.   

Was It Worth It - Tony Burke

Tony Burke is either so smug he thinks he is beyond scrutiny. Or so thick he thought no one would start digging when he decided to act as Shorten's attack dog and deflect the attention away from his wounded leader and go after Bronwyn Bishop. 

Burke delivered on his mission to remove Mrs Bishop, but at what cost? The evidence is mounting by the day of his own monumental abuse of taxpayer funds. Mrs Bishop's indiscretions pale into insignificance compared to what is now surfacing for Burke. Sure, it might be found to be within the rules, but it is abuse nevertheless. 

Burke reminds of the little boy, from the wrong side of the tracks, who finds himself with the lolly jar for the first time. He's been gorging himself ever since. But as with all greedy little children they get their just deserts in the end and his end is guaranteed. Shorten on the other hand, remains in the background, comforted in the knowledge that he has some respite from scrutiny, at least for the time being.  Burke has been his sacrificial lamb. 

My husband summed it up beautifully this morning. He said "Burke is a serial offender." He is right. And a pretty dumb one at that. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY: Shorten Sucks Up To The Left

Without The Greens vote, Labor hasn't the remotest chance of winning the next election. Bill Shorten knows that. With his personal electoral stocks plummeting, he will go all out to curry favour with The Greens and the Labor left. Hence we will be regaled with more idiotic plans such as his announcement of a 50% renewable target. We simply don't have the money to keep funding (to the tune of billions of dollars annually) get rich quick (off the tax payers) back eyesore wind farm projects. Projects that deliver almost zero benefit but push up the cost of power to cash strapped Australians.

Let's face it, if the polls are correct, he may also pick up some of the left conservative side who has been sucked into the global warming so called 'dirty energy' myth.

It will be interesting to see the reaction following his announcement. One thing we can be sure of is left leaning media and importantly the ABC will be fawning over this. Prepare yourself.

We must also remember. The unions already own 50% of Shorten. He is indebted to them. Now The Greens and the left are claiming their share of his and Labor's 'political flesh'. I'll leave you with one thought. Gillard was in exactly the same position and look how that panned out.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bill-shorten-to-unveil-50-renewable-energy-target-at-labor-conference-20150721-gih4bp.html

People in Glass Houses...

I just need to have a wee rant...

For days we have been swamped by media headlines of the Bronwyn Bishop helicopter ride at taxpayers' expense. Labor MP's falling over each other to climb onto the moral high-ground to condemn. Although the slates of those condemning most loudly are not clean by any stretch.  

Tony Burke the loudest 'Labor mouthpiece', demanding the PM sack Ms Bishop. This from the man that submitted fifteen claims that he was forced to pay back. Not one claim, fifteen. And, there is more hidden in his 'dirty sox drawer' and he knows it. 

For heavens sake, even the "coalition of the banchees" Jones & Lambie chimed in on Q&A last night. Lambie, preaching from the moral high ground is galling. The hide of this woman is astounding.  A woman who does little else other than chase a headline, jumping into the most divisive news story of the day and then sharing her idiotic opinion, to lecture anyone is galling. The same woman who shamefully used poor old Clive Palmer to gain office and then publicly humiliated him and stabbed him in the back. I've no time for Clive Palmer, but Lambie's treatment of him was reprehensible. She has no right to lecture others. 

Yesterday @Riley7News (an avowed Labor supporter) broke the news of Bill Shorten's misuse of travel expenses. A scan of morning news? Not a whisper. The Australian did report it, but buried it under the national news tab, story 15 from memory. 

I guess I should be used to it by now, but it still rankles.