Do we need any more proof that Conservatives are more civil human beings compared to the feral left?
Well, of course. Why not?
New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Adern, told US President, Donald Trump, that no one marched in protest after her success at the recent election. She responded with this after President Trump made a joke about her becoming Prime Minister with the help of New Zealand First. Adern told Sky News that she didn’t think President Trump was offended by the remark.
Of course President Trump wouldn’t be offended, after all he is a Conservative and Conservatives do not get offended. We like to embrace free speech something the left do not value. The interesting thing about this though is we have a left wing Prime Minister who has basically admitted that Conservatives are more civil when it comes to political discourse. Majority of New Zealanders rejected NZ Labour, the only reason why Adern is Prime Minister is because she has done a deal with Winston Peters, the leader of far right New Zealand First.
If Conservatives held a distasteful view like the left, we would be out there protesting and making life hard for the socialists however we don’t. We respect the institution of democracy and political systems which elect government. We understand that you win some and you lose some, sure we get disappointed at results but we move on and work towards a better future.
The left on the other hand don’t respect democracy and don’t respect our political systems, they are sore losers and protest when they don’t get their own way; Brexit and President Trump are two examples of this.
Given this, kudos to Prime Minister Adern for finally admitting that Conservatives are more civil human beings, maybe she needs to provide lessons to left wing millennials on how to become a better human when it comes to a more civil political discourse.
What are our politicians doing?
Why are we paying them $200k plus when we haven’t seen any real outcomes since Tony Abbott stopped the boats and repealed the Carbon Tax?
Malcolm Turnbull was suppose to be a better Prime Minister than Tony Abbott but what has he actually achieved besides his own annihilation?
At the moment Australia faces:
- An energy crisis. No talk about real energy reform such as Nuclear but more subsidies to renewables which have proven in South Australia to be a dud.
- Out of control debt. The Liberal National Governments is throwing money away like it grows on tree’s. The fact we are spending $300,000 a minute on Welfare should be of concern.
- Out of control immigration levels. You can only have to look at Sydney and Melbourne to see that our immigration levels are not sustainable. Sydney itself have embraced the ‘go high’ approach to living with high rise apartments clogging up Sydney streets. Yet Government refuses to outlay any infrastructure such as frontline health services, roads, schools, police etc to deal with the massive growth.
- Increased terror risks. Government tends to tip toe around Islam and the potential risks it imposes on the Western World. Now of course not all muslims are terrorists but nearly all terrorists in the modern world comes from a deranged bunch of Muslims. Even ASIO has admitted that we have to tread carefully when it comes to Islam because if you criticise it, you risk more terror attacks.
- A technological brain freeze. The Government has piss farted around with NBN which is as useless as a screen door on a submarine. Government should never have nationalised NBN instead they should have given tax incentives for the private sector to deliver state of the art internet.
These are just some of the issue which are facing our Australia today. Yet our politicians are more worried about same sex marriage, transgender reassignment, changing Australia Day, having quotas for women to serve in Parliament, giving themselves a pay rise, getting on the United Nations (this will be a story for another day) and the list goes on. Gone are the days when Governments, like the one John Howard led or even Bob Hawke, tackle real political issues – issues that affect all Australians rather than just the minority. It is sad that the media play on these minor issues only to get good ratings because lets be honest, same sex marriage is a highly emotional topic which gets people feisty on both sides of the argument.
Bill Shorten, the alternative Prime Minister looks almost certain to be our Prime Minister after the next election. What he stands for is no where near the likes of Bob Hawke or Paul Keating, this bloke embraces identity politics and populist mumbo jumbo. When he wins the next election, I predict he won’t last very long, because like most modern Governments, they don’t tackle the big issues. Australia is Doomed!
Well well well, the National Party have shown their true colours this weekend. There was a motion before their National Conference wanting to ban the burqa in public spaces. The Burqa, which is a sign of oppression, covers the face of women (or men) which often can be used for sinister purposes and is potential to be a threat to National Security. Nationals MP George Christensen was pushing for the National Party to ban the Burqa but unfortunately the lefty trolls within the Nats voted against it 55-51.
The National Party in Australia is known to be the Liberal Party lap dog. They have no real policies but ride on the back of the Liberal Party. Sadly the National Party is just a country wing of the Libs which is concerning for long term members of the National Party. The rise of One Nation, Australian Conservatives and in NSW the Shooters, Fishers and Farmer’s Party one would have thought the National Party would have dumped the Liberal Party and be a true centre right alternative. There was somewhat hope for the Nats when Barnaby Joyce became leader. When he was in the Senate he was a straight shooter Senator and did not care about political correctness. These days Joyce is just the twiddledum to the Liberals twiddledee.
To those who are dissapointed in the National Party’s decision to reject Christensen’s motion, there is a better way. Don’t be a Liberal hound dog, you will always be welcome to join the fastest growing political party in Australia. The Australian Conservatives.
A couple of weeks ago I wrote that I don’t really give a toss if same sex marriage win’s or loses. I still stand by that. I do however believe that this is a contentious issue and rightly so and therefore people should have a vote on it. One thing I didn’t mention is my voting intention. On the topic of same sex marriage I will be voting No. I will be voting no, not because ‘I’m homophobic’ or a ‘bigot’ or ‘hitler’ or because I don’t want equality, Im voting no because of the reasons why people voted for Brexit and Donald Trump. Supporters for same sex marriage will no doubt condemn me for this, and I can take it but when you see people being abused for not ‘conforming’ to the status quo or being bullied and harassed for their views, out of protest (maybe it is the Taurus in me) I tend to dig my heels in.
It was reported by The Australian (1/9/2017) that Liberal Party Vice President Karina Oketel who is from Sri Lanka has experienced worst bigotry over her views on same sex marriage than any racist labels she has endured. Ms Oketel told The Australian she has been racially vilified for her skin colour in the past but that was mild compared to when she defends the current marriage act.
This kind of bigotry coming from the Yes campaigners is disturbing. I have seen first hand on social media that the Yes campaigner’s do not even want to understand why people are voting no. They just want to shut down debate.
Now the arguments made by those who are against same sex marriage can be debated. Safe Schools, Polygamy marriages, Incestrous marriages all these things can happen without same sex marriage. In fact Safe Schools is happening now but without proper debate these issues will continue to burn up until the last person sends off their voting papers.
The continual bigotry and the hatred on those from the Yes side will mean people will just vote no. Do not tell me how to vote. Do not say voting No is wrong. Do not undermine my democratic right to have self thought. We are not living in George Orwell’s 1984. We are living in a liberal democratic society of 2017. This is why I am voting no.
As a supporter for direct democracy and a former member of the Liberal Party, I welcome the grassroots support of the Warringah motion to allow all party members a say in the preselection process. It is humbling to see Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian also getting behind the Warringah motion given their previous allegiances to the so called moderates. One must understand, however, that this victory is just a smoke screen to the bigger woes of the Liberal Party.
The Futures Convention which was held at Rosehill on 22nd and 23rd July 2017 allowed grassroots members a vote on a motion which will democratise the Party. The problem with this convention is that any motion passed is not binding, meaning that the Party’s governing body – State Council and the State Executive – can reject this move. According to news reports 748 people voted yes for the Warringah motion compared to 476 who voted no. That is approximately 61% of people who want party reform the other 39% either don’t want it or want a watered down version. It is still staggering that 39% of people within the Liberal Party do not believe in democratic reform, this figure is alarming and the right who wanted democratic reform should not be cheering just yet.
It is to my understanding that factions that are not controlled by the right, control the State Council and have a majority on the State Executive. If you have control of a governing political party you would do everything you can to hold onto that power. This is why I fail to see any resolve in this issue. When it comes to the crunch in a couple of months time at a State Council meeting you can better your bottom dollar that the Warringah motion will either be rejected or amended to suit the powers to be. If this happens, some on the right are championing the thought of the Federal Executive to intervene. If the Federal Executive of the Liberal Party decides to intervene then this whole process will be drawn out. If anyone knows anything about the internal workings of the Liberal Party or any political party for that matter things don’t happen overnight.
Meanwhile in the real world, hard working Australians are being taxed through their nose and cost of living is rising; taxpayers money is being wasted on useless government programs; we see the rise and rise of green and red tape on businesses in Australia; we see a rising threat of radical islam and immigration spiralling out of control, all this under an alleged conservative Liberal Government. As mentioned previously the issue of democratising the Liberal Party is good but the problem within the Liberal Party goes beyond Party reform. It goes right down into the depths of what does the Liberal Party really stand for? Whilst the Liberals are playing politics we have a group of Conservatives that have joined together to work on the issues that hold dear to most Australians. The Australian Conservatives.
I would urge all those within the NSW Liberal Party who want democratic reform to make a wise decision to join the Australian Conservatives. The NSW Liberal Party will never embrace party reform and if they do then you still have to deal with lefties from other states. Stop wasting your time and join a new political revolution. There is a better way.
2017 will see the demise the of Liberal Party as we knew it. No longer will it be a centre-right party espousing a broad-church base, instead it will be an extreme centre or mild centre left party with a base that is made up of progressive moderates. Many conservative members of the Liberal Party have resigned. Some have decided to go with another political party and others are waiting to see what progresses so that they can find their new home. As far as I can see, there are three alternatives in our political landscape which could house ex liberal members. Lets call them the three disciples. Together they are The Triangle of Hope.
On the bottom far right side of the Triangle of Hope we see Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. One Nation has proven to be an effective player on the electoral scene. Social policies such as climate change, tough immigration, tough on crime, and tough on welfare attracts conservatives however their economic viewpoints – which historically united the liberals – veers to the left of politics. They do believe in protectionism on industry and they aren’t fond of free trade. This could be a major turn off for conservatives. Many conservatives believe in economic freedom therefore no regulations should interfere with economic progress. On the other hand to give credit where it is due, Pauline Hanson and One Nation have treated many economic issues on merit rather than having a blanket rule approach. For example One Nation does not believe in foreign ownership, however they do support the Adani Coal Mine in Townsville. This shows that One Nation is willing to negotiate for the good of the nation in particularly when it comes to jobs. Organisationally however Pauline Hanson’s One Nation belongs to Pauline Hanson. It is her Party. This will not gel with conservatives. One of the main reasons why many conservatives within the Liberal Party are leaving is because the membership is not allowed a voice. If One Nation wants to pick up these conservative votes then they need to change their organisational structure. Otherwise conservatives will look to others within the Triangle of Hope.
On the bottom far left side of the Triangle of Hope we see the Liberal Democratic Party. The LDP have a libertarian slant to their policies. They stand for low taxes, small government and individual responsibility. This sounds more like a conservative party however whilst they may feel at home with their economic viewpoints they may struggle to comprehend their social policies. The LDP do believe in legalising same sex marriage (but protecting religions from being sued if they refuse to marry same sex couples), legalisation of drugs, prostitution, abortions and euthanasia. At the end of the day they believe that humans should be free to make decisions about their own lives without the nanny state interfering. Whilst conservatives don’t believe in the ‘nanny state’ as such these policies are not something conservatives feel strongly about, many conservatives despise prostitution, abortions and euthanasia. As for the organisational structure of the LDP it is not based on personalities unlike Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. All members have a say and this is a potential win for conservatives.
Is there a better way? Finally on top of the Triangle of Hope we see the Australian Conservatives. A newly formed Conservative Party founded by former Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi. The Party believes in advocating for building a sustainable and prosperous economy and maintaining civil society. What does this mean? Well as the Party has just only been founded there are no exact policies on issues however when you go through Hansard and other media outlets and you read up on Senator Cory Bernardi, you will find that he believes in the free market, limited Government, personal responsibility, and a civil society (traditional Judeo-Christian values). The party also believes in democratic processes therefore according to it’s website, all party members will have a say on party matters. According to Paul Murray Live (3/7/2017) the Australian Conservatives in NSW have already reached 4,000 members, this is impressive hence why it is on top of the Triangle of Hope.
Conservatives in Australia have a choice. They could continue to stick with the Liberal Party and be frustrated with being powerless and support leftist policies such as the folly of renewable energy targets, open borders and gay marriage. Alternatively they could consider the Triangle of Hope. Australian Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. These three disciples have potential to shape our nation. There are options and there is a better way.
The WA State Election will be an interesting one. The rise of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation will put a spanner in the works of the major political parties and we will see a repeat of the 2001 State Election when PHON were able to gain three upper house MPs.
Pauline Hanson has been in Western Australia this week trying to promote her party despite it being dogged by problem candidates and former members wanting to sue the party leader for ‘ageism.’ Polling shows she could get anywhere between 9-12% of the primary vote. The issue for PHON however isn’t necessary the infighting as even negative media publicity is better than no publicity, it is the mere fact they lack volunteers to assist them in their campaign efforts.
The Australian Greens which are polling less than PHON in WA will probably no doubt do better and the simple reason is that they do appeal to younger West Australians. Given this, however, after looking at PHON’s social media sites they too have the ability to atract younger Australians. Pauline Hanson needs to engage younger people and re-launch their defunct Young Nation Movement. How she can do this, well thats for her and her team to decide on but she does need to engage them somehow. Pauline – if you are reading – I can assit you with this.
Given the lack of volunteers and no enagement of young people, I predict that PHON will only gain three upper house seats this coming state election. One from the Agricultural Region; one from the Mining and Pastoral Region and one from the Southwest Region. If they are lucky they may pick up one other upper house seat, where? Well thats anyones guess. I cant see them winning any lower house seats only because preferences are against them.
I am by no means being negative in my predictions but only realistic. There is still a chance, even with three upper house MP’s, One Nation could hold the balance of power in the Legislative Council. Fingers crossed this will be the case.
The WA State Election is proving to be an interesting one with the rise of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party. According to mainstream media PHON has no policies but only incompetent candidates with another Candidate in WA – Ray Gould – resigning from the race over internal bickering. This is not true, PHON have released many policies however mainstream media are not reporting it. Thankfully PHON have embraced social media and can get their policies out that way.
As of 4th March 2017 according to PHON’s website, they have released policies in seven policy areas;
- Crime and Policing
- Clean Government
- Agriculture and Regional Development
- Minerals and Energy
The issue for PHON is that they need to clean up their organisational woes. Develop a sound organisation with a democratic base that allows party members to vote on candidate selection, policies and party executives. PHON also needs to consider re-launching their Young Nation Movement to engage young people. Once they get their organisational woes under control then they will see less negative publicity from the media. Is anyone from PHON listening?
Having a leg on the Trump Train was everything but in vain.
American politics is something that I never really was interested in. Their system compared to the Westminster system is confusing and this is merely due to my ignorance. As a right wing advocate I have always leaned towards the Republican Party rather than the Democrats. I believe in low taxes, less spending and more protection of borders. In saying that I do believe in government assistance to the most vulnerable in our society. What we have seen in America and around the world, are leaders who have dismissed these beliefs and have only pushed agenda’s according to whoever has donated the most to their election campaign. The 2016 Presidential Election campaign offered a real alternative to the status quo of politics, Hillary Clinton was seen to represent the establishment whilst Donald Trump in the eyes of many political commentators represented the ‘forgotten people’. Never in my time have we seen two presidential candidates that had complete opposition views on issues, mind you I am only young.
Hillary Clinton is a polished politician with many decades of political ‘wisdom’ and ‘astuteness’, her husband is a former President and Hillary Clinton herself was a lawyer. This provided the Clinton Campaign both pro’s and negatives. Pro in that she has had experience in government and as a ‘leader’ but negative in that the electorate saw her as a typical politician.
Donald Trump isn’t a politician, he is a businessman, a multimillionaire and a reality tv star.
On face value Donald Trump appeared to be a ‘Clive Palmer’ of US politics and at times I agreed with this notion. Under the bedrock of this idea the electorate felt that they needed change, and like many countries around the world this change is growing; you can only look at the rise of UKIP, Gert Wilders Party and in Australia, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.
I had a leg on the Trump train because of three reasons.
Firstly, as mentioned earlier, I believe in three principles;
1. Low Taxes
2. Low Spending (whilst protecting the most vulnerable)
3. Strong Border Protection
Unfortunately Hillary Clinton and the Democrats have never held these beliefs. The Democrats like the Australian Labor Party believe in higher taxes to be able to afford more social programs rather than empowering people to find work and earn a living. As Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott once said “..the best form of welfare is a job.” This is something the left no matter where you are in the world does not believe in.
In regards to Border Protection, this clearly has been an issue in America, like it is currently in most Western Countries, the only candidate that addressed this issue regardless of how extreme it is which in my opinion isn’t that extreme, was Trump.
Automatically I was compelled towards the trump factor.
Second reason why I had a leg on the Trump train is because around the world the media have been taken over by left-wing liberal socialists who kept down-playing the rise of support for Trump. We saw this during the Brexit campaign. As a result of this bias I felt that supporting trump would be putting the middle finger up to the chardonnay latte sipping socialists.
Thirdly, the Western World needs change, and given that United States of America are the leaders of the Western World it is important that this change starts with them. The fact that Trump now is President it makes it easier for people to vote for an alternative political party or candidate. It sends a message to the electorate, regardless of country, that it is okay to vote for UKIP, it is okay to vote for One Nation, it is okay to vote for Gert Wilde. This is a game changer.
These reasons why I had a leg on the Trump train clearly has resonated across America. I was over in New York during the election. All media outlets, including the ultra right-wing Fox News even thought Trump wasn’t going to win prior to the closing of the Polls. What we have seen is a revolution. The electorate wants action, they want change, they want to be listened to. This is a wake up call to both the media and our political elites that the system they have put in, under the right circumstances, can actually backfire on them. People Power.