Tag: tony abbott

The Three Disciples and the Triangle of Hope

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.

 

Myth Busters on Pauline Hanson

Well she did it. She told the rabble back in 1998 that she will be back, and she is, this time bigger than ever. Pauline Hanson and the One Nation Party have secured FOUR senate seats. This is impressive considering two years ago they were a distant memory plagued with infighting and internal abyss.

Given that she is back with a vengeance, the left and her opponents on the right continue to spread several myths about her despite many media commentators such as Andrew Bolt, Rowan Dean, Paul Murray, Miranda Devine and others share Pauline’s beliefs on certain issues. Lets explore these myths about Pauline Hanson.

  • Pauline Hanson hates Asians.

“We are in danger of being swamped by Asians….”

A famous quote which lead the racism label on Pauline Hanson. The only critical thing here that I can say is she used poor choice of words on the matter. The fact is we are in danger of being swamped, not by Asians but by the Chinese. RACIST!! BIGOT!! I hear people shout. Well let us explore more.

We have seen already the impact Chinese buyers have on the housing market, and despite that some economists are saying it’s slowing, many Australians have been pushed out of the Market. The dream of buying your own home no longer exists.

The other issue is Chinese companies, which have links with China’s Communist Party are buying up Prime Agricultural Land as well as buying infrastructure such as Ausgrid. Even Scott Morrison, the Federal Treasurer has concerns about this and blocked it.

To rub salt into the wound, we have heard allegations that links to Chinese Communist Party have been donating money to the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party. These three issues that I have mentioned should send alarm bells to the Australian people, now when Pauline Hanson said we are in danger of being swamped by Asians, what more proof do we need? Do we really want Australia to be a communist nation? Controlled by the Chinese elite? This myth that Pauline Hanson hates Asians is simplistic and all it does it stifles debate on serious issues that affect Australia. MYTH BUSTED.

  • Pauline Hanson hates Aboriginals.

This comes from Hanson’s maiden speech where she called to abolish ATSIC and to reform the welfare system so that everyone is treated equally.

Well from memory, the Liberals abolished ATSIC because of the corrupt nature it was spewing from its offices. This is exactly what Hanson was talking about in her maiden speech in 1996.

Reforming the welfare system to ensure that everyone regardless of race, colour or creed does not make Hanson hate Aboriginal people. Australia is in debt, and the debt is rising. Unemployment is also rising. Therefore by abolishing some welfare payments and rolling them into one whereby no one is treated any different actually serves the Aboriginal community with more respect. Many Aboriginal leaders have come out and have said exactly what Hanson has been saying, such as former Labor National President Warren Mundine. Again this myth that Hanson hates aboriginal people is wrong and ignores the real issue within indigenous communities. MYTH BUSTED.

  • Pauline Hanson is Islamophobic

With the ever-increasing threat of Islamic Extremism within Western Civilisation, Pauline Hanson has called for the following:

  • Royal Commission into Islam
  • No More Islamic Migration
  • No More Mosques
  • CCTV In Mosques

The fact is any attack on citizens whereby the suspect shouts “Allah Akbar” has everything to do with religion and nothing to do with mental health.

Our political leaders are soft on this issue. Former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott did touch on the issue and was tackling it, however extreme left winger – I say extreme because the Liberal Party is suppose to be a right wing party – Malcolm Turnbull has tip toed around the issue of Islamic Extremism.

Pauline Hanson’s approach may seem extreme, however in extreme circumstance, extreme measures need to be implement rather than hash tags, feel good slogans and government funded community programs.

Firstly I’m going to discuss the Royal Commission issue. Hanson does need to define the terms of reference on this, because yes it is a religion and yes has some political ideology. All religions at some point have political leanings. We can see this with the Christian Democratic Party and Family First Party.

Having the terms of reference, which investigates all aspects of the religion, is warranted such as Halal Certification, Sharia Law practices within our community, and potential terror links attached to certain mosques. Calling for this does not make one islamophobic, the term should be ‘Islamoaware’.

The other issue stopping Islamic migration has caused howling from the left saying that we do not want a discriminatory migration program. Well in actual fact we already have a discriminatory immigration policy. We discriminate on the basis of health and occupation, therefore why can’t we discriminate on the basis of religion and culture? As one former Prime Minister said.

“We decide who comes into this country and the circumstance they come…”

We ought to have a policy whereby the culture has greater chance of assimilating to the host culture; otherwise we will create ghettos of hostility like Europe is currently experiencing.

The issue with Hanson’s other policies such as calling for a halt of mosques and CCTV is that is it all practical? This is a debate for another time.

Does all this make Hanson islamophobic? It depends on the definition of Islamophobia. The left argue that Islamophobia is hatred towards Islam, but when you break down the words, phobia means scared. Therefore is she scared of Islam? Well I’m not going to answer on Hanson’s behalf but if she says yes, then she has every right to be scared of Islam. So the myth of is Hanson Islamophobic? Well that is dependent on the definition of Islamophobia but using the lefts definition that she hates Muslims – MYTH BUSTED.

  • Hanson has no economic credibility.

As a Conservative Libertarian, I do sometimes find myself at odds with Hanson and One Nation’s economic platform. To say however that Hanson has no economic credibility is and should be, insulting to small business owners in Australia. Prior to 1996 Pauline Hanson was a small business owner, the infamous fish and chip shop. To own a small business and to employ staff must show that one has some economic credibility.

If you go to Pauline Hanson’s Facebook page and see the people who have liked her posts, and you explore their profiles many are either self-employed or a manager or managing directors of companies. This tells me that Hanson must have some credibility otherwise these people would not go near Hanson.
Hanson might not have the same view as most economists, but she does hold particular views that in the past have brought nations out from the abyss. This myth is BUSTED.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party has a long way to go in terms of policy development especially when there are upcoming State Elections looming. One Nation as a political force does need to revise their policies and to educate the public what they do stand for, because otherwise the left and Hanson’s opponents will continue to spew out false myths which will unfortunately stifle debate on issues that need to be discussed.
In saying that, the party has just begun and I say to Pauline Hanson, Congratulations and look forward to seeing One Nation grow to be a major player in Australian Politics.

Is One Nation, Australia’s UKIP?

When the Liberal Party knifed Tony Abbott last year they should have known that it would create controversy amongst the rank and file conservatives who pay $100 a year to be Party members. They should have also known that non party members who lean towards the right would also be disgruntled to see a Malcolm Turnbull resurrection. Unfortunately they believed that Malcolm Turnbull, despite alienating the right, would attract those on the left and subsequently those on the right would still vote Liberal because let’s be honest, do we want a Labor Government? Little did the Liberal Party elite know that someone, a blast from the past, a nagging former Liberal and a figurehead for the right was working tirelessly to reform her political party and provide an alternative to the two major parties. Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party.

Pauline Hanson became famous in 1996 when she stood up and spoke what the majority were thinking, she formed Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party in 1997 but failed to retain her seat in 1998 Federal Election but her party gained one senate seat in Queensland. The Queensland based Party gained 11 seats in State Parliament, 8 more seats than the Liberal Party, the Liberals had a measly 3 seats. In Western Australia in 2001 it gained 3 upper house seats and produced 3 excellent MLC’s. Problems arose for One Nation with infighting rife in all state divisions of the Party and ultimately it destroyed itself from within. Last year, Pauline Hanson took over the reigns of the Party and rebrand it with a new colourful Logo. It has produced policies, or broad policy statements if we want to get technical that doesn’t just talk about Immigration. Pauline Hanson has managed to improve her public speaking skills and has managed to get with the times with the use of social media and acquiring a plane which has the party logo on it, not as big as Clive Palmer’s plane though. Pauline has also obtained a vehicle which is heavily signed, great form of advertising. Pauline Hanson has been invited on many news programs such as Paul Murray Live, Today Show, Sunrise and has been heard on many radio stations. It’s safe to say Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Political Party is back and is ready to fill that void the Liberal Party has created by knifing Tony Abbott. The question remains though, can Pauline Hanson do it? Can One Nation ultimately rise to be the third major conservative voice in Australian Politics? In other words, is One Nation the UKIP of Australia?

As mentioned in previous posts we have seen a rise in the number of right-wing political parties such as:

  • Rise Up Australia
  • Australian Liberty Alliance
  • Katters Australia Party
  • Australia First
  • Hinch Justice Party
  • Jacquie Lambie Network
  • and more! 

The difference between these political parties and One Nation is Pauline Hanson. Pauline Hanson is a great figurehead for One Nation, her brand has been around since 1996 and the party gained a lot of electoral support. It has been proven without Pauline Hanson the party failed to continue to sustain their electoral successes.
There has been talk that many disgruntled Liberals have gone over to the newly created Australian Liberty Alliance but unfortunately they have not gained much media attention unlike Hanson therefore it would be hard to see ALA as a potential third major conservative party, this leaves One Nation on top.

The issue now is can Pauline Hanson’s One Nation continue to rise? In order to cement themselves to be that third major conservative force it is imperative that Pauline Hanson is elected into the Senate in Queensland. If she is elected into the Senate, it will give One Nation Political Party some focus, a means for people to join. At the moment they are classified as a micro party, with a member of parliament, people will see that One Nation has potential and purpose. If Pauline Hanson fails to win a senate seat, I think it could be over for One Nation as an organisation unless they remain focus and on top of the issues especially if Malcolm Turnbull or Bill Shorten remain as leaders of their retrospective parties.

I see great things for One Nation, the knifing of Tony Abbott and the infighting amongst the factions within the Liberal Party is a blessing in disguise for Australia as it does open the door for a third major conservative political party. It makes sense for One Nation to fill that void as it has already been established, has community recognition, has a figurehead and a potential youth movement called Young Nation, which can be reformed. It all comes down to whether or not Hanson can gain that senate seat.

No root in this brothel!

The left must be licking their lips and salivating at the fact the right cannot organise a root in a brothel. This article, once you get past the poor form of journalism, indicates that Australia will never have a third right major political party. We will never experience what is happening in Europe.

If there is to be a new major right wing political party in Australian politics, all these fringe parties such as One Nation and Australian Liberty Alliance, need to get together and form a One Nation Liberty Alliance Party, or whatever they want to call themselves. There are too many right wing parties that because of ego or whatever floats their boat they can’t come together and form one major party. Lets see we have:

  • Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party
  • Australian Liberty Alliance
  • Rise up Australia
  • Australia First
  • Christian Democrats
  • Family First
  • Kim Vuga Love Australia or Leave Party (what the?)
  • Australian Protectionist Party
  • Australian Freedom Party
  • Katters Australian Party
  • Jacquie Lambie Network
  • and probably more lunatics out there………

If these parties got together, found a common goal, shared resources the Liberal and Labor Parties will have to up their game. The Liberal Party had no choice but to up their game back in the early 00’s when Pauline Hanson was the top dog in this game, we saw Howard adopt strong border protection policies and abolished ATSIC and got tough on welfare cheats, so if it has happened in the past, no reason why it can’t happen now under Prince Ponce as Leader of the Liberal Party.

People are longing for a new conservative force in Australia. The Liberal Party have changed from being a centre right party to a centre left. The National Party, well they are as defunct as an old commodore 64 computer, a mere country branch of the Liberal Party. Many National Party members have told me this, they have no plans on expanding. Hows that for an achievement? Therefore unfortunately there is no root in this brothel today!

 

The need for a simple Electoral Reform

I posted awhile back about how minor and micro political parties fail to sustain their success. History has proven this with the rise and fall of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, Australian Democrats and now Palmer’s United Party.

After the demise of the Liberal Party and the dumping of it’s right leaning leader, Tony Abbott, we have seen more micro parties being formed and reformed in Australian politics such as the Australian Liberty Alliance and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party retrospectively. Given that the Liberal Party dumped Tony Abbott it has created an opportunity for conservative members or former members of the Liberal Party to look elsewhere other than the factional torn Liberals.
The concerns however of these micro parties being formed is that it splits the conservative vote regardless of how preferences are allocated and importantly it divides resources. This is why there is a need for a simple electoral reform.

According to the Australian Electoral Commission for a political party to be registered it only needs 500 members. There are no provisions that these members have to pay a membership fee as it depends on the political party’s constitution. Given today’s technological advancement it is not hard for micro parties to advertise on social media or on their website that they are giving away free membership, all they need to do is pick an issue which touches on the emotional heart strings of a particular group and wham bam thank you mam you have a micro party, take the Voluntary Euthanasia Party for example, on their website there are no indications that you have to pay a membership fee and it tugs at the heart strings of those affected by cancer.
We often see on election day, when you turn up to vote and you are given a senate ballot paper it is often bigger than the tablecloth on your 8 seater kitchen table, this is because existing requirements only require 500 members, clearly this needs to change.
A simple reform of increasing the minimum membership requirement to 2000 would mean fewer micro parties and a smaller senate ballot paper whereby you as the voter wont be tripping over and breaking your back every three years. This will mean many micro parties will have to do one of three things; wind up, work harder or join forces with other like minded micro parties.

As mentioned previously, since the dumping of Tony Abbott as Liberal leader it has opened the opportunity for a new conservative force in Australian Politics. The issue is, existing electoral laws and regulations stop this from happening. The left side of politics appears to be somewhat well disciplined, with Labor and the Greens holding a stronghold on socialism, despite some left wing micro parties that really do not need to exist (Socialist Alliance and Socialist Alternative). On the right however there are many like-minded parties in existence for instance the Christian Democrats and Family First; and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, Rise Up Australia and Australian Liberty Alliance. If these party’s decided to join forces, became one conservative political party it would provide a real alternative to conservative voters and a potential threat to the dominating Liberal/Labor duopoly.

It is therefore important for conservatism in Australia that the minimum membership requirement of 500 should be increased. Micro Party’s that do not meet the new requirement will be forced to either fold up, work harder or look at avenues to join forces with other like minded political party’s. The question is, will the Government do anything about it? Instead they seem to be focused on changing the voting system of the Senate. I wonder why?

MPs have a right to be critical of Islam!

I am somewhat perplexed as to why ASIO’s chief Duncan Lewis decided that he must involve himself in political matters by calling up Liberal MPs telling them they must moderate their language over Islam. His argument is that it puts our national safety at risk. This improper involvement of senior bureaucrats raises the question how effective is ASIO at keeping Australia safe and also does flag concerns as to the real reason why Lewis called up concerned Liberal MPs.

Members of Parliament are elected representatives of the people who vote for them. As a secular nation we must be able to have the ability to question religions and be critical where necessary. For instance, society as a whole has been, and should be, critical of some aspects of christianity especially some denominations which have hidden concerns of paedophilia. Likewise, society should question Islam and the role it plays in society when it comes to homosexuality, women’s rights and the extreme element of terrorism.
Politicians such as Tony Abbott, Craig Kelly, Andrew Nikolic and other Liberal MPs have every right to question Islam and to encourage Muslims to consider opening up their religion for reform, after all these MPs are elected representatives and must represent the views of the electorate.

It is interesting to note that Lewis has just admitted that using strong language to critise Islam will put our national security at risk. Does this mean a terror attack? Either way, ASIO is equipped legislatively and has the funding to intercept potential attacks. To suggest that strong language increases a risk of an attack is foolish and discredits the hard work ASIO does to keep us safe.

This notion then raises the question, why did Lewis put ASIO’s own credibility at risk by calling up Liberal MPs? The answer is we will never know, however it would not be surprising if either the Prime Minister or someone within his office put Lewis up to it. As we all know Malcolm Turnbull is a progressive politician and as the Liberals hold seats such as Reid for the first time, upsetting the Muslim community would detrimental for the Liberals.

 

 

Malcolm in the Middle?

It has been awhile since I have published comments on current affairs, mainly because I have been overseas on holidays. Whilst I was overseas, the Parliamentary Party of the Liberal Party decided that it was in THEIR best interest to oust Tony Abbott and elect Malcolm Turnbull to lead, and to become the next Prime Minister. Despite the Liberal Party going to the electorate promising to end the revolving door of Prime Ministers some Liberals say desperate times call for desperate measures, and subsequently broke this promise. Is it worth breaking a promise? How will Malcolm perform as leader, considering his polling when leader before was woeful. Only time will tell.

What we have seen so far since he has been Prime Minister is virtually no change in policy except for pandering to the United Nations, which is a topic for another day. The left wing media and other left wing sycophants are salivating at Turnbull’s elevation to leader, we can even see Labor voters leaning towards Liberals now, but interestingly why?
The Liberal Party, so far, remains tough on illegal immigration and has a no tolerance approach to immigrants who commit crimes, Turnbull is sticking with a plebiscite vote for same sex marriage and Turnbull is also flirting with the idea to axe weekend penalty rates. One could argue that Turnbull can potentially be more disruptive to the left than Tony Abbott. Why? Because Turnbull has the media on his side for some freakish reason, and I hate to say it, he is a good salesperson.

It is clear however, that he has no choice but to allow the right in the Liberal Party to have a say, that means to allow Ministers to manage their own portfolio, giving them the freedom to be Ministers. If Turnbull fails to do this his fate will go down like Julia Gillard post Rudd’s second coming. The concern I have for the Liberal Party is after the next election. Like every Government, post elections, they tweak policy and change the Cabinet to be more re-energised. If Turnbull does this, which I would gamble my last $1 on it, he will favour his own people in portfolio’s such as Immigration, Education and Welfare. The saving grace for the right in the Liberals is in actual fact the National Party. The right need to have more discussions with their coalition partner to ensure the Liberals don’t lean to Turnbull’s ideology.