Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (48)
Mark Brindal is a former South Australian Liberal minister, an academic, a public policy consultant and a commentator. That is how he describes himself in his recent Flat White Spectator piece in which Brindal urges Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to ‘break his shackles’, ‘assert his authority’ and ‘lead in the direction that Australia expected of him’. Brindal sees Turnbull as through and through a ‘political progressive’ and in the World According to Mark the way in which Turnbull can turn around his lousy poll results is – wait for it – by reneging on the unequivocal promise the Coalition made at the last election to require a successful win in a plebiscite before Parliament would legislate to allow same sex marriage.
Throw in a busload of jargon about ‘getting smart’, ‘breaking free’ and ‘crashing through or crashing’ and there you have the supposed secret that will ensure a big Coalition win at the next election.
But let’s just think for a moment about this advice to Turnbull to ‘discover the person he really is’ (which for many of us are the six scariest words you’ll hear other than ‘the government is here to help’). Brindal means that Team Turnbull should hold a conscience vote and then legislate for gay marriage. Now to my way of thinking that would be a titanic disaster, and I say that as someone who really doesn’t care one way or another about this gay-marriage issue. But I really, really care about politicians and parties who make clear and unequivocal promises and then casually cast them aside. That sort of insouciance by the Republicans in the US is a key reason people voted for Trump. That sort of prevaricating about a clear promise by the Tories when it came to the Lisbon Treaty is why voters distrusted David Cameron, and why he’s no longer PM.
It’s a terrible idea to do what Brindal suggests. You could kiss goodbye to any lingering trust there might still be between the party base and its Liberal political operatives.
Now the Brindalian response to that sort of criticism of mine is twofold. Firstly, he tells us that upwards of 80% of Aussies now accept gay marriage. He then inflates that more or less arbitrary figure into ‘the national will’ – as though he’s been reading too much Rousseau and wants to work in something not unlike the Frenchman’s fabricated notion of the ‘general will’. But this unspoken Brindalian reliance on polls is meaningless fluff. If that were our test then Australia would today be a republic. ‘Why actually vote given that we can point to some polls that lean our way’ is not a substitute for democratic decision-making. Moreover, polls get things wrong. Witness Brexit. Witness Mr. Trump.
The second ploy Brindal marshals is to point out that this will be a conscience vote. But so what? That’s not a good thing when your party made a specific promise to me, and to all voters, that it would precisely not take that route. It’s nothing other than a lie. It kills voters’ confidence in the political class, which I can assure former South Australian Minister Brindal is at an all time low.
Let’s generalise for a moment. Is the argument being put here that whenever you can’t get a bill through the Senate that you are free to do something else, to break the promise you made to the voters at the election? Or is this ‘reasoning’ only applicable to issues that Brindal happens to care about? Personally, if the Libs are going to lie to voters then I’d prefer that they started by slashing the money flowing to the ABC, killing the RET down to zero, and getting us out of the Paris Accord. Or here’s an idea: honour the promise you made in 2013 and get rid of 18C lock, stock and two stinking barrels.
It gets worse of course. You see, if you take the pool of Australians who’d be happy for this government to ditch the plebiscite and move straight to double-crossing the voters by holding a ‘conscience vote’ – where, naturally, it is the consciences of MPs that count for everything and the consciences of 24 million other Australians that count for nothing – then I think Mr. Brindal will find that support for such a move will not break down evenly across party lines. A lot more Labor people and Greens will welcome this move. Now to be abundantly clear, I mean the lefties will welcome this move; I don’t mean that they’ll vote for the Libs because of it.
As for Liberal Party supporters, the ones who vote Liberal and campaign for the party, well I very much doubt more than a third of them support this ploy. In effect Brindal is roping in Laborites and Greenies to buttress a political move that will tear apart his own party. In the philosophy of psychiatry they have a word for that. It’s ‘bonkers’.
Basically, what you’re being fed by Mr. Mark Brindal is a Mark Textor worldview on steroids. It’s premised on this idea that long-time conservative Liberal voters can be lied to and sold down the river because they have nowhere else to go. Personally, I don’t think the evidence is there to back that up, not after the last election. Nor am I much of a fan of the claim that ‘political progressives’ like Brindal’s seeming hero, Malcolm Turnbull, aren’t too great a threat to the conservative base because the party room will always constrain him (if not on his promise on same-sex marriage then on more ‘renewables’ madness, the republic, multicultural genuflecting, whatever). But I don’t want a leader who only brings in policies I think are correct because at the moment he lacks the numbers to do otherwise. That implies that if he won a big majority he would no longer be constrained. So I can’t hope for my own side to get a big win. You see the last thing I want is for Malcolm to discover his true progressive self. That’s just code for ‘Turnbull will and should move more to the left’.
Last point: I have no idea what per centage of Australians support same-sex marriage and neither does Brindal. That’s the point of having the plebiscite. But if it really is 80% then why does any pro-same-sex marriage person fear the plebiscite? There is no answer to that. So get on with it.
The above is the submission of Quadrant contributor James Allan, Garrick Professor of Law at the University of Queensland, to the Inquiry on Freedom of Speech in Australia
‘Do not oppose’ is not the same as ‘support’ but if you frame a poll question that does not include the first option you’re going to inflate the number that supposedly support. I would suspect that most of the putative ‘support’ responders don’t really care one way or the other. Like James Allan, that would have been me a year or so ago. Now, even if the plebiscite gets up I will vote no simply because I don’t like being bullied and that is why the government must on no account allow a conscience vote. It is becoming clearer and clearer that this same-sex marriage push has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with further entrenching the Left in all our institutions. The gay lobby don’t want a plebiscite because that would be society granting them a favour. They want to take it as a right.
Bravo. Totally agree.
And the gay fraternity now has a heap of politicians in the house (lots in the Coalition) to enable their agenda. My son and his fiance were recently telling me how very high the numbers are of homosexuals working in the parliament (government and supports). You’d be VERY SURPRISED to learn who is gay (I’m not telling).
If you know who all the high profile homosexuals are, then why the secrecy? If you know, you need to put your name against that, otherwise it is all just trash talk.
I’m not telling anything. You can call it trash talk if you want but watch this space on the SSM issue!! How do you think is driving this inside the Coalition? Clue: not heterosexuals.
“Who” do you think….typo.
Why did it take you so long to realise this?
The official Liberals make it so easy these days not to vote for them and give one’s first preference to anybody else except Lie-bor, The Watermelons (Greens) and the rest of the loony luvvie “progressive” left. As for gay marriage, I oppose anything Penny Wong favours. Why wasn’t there a float in the Gay Mardi Gras mocking The Big Mo’s made up sex-slave craving, ordinary slave owning totalitarian misogynist religion (sic)and its adherents who we are told by the elites and LSM have so many mental issues? They like gay marriage, don’t they?
More than you’ll know!!
Just like the aboriginal activists who highjacked a simple acknowledgment in the preamble to our Constitution the SSM mob have ensured that a plebiscite will come up negative.They just can’t help themselves. Shoving this issue down the nation’s throat constantly and howling down anyone who isn’t in favour is the modus operandum of these groups.
Malcolm Turnbull should announce a date fro the plebiscite and get on with it.
Turnbull to ‘discover the person he really is’ – a la Gillard’s “We are us” and “the real Julia”. Apropos to that, I think those of us of a conservative bent know what the real Malcolm is.
This time will fade into history and we’ll all remember it (those of us left standing, that is) the wishy washy shilly shallying polity of gays, identity politics, loony greens, profligate waste and a BIG deficit. In short, nobody cares so why would you/we?
Just another SA tosser and now lefty Turnbull gives us another SA tosser Milne ( no bias in ABC news) as ABC chair. Thank Christ we can vote for PHON AU’s Conservatives and other right wing parties.
If the present government gives in to the totalitarian, ruthless gay lobby and does not go ahead with the plebiscite, they will be wiped out at the next election in a most spectacular fashion. Individuals vote in a democracy, not activist groups. Even if they are infiltrating government, as Jodie points out, in the hope of imposing their elitist agenda without reference to the people, they will have to re-engineer democracy as was tried by the Democrats in the USA and that will invite a backlash here from true democrats similar to what was seen recently in America.
Please give serious thought to my claim about gays infiltrating the political scene; I’m deadly serious. In short, they know as I have always known – when you want change get involved yourself, whether that’s your local council, political party or parliament. That’s now happening with a vengeance. But, don’t just take my word for it; take a closer look at those openly advocating for SSM (against party policy) and those who stand by (and who should know better) and let the discussion continue. That’s all I’m prepared to say.
I have no special knowledge, but what you say on this issue rings true to me, Jody. The Liberal Party is virtually indistinguishable from the ALP at this point, and will only get worse.
Just look at the increasing numbers of gay MP: Trent Z, Julian Leeser, Tim Wilson …. and there are many others. These recent arrivals are all singing from the same gay songsheet. Not to mention the hardened politicians you’d never suspect; I’ll bet there in the party room chewing on peoples’ ears and making mischief.
I forgot Ann Sudmalis, just to name but one female. Then there’s Labor…oh, don’t start me.
Do you think it’s healthy that a demographic supposedly representing about 1% of the population are represented in exponentially larger proportions in the parliament? What does THIS mean for conservative values and our society. They’ve decided to get organized and active, just like any other pressure group.
Malcolm Turnbull is not worth wasting words on, suffice to say that he’d sell his grandmother into prostitution if he thought it was to his advantage.
Regarding the gay marriage plebiscite, there is no doubt that it would fail spectacularly, hence the fierce opposition to it by its supporters. In fact, the more they clamour for the conscience vote in parliament instead of the plebiscite, the more they infuriate the public at large. The same is true concerning all matters concerning homosexuality. Once it was decriminalised and accepted – albeit begrudgingly – by most people as an alternative to heterosexuality, the beneficiaries of that could be expected to quietly appreciate the fairness of society and leave it at that. Instead, they never stop flagrantly asserting their sexuality, with the unmistakable attitude of implied superiority over all others. There is no end to rainbow coloured programs on television and similarly themed public events, with the gay and lesbian mardi gras as the pinnacle of the phenomenon. Do they believe – blinded by the cheering spectators – that men with smoothly shaven bodies parading in skimpy pieces of attire reminiscent of lapdancer girls do not get up the nose of the vast majority of heterosexuals? The fact is that the more they thrust their sexuality into the face of society at large the more they alienate them. The issues of gay marriage and plebiscite are a vivid illustration of this.
I tend to agree with you Bill about the mardi gras in Sydney. I used to go to the circus as a child in a country town and enjoy the acts. As I got older and read a bit more I found that at an earlier time circuses used to have what they called “freak shows” where they displayed fat ladies, dwarfs and other people with disabilities. At a given time these displays were considered to be unfair to such people and in very bad taste and were thankfully closed down. I was told that in the 1800s my grandfather would put on his best suit and go with friends to witness the public hangings at Darlinghurst Jail in Sydney. Thank goodness times have changed for what I thought was for the better. But what does one think of men dressed as nuns gyrating down the street? It is definitely a backward step for civilization and quite juvenile.
Damn! another typo. It was my great-grandfather who used to go to the hangings, not my grandfather.
You had me most impressed there, Padraic, until you corrected your typo. It would have put you in your 150s at least.
Well spotted Warty. I seem to be reaching an age where I am forgetting to remember. What would one be like at 150!!??
Now has never been a better time to be homosexual. And so, it must be asked, why are they constantly complaining?
Politically there ‘has never been a better time to be homosexual’, but the truth is that they are living a lie, daily.
Now there has been much said about the increasing trend towards ‘abomination’. One of the reports is that soy products are oestrogenic and that increased consumption is having detrimental effects on children, male children, with decreased size of testes, lower sperm counts (when they reach adulthood) and tendencies, amongst some of them, to behave like sheilas. There have also been adverse reports about PVCs in plastics that may increase certain tendencies too.
Now, I must admit this is based on my wife’s research, not mine. Her interest in medical science leaves me cold: politics is my schtick. But my ears did prick up when she came up with this stuff and I did indeed wonder if excessive prancing, hand flapping and other attention seeking behaviours might have chemical causes, and not be entirely due to parental neglect.
But, in response to Jody’s statement/question, the answer is simple: appearances are deceiving and though one might be in deep denial about one’s disease, one cannot really be happy; well not when in the quiet of one’s study; not when one is alone.
I think homosexuality is natures way of keeping certain genes out of the gene pool. Let’s face it; if homosexuality was normal the human race would not only die out it would not have begun. Some point to homosexual behaviour in other mammal species but having observed animal behaviour for decades I know that when given a choice all animals choose heterosexuality. Theoretically homosexuals should eventually die out but if Warty’s wife is on the right track then we will keep breeding replacements. Maybe it is a chemical problem.
Given politicians conscience is not troubled by helicopter hires or holidays for their kids on your tab why would one accept their conscience on this.
Don’t get me wrong, I will vote yes but really isn’t the answer that you get to vote on it enough?
The Turnbull government is going to be wiped out anyway.
Unhappily, Texta Textor (rhymes a little with Lex Luthor) is essentially correct. In this two-party system, voting ensures a lefty or a leftier result. The only real alternative is deliberate informal voting, which the political/bureaucratic denizens genuinely dislike. This won’t happen of course, even though it’s the only method to cause actual, disruptive change. And please don’t bother whining at me, I’ve heard it all before and it’s very, very tedious – understand that doing as you are doing, *nothing* changes. Aus elections are just squabbles about whose turn it is next.
I had some small hope earlier that Brexit and even Trump were indicators of change. They’re just short-lived flashes in the rebellious pan.
How far are we from arguing hard, detailed, costed, accountable policies before an election ? Even warp speed will never get there; some other galaxy. Instead we get smart-arse politicians like Brindal who urge that deliberately lying to those out there in Mugsville is the only really clever modus operandi. He’s right too … the populace votes for it time and again.
Oh for the Swiss system.
Turncoat is not popular outside of the small “progressivist clique” that includes much of the media. They can trash people “Abbott is a prime example” but can’t puff people up for long.
That Turnbull comes up as preferred Prime Minister over Shorten in polls indicates no measure of expected success for the Liberal Party in an election. Labor voters who picture a PM to be a big man rather than a small man might prefer Turnbull, he is after all Labor-light, but in their electorate they will choose the Labor man and not a Liberal. So the poll figure is totally irrelevant and should not be reported.
> “In this two-party system, voting ensures a lefty or a leftier result”
It really doesn’t matter who we vote for – the result is just minor variations on a similar lefty agenda. That’s why a large-scale informal vote is so disruptive of this.
There is one word that is missing in this debate: blackmail.
Whenever someone, or their intermediary, attempts to dictate a course of action by threatening suicide, it is blackmail. Sad as they may be and as real as the threat might be, it is pure and simply blackmail.
Show empathy, help them access professional intervention, or whatever is necessary. But caving in to being blackmailed and dictated to by unstable people is a foolish path to disaster — no matter how much you might care for them.
Whenever the line is trotted out that we can’t have a plebiscite because some unstable people might commit suicide there should be a loud chorus in response stating: THAT’S BLACKMAIL!
What if there was a population of unstable people in our society threatening suicide if the homosexual redefinition of marriage was passed? What would the Bill Shortens do then?
What is worse than the fact that this blackmail approach gained so much traction and succeeded in scuttling the plebiscite is the lack of public figures loud and long calling it out for what it is. We now have the farce of the Australian parliamentary process being dictated to by activists using bare-faced blackmail of the saddest type.
You should all join the Australian Conservatives, as I have, and be done with it.
Imagine an organisation which claimed foundations on the norms of Judeo-Christian tradition yet which also openly endorsed and affirmed adultery and adulterous relationships. What would be the credibility and credentials of such an organisation for promoting Judeo-Christian values? In supporting the preservation of the special position of the natural family and yet at the same time affirming legitimacy of homosexual relationships, in the light of Judeo-Christian scriptures one might as well be affirming adultery. Whatever the good work that such an organisation might otherwise undertake, promoting Judeo-Christian values as described in the source documents is not one in which it will have credibility. Personally I won’t give my support to any organisation that takes such an inconsistent line that debases Christianity. If Cory will change his public position on the question then I’m sure there will be a flood of support just like there was for Katter’s party after the Queensland advertising campaign portraying rejection of legitimacy of homosexual relationships.
There seems to be much confusion here, Matt. For a start you are speaking in generalities, so it makes it rather difficult working out what aspects of the Australian Conservative Party you find inconsistent, because, yes they do indeed support the concept of traditional marriage, as do I.
On the other hand Cory (and he does not see himself as The Australian Conservative Party, in the way Pauline is inseparable from One Nation) does not support adultery, has never affirmed the ‘legitimacy of homosexual relationships’, which I personally find repugnant. Now, if you are trying to say that The Australian Conservative Party is synonymous with the Catholic Church, it would be helpful if you explain how on earth you arrived at such a viewpoint, because it is clearly not the case. What Cory has enunciated is that he felt the Coalition had moved away from its conservative foundations and that he was establishing a party to resurrect such values, one of the main reasons for my joining the party.
Perhaps you might care to explain your reasoning. Perhaps you might point to a statement or some other evidence that shows Cory or The Australian Conservative Party in any way condone homosexual relationships.
“We should treat people equally. We shouldn’t discriminate against someone on the basis of their … sexuality …” Kitchen Cabinet with Annabele Crabb.
Just point me to a policy document stating words to the effect that homosexual redefinition of marriage is wrong because homosexual relationships are wrong and have no legitimate place in our society.
I hear these sorts of ‘we shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of sexuality… but..’ type statements from various leaders wanting to defend the existing marriage definition but still insist on lending some level of respectability to homosexual relationships. Our society should and does discriminate on the basis of sexuality. After all, if we didn’t discriminate against people on the basis of sexuality then we wouldn’t lock pedophiles in jail and impose a lifetime ban from certain occupations. (But then there is the warped reasoning that goes along the lines that all sexual orientations are by definition good, pedophilia is bad and therefore pedophilia cannot be a sexual orientation. How else could we end up with laws that list ‘sexual orientation’ as a protected class?)
I just want to hear someone like Cory stand up and state unequivocally that homosexual relationships are wrong, have no legitimacy, deserve no protected status, no place in our society whatsoever, end of story.
You have neatly avoided everything that I attempted to get you to clarify. Firstly reread what you wrote in response to my one sentence statement: ‘you should all join the Australian Conservatives, as I have and be done with it.’
I pointed out that your response was just a tad broad, I said ‘you are speaking in generalities’.
Secondly, I said ‘it makes it rather difficult working out what aspects of the Australian Conservative Party you find INCONSISTENT’.
Thirdly, I pointed out that they do not support adultery as you seem to suggest.
Fourthly, Cory is not the Catholic Church nor is the Australian Conservative Party, so why do you seem to be implying this?
Finally, I pointed out that Cory felt the Coalition had moved away from its conservative underpinnings, hence the need to form a truly conservative party.
Your response is a new tack altogether, viz where does it say homosexuality is wrong, and you somehow feel the word according to left lunatic Annabele Crabb is worth introducing into the argument, that is that we should treat people equally. So I should invite the local pedophile along to dinner alongside my neighbours, even though I disapprove of his raping little children (such is his highly confused ‘sexuality’). Why? Because crazy Annabele says I should treat people equally? Give me a break.
In days of yore, before you were born, homosexuality was considered an abomination (to use the appropriate biblical term). It was felt that marriage was for both companionship and for the natural producing of children. There was no confusion about this.
In the late sixties, at the time of the rise of civil rights, there was another highly left wing movement which began to agitate for the legalisation of homosexuality. There were a number of highly creative, intelligent (albeit immoral) people amongst them. They operated on a trickle charge time scale and drip by drip, slowly, carefully began the process of normalising the thinking over whether it might be right or wrong for two blokes to jump into bed together, or two girls to become equally confused. We now live in a time where the confusion has become so visceral we no longer know what is right and what is not (at least for some of us). Now, should you read a number of readers’ responses in the Australian, whenever this sort of thing is broached, you will the ‘silent majority’ voicing their opinion and it is quite revealing. The SSM crowd have so dirtied their nests, with their intolerance, their bullying their outright totalitarianism that were a plebiscite to be held today, they would probably fail.
Now I am not someone like Cory, but I am happy to state unequivocally that homosexuality is wrong and I have two millennia plus of opinion to back me up.
Jan 23 2017
Here’s a name to watch. Ms Audrey Zibelman.
Who is she?
The Chief Executive Officier of The Australian Energy Marketing Organisation.
The body charged with overseeing the operation of the Australian electricity grid.
She is a climate change warrior and has a bias against coal.
She’s an American who had high profile in NewYork State’s electricity grid and was charged with the creation of a renewable energy market.
Just the person we need to utterlystuff our cheap and reliable Australian Electricity grid.
Turnbull appoints the Board who hired her. He should be called on to sack these bastard economic wterrorists in favour of appointees who will protect us from the wreckers.
Leadership from Turnbull who is still in bed with the bastard catastrafarians.
> “The Chief Executive Officier of The Australian Energy Marketing Organisation”
There are now four (4) consecutive AEMO reports on the entire of SA going black last September. I’ve downloaded and read each of them in detail. It is obvious that censorship was at work over the advent of these reports. The 1st report stated unequivocally that the Heywood interconnector tripped *before* the pylons came down – that trip was the cause of complete power loss state-wide and itself was caused by the sudden loss of windmill input as they shut down by design in the face of high winds. This analysis was arrived at by careful examination of all relevant records by experienced grid engineers. Please remember, I have pdf copies of all the AEMO reports to date, including this first one. I downloaded them precisely because I expected retrospective greenwash to occur – as it has.
The next subsequent two (2) reports (all of which are labelled as interim) backtrack on the first statement, implying that the complete power loss was caused by pylon failure, although not stating this outright. The first statement is not referred to or acknowledged. A non-person, as it were.
The fourth (and perhaps final, perhaps not, as it is still labelled interim) simply avoids mentioning anything at all except the pylon failure and “extreme” weather.
Of course we are deliberately and constantly lied to. See the article above. It is regarded as a trusty, reliable tool to manage Mugsville. Accountability is now regarded as illegal by political/bureaucratic denizens.
Once upon a time, their ABC allowed the expression of variant opinions on their “Drum” opinion pages. I loved to read the inanities of the left (it really is like some mass hysteria) and occasionally have a say myself. Of course the vey fact that conservatives such as I could have a say must have miffed somebody at the ABC because to stop conservative opinion, now there is no opportunity for any opinion!
Anyway, I kept copies of all my posts and I cam across one about Malcolm Turnbull just after he seized the PM’ship from Tony Abbott. I’m no prophet but it just struck me what an absolutely foolish man he must be (for all his supposed “cleverness”) for listening and accepting the advice of even greater fools than himself. I hope this won’t bore you all but here is a short exchange;
“• oldfella68:
16 Nov 2015 9:48:13am
Abbott is not the PM so GET OVER IT we don’t care what he has to say.
Reply Alert moderator
o jimbob:
16 Nov 2015 10:44:54am
Oldfella – are you half serious or are you just senile? Is the reigning PM the only one we should listen to?
You know what seargent Schultz would say (I’m presuming he’s your vintage) – you’re saying exactly the same eh?
Reply Alert moderator
Terry, I admire your resolute desire to paint the “cream puff” politician Malcolm Turnbull in the most flattering colours you can;
“He has the talent, self-belief and sense of personal destiny to be an inspirational leader in troubled times…”
And you know this how? From his long experience in leadership and/or your personal acquaintance with the man?
He’s the leader because he knifed his own leader in the back – says volumes about his moral capacities. This was the one and only area the Libs could claim some moral high ground over the Labor party (for a while at least). Sadly I stand corrected. They can be just as bad and as incompetent. In any case, where is the radical policy adjustment of the new man. Seems to me that he has sold out all his previous positions to secure and hold on to power – as I said, actions speak volumes…..
Every politician has “self-belief” and “sense of personal destiny” – which is why I presume they choose to be politicians.
Some of your material is totally nonsensical, like trying to compare MT to Winston Churchill. There is a great difference between Winston Churchill and Malcolm Turnbull and that is that WC was deeply unpopular and could not win an election. He became PM by default after the resignation of Neville Chamberlain (1940) who I might add, was more like our own MT – “urbane”, “intelligent” and “articulate” but nevertheless a total woos!
Let’s face it – the only one has said what MT should have said is Tony Abbott. I hope he hangs around for a long, long time. I have a feeling we are going to need him sooner than we think.”
MT just clutches at straws (or should I say straw polls…). He is a very poor leader, he is manifestly unprincipled and his “suitors” on the left refuse to vote for him. I’ve said many time before, Abbott does not have to be popular nor does he have to be loved by the swinging 4%. He just has to be strong and principled. Who cares if his colleagues don’t like him. Obviously a substantial majority of around 1,000,000+ voters who have fled the Libs do like him more than the others in that wasted party. Unfortunately his colleagues are just far to dopey to realise this. As all the posts above recognise, MT is the cancer within and the party would rather die and hand the country over to Bill than admit they were wrong.
I really should do something about my spelling! That should read “…very…”
Australia under Rudd Gillard and Turnbull has had and is experiencing a complete lack of leadership.
Out here in the real world … it’s starting to show.
Business is dire. People are just not spending money. There is a despondency in business I’ve never ever seen before.
Any talk that we are not in a recession is disgusting lies. Who believes any of the statistics supplied from Canberra any more? When talking with others in business we all just shake our heads. While very few of us are in businesses likely to fail or in positions to keep afloat none of us have increased our pay, or many of us have even reduced our pay, NONE of us are making much profit at all and those that are are doing what I’ve done; reduce costs(spend less) and reduce staff( either sackings or reduce hours).
This is what the people focused on promoting homosexual marriage, the cult of renewables, climate change crap, increasing child care waste, unaffordable solutions to chronic unaffordable housing, increased immigration, Muslim acceptance and the general attacks on our way of life wth stupidities such as safe schools and the blowing up of power stations, useless expansions of hydro, and crap about vaccinations have given us.
Malcom just fuck off.
The odds were a hundred to one against me
The world thought the heights were too high to climb
But people from Australia never incensed me
Oh, I wasn’t a bit concerned
For from history I had learned
How many, many times the worm had turned
They all laughed at Christopher Columbus
When he said the world was round
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound
They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother
When they said that man could fly
They told Marconi
Wireless was a phony
It’s the same old cry
They laughed at me knifing you
Said I was reaching for the moon
But oh, it came true
Now they’ll have to change their tune
They all said we never could be happy
They laughed at us and how!
But ho, ho, ho!
Who’s got the last laugh now?
The ridiculous, and patently false, “everything is awesome” narrative is a key tactic in the Left’s mission to bring in socialism via the back door, by virtue of their socialist policies (in all but name). You see, all of their policies are either expensive or counter-productive in an economic sense so, they find it hard to fund these things when our economy is struggling. If we truly were in a recession, then obviously most people would be aghast at increased or wasteful spending, and would hammer the government to focus on the big issues rather than gay marriage, windmills, etc.
So, the longer they can keep the plebs believing that “everything is awesome”, the more of their damaging ideas will get waved through parliament. When we eventually concede that perhaps we’re in strife after all, Labor and the Greens will just make sure all their policies have been firmly welded in place, then sit back for a few years while conservatives make themselves unpopular again by cutting spending.
Ps
Take the other benighted bastards with you.
Jody, just saying,
It was Edison’s electrical engineer who built the machine which first recorded sound.
He shared the patents of many of Edison’s inventions and helped form General Electric and went on to marry one of the Du Pont sisters and became the father of modern electrical engineering. He wrote the initial papers which formed the basis of that science.
How do I know that?
Do you know what was even more useful than the first telephone?
The second one.
You need to speak to the Gershwin brothers about your extremely dubious assertion.