Sunday, April 22, 2007
Liberals Recycled 'Hit List' Strategy
The 'Sunday Times' today (22 April 2007) features a story concerning an alleged 'hit list' of up to 17 sitting Liberal parliamentarians that are to be replaced under a plan " believed to be driven by a committee headed by party president Danielle Blain, the party would seize control of all preselections by using emergency powers in the party's constitution.
Whoa - Deja vu!
In the lead-up to the 2005 Election, the Liberal Party had a sticky situation in at least one electorate.
Despite the best efforts of the dominant faction, a local wanna-be politician won pre-selection with the support of the opposing faction. Unfortunately for him, the meeting was flawed and the decision was overturned on appeal. A second meeting of the selection committee was scheduled.
To prevent a repeat of his success, it was necessary to remove all branch representation from the selection process - so State Council decided that as a result of the previous flawed meeting, all the branch delegates were so irretrievably tainted with bias they had to be disqualified from the process.
Our wanna-be was out of contention but, just to make sure, State Council then pulled perhaps the most astounding piece of bastardry in Liberal Party history by insisting State Councillors who had been at the flawed meeting and were similarly tainted would be eligible to sit on the new selection committee.
They also reopened nominations to allow the replacement of their previous candidate who had rendered himself unelectable - this is despite there being no adverse finding against any candidate and there being several very capable contenders in the original field.
They eventually endorsed a candidate who had never shown the slightest interest in politics, who had originally been recruited by our wanna-be in stacking a branch and who had not been interested in nominating in the first place.
That's the sort of commitment the Liberals want from their members.
State Council saw how removing the branches from the candidate selection process allows them to put their own people in place.
Members who are totally reliant on State Council for their positions are less likely to offer any sort of independent thought or resistance. State Council would be very happy with the total control of the parliamentary members.
The reason cited - blocking a possible return of Shave and Kierath - doesn't hold up. State Council already has the power to refuse to endorse a candidate recommended by the selection committee. It refused to endorse Doug Shave when recommended for an MLC spot in the 2005 Election.
This is about ensuring the total dominance of one faction by removing local branches from the process.
It stinks. It will lead to the mass resignation of branch members. If the Liberal Party collapses - and it deserves to if this goes ahead - it will be due to faction leaders who see the Party as theirs to do with as they want and to hell with the members and the voters. What right-minded person would join an organisation like that?
Then again, with the introduction of taxpayer funded elections perhaps they see members as something of an inconvenience.
Whoa - Deja vu!
In the lead-up to the 2005 Election, the Liberal Party had a sticky situation in at least one electorate.
Despite the best efforts of the dominant faction, a local wanna-be politician won pre-selection with the support of the opposing faction. Unfortunately for him, the meeting was flawed and the decision was overturned on appeal. A second meeting of the selection committee was scheduled.
To prevent a repeat of his success, it was necessary to remove all branch representation from the selection process - so State Council decided that as a result of the previous flawed meeting, all the branch delegates were so irretrievably tainted with bias they had to be disqualified from the process.
Our wanna-be was out of contention but, just to make sure, State Council then pulled perhaps the most astounding piece of bastardry in Liberal Party history by insisting State Councillors who had been at the flawed meeting and were similarly tainted would be eligible to sit on the new selection committee.
They also reopened nominations to allow the replacement of their previous candidate who had rendered himself unelectable - this is despite there being no adverse finding against any candidate and there being several very capable contenders in the original field.
They eventually endorsed a candidate who had never shown the slightest interest in politics, who had originally been recruited by our wanna-be in stacking a branch and who had not been interested in nominating in the first place.
That's the sort of commitment the Liberals want from their members.
State Council saw how removing the branches from the candidate selection process allows them to put their own people in place.
Members who are totally reliant on State Council for their positions are less likely to offer any sort of independent thought or resistance. State Council would be very happy with the total control of the parliamentary members.
The reason cited - blocking a possible return of Shave and Kierath - doesn't hold up. State Council already has the power to refuse to endorse a candidate recommended by the selection committee. It refused to endorse Doug Shave when recommended for an MLC spot in the 2005 Election.
This is about ensuring the total dominance of one faction by removing local branches from the process.
It stinks. It will lead to the mass resignation of branch members. If the Liberal Party collapses - and it deserves to if this goes ahead - it will be due to faction leaders who see the Party as theirs to do with as they want and to hell with the members and the voters. What right-minded person would join an organisation like that?
Then again, with the introduction of taxpayer funded elections perhaps they see members as something of an inconvenience.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Election funding loophole?
The odious parasites that have foisted public-funded elections on us have left a loophole.
Relevant legislation grants public money to these leeches for each valid first preference vote they attract. Both the Australian Electoral Commission (Federal) and the Western Australian Electoral Commission (State) confirm that no funds are allocated for an informal vote.
I predict an enormous increase in informal votes at the next Federal and State Elections.
Relevant legislation grants public money to these leeches for each valid first preference vote they attract. Both the Australian Electoral Commission (Federal) and the Western Australian Electoral Commission (State) confirm that no funds are allocated for an informal vote.
I predict an enormous increase in informal votes at the next Federal and State Elections.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Preselection Season approaches
It's that time of the election cycle again when local members are furiously trying to prove how important they have been to their party to bolster their chances of gaining preselection.
In at least one of the major parties, part of the application process calls for sitting members to list all of their media appearances, speeches, photos etc to prove how hard they have been working for the party (The emphasis is on work done that aids the party, not the electorate. This is a common theme with political parties.)
It has become very obvious in the last couple of months that my local member is making a concerted effort to raise their profile. Every chance to make any public comment - no matter how inane - is seized. The member has smartened up their appearance showing a vast improvement in grooming. Every photo opportunity is taken even if the member has no apparent connection with the event.
My local member is going to all this effort because they know the odds are against them in the looming preselection contest. This member originally accepted an offer of one term in office after faction bosses found their first choice unelectable. They needed a caretaker and my member was offered a single term only. The offer clearly had some appeal - according to their spouse, my member "never had even the slightest interest in politics before we got a call offering the position". The spouse was relieved that they would never again have to deal with the stress of an election campaign because "they're only giving us one term".
Now having tasted life as an MP it seems my member is going to renege on their deal with the faction that put them into office and is going to fight that faction to retain the endorsement. I find the irony exquisite.
It brings 'biting the hand that feeds' to a new level and reinforces my belief that the current crop of MP's of all persuasions is, with very few exceptions, among the most morally bankrupt and offensive group to have ever populated a Parliament.
In at least one of the major parties, part of the application process calls for sitting members to list all of their media appearances, speeches, photos etc to prove how hard they have been working for the party (The emphasis is on work done that aids the party, not the electorate. This is a common theme with political parties.)
It has become very obvious in the last couple of months that my local member is making a concerted effort to raise their profile. Every chance to make any public comment - no matter how inane - is seized. The member has smartened up their appearance showing a vast improvement in grooming. Every photo opportunity is taken even if the member has no apparent connection with the event.
My local member is going to all this effort because they know the odds are against them in the looming preselection contest. This member originally accepted an offer of one term in office after faction bosses found their first choice unelectable. They needed a caretaker and my member was offered a single term only. The offer clearly had some appeal - according to their spouse, my member "never had even the slightest interest in politics before we got a call offering the position". The spouse was relieved that they would never again have to deal with the stress of an election campaign because "they're only giving us one term".
Now having tasted life as an MP it seems my member is going to renege on their deal with the faction that put them into office and is going to fight that faction to retain the endorsement. I find the irony exquisite.
It brings 'biting the hand that feeds' to a new level and reinforces my belief that the current crop of MP's of all persuasions is, with very few exceptions, among the most morally bankrupt and offensive group to have ever populated a Parliament.
