Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Very Shallow Pool
The WA Libs are seriously short of talent.
The alternatives for the leadership are:
1. A personable farmer who is stupid enough to point a loaded rifle at one of his children and then proceed to blow his son's thumb off. Lucky he didn't kill him. Too stupid to own a rifle, too stupid to lead a political party. Threatens to flatten anyone who suggests his time might be over but couldn't knock the skin off a custard. A political lightweight, and
2. A buffoon who gets drunk while at a trade convention, acts like a drunken clown in the Parliament, interferes with the underwear of a female who isn't his wife, neglects his duty to attend divisions and to represent his electorate in the Parliament and has clandestine carpark meetings with disgraced powerbrokers and lobbyists.
The fact that the Liberal Party is so short of talent comes as no surprise.
For almost 20 years, factions that control State Council and stack every branch possible have systematically removed any potential candidate outside of their faction that showed even a glimmer of talent.
Rather than view talented candidates as an asset, those that control the Liberal party perceived an unaligned candidate as a threat because "they can't be controlled". Unaligned candidates - whatever they might have to offer the Party - are eliminated.
Very qualified and experienced candidates are overlooked in favour of tired hacks on the verge of retirement and creative membership recruitment practitioners.
The result is that the Libs are all but irrelevant in State Politics in WA.
The time is rapidly approaching for a new conservative party to fill the void created by the collapse of the Liberals.
The alternatives for the leadership are:
1. A personable farmer who is stupid enough to point a loaded rifle at one of his children and then proceed to blow his son's thumb off. Lucky he didn't kill him. Too stupid to own a rifle, too stupid to lead a political party. Threatens to flatten anyone who suggests his time might be over but couldn't knock the skin off a custard. A political lightweight, and
2. A buffoon who gets drunk while at a trade convention, acts like a drunken clown in the Parliament, interferes with the underwear of a female who isn't his wife, neglects his duty to attend divisions and to represent his electorate in the Parliament and has clandestine carpark meetings with disgraced powerbrokers and lobbyists.
The fact that the Liberal Party is so short of talent comes as no surprise.
For almost 20 years, factions that control State Council and stack every branch possible have systematically removed any potential candidate outside of their faction that showed even a glimmer of talent.
Rather than view talented candidates as an asset, those that control the Liberal party perceived an unaligned candidate as a threat because "they can't be controlled". Unaligned candidates - whatever they might have to offer the Party - are eliminated.
Very qualified and experienced candidates are overlooked in favour of tired hacks on the verge of retirement and creative membership recruitment practitioners.
The result is that the Libs are all but irrelevant in State Politics in WA.
The time is rapidly approaching for a new conservative party to fill the void created by the collapse of the Liberals.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Election Funding Solution
I have refined my technique for ensuring the odious parasites responsible for taxpayer funded elections do not receive a cent of my money.
For the house of representatives and the legislative Assembly, funding is given for every valid first preference vote a candidate receives provided the candidate attracts at least 4% of the total votes cast. Similar provision are in place for the Senate and the Legislative Council.
In every election regardless of who I want to elect, my first preferenece will always go to an independent candidate or minor party with little hope of reaching the 4% threshold required to obtain taxpayer funding.
If that candidate should happen to reach the 4% level and receive funding then good luck to them - at least my money didn't go to one of the parties responsible for foisting this outrageous impost on us.
Think about it. They expect us to pay them for giving us the dubious privilege of being able to vote them into office. Disgraceful.
For the house of representatives and the legislative Assembly, funding is given for every valid first preference vote a candidate receives provided the candidate attracts at least 4% of the total votes cast. Similar provision are in place for the Senate and the Legislative Council.
In every election regardless of who I want to elect, my first preferenece will always go to an independent candidate or minor party with little hope of reaching the 4% threshold required to obtain taxpayer funding.
If that candidate should happen to reach the 4% level and receive funding then good luck to them - at least my money didn't go to one of the parties responsible for foisting this outrageous impost on us.
Think about it. They expect us to pay them for giving us the dubious privilege of being able to vote them into office. Disgraceful.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Absentee MP's
Candidates provide their residential addresses to the WA Electoral Commission.
That information shows that as at the 2004 Election, allowing for subsequent by-elections and the move of a well-known Liberal member, 25 out of 56 MLA’s and 15 out of 34 MLC’s do not live in their electorate. 44% of members do not live in their electorate!
Most voters would not know if their MP’s actually live in their electorate.
Absentee members come from the ALP, Nationals, Liberals and Independents. Even so, the Libs in particular are only too eager to attack rival candidates on the grounds that they live outside the electorate.
Once again the Libs show themselves for the spineless hypocrites they are.
That information shows that as at the 2004 Election, allowing for subsequent by-elections and the move of a well-known Liberal member, 25 out of 56 MLA’s and 15 out of 34 MLC’s do not live in their electorate. 44% of members do not live in their electorate!
Most voters would not know if their MP’s actually live in their electorate.
Absentee members come from the ALP, Nationals, Liberals and Independents. Even so, the Libs in particular are only too eager to attack rival candidates on the grounds that they live outside the electorate.
Once again the Libs show themselves for the spineless hypocrites they are.
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.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Preselection woes
A recent article in The West Australian newspaper highlights some of the serious shortcomings of the party system and their endorsement practices.
The article concerned a sitting Member of Parliament who is being challenged for preselection within his party. It suggested that a sitting member has a right to expect he will never be challenged for preselection within their party.
If that position were accepted, logic demands that a sitting MP should never have to face the inconvenience of contesting an election – a ridiculous suggestion.
Every party MP should expect to be challenged for preselection at every election – that is the way the system is supposed to work.
Sadly many party MPs don’t see it that way. After going to the effort of organising delegates (i.e. rigging the ballot) to secure endorsement, they feel aggrieved should anyone else should have the audacity to do the same thing the next time election time comes around.
As a result, the time between elections is spent working to secure the renewal of their endorsements instead of servicing their electorates. Endorsement as a party candidate depends on how many members are put into critical branches and on promises made or broken with power brokers and other candidates.
The party system as it currently operates is directly responsible for the lamentable standard of MP we are forced to endure.
In contrast, genuinely Independent MPs are free of such distractions and can devote themselves completely to the task of working for constituents.
A genuinely independent MP’s electoral fate is determined by the work they do for their electorate not by their prowess at abusing a party constitution to engineer success at preselection.
The article concerned a sitting Member of Parliament who is being challenged for preselection within his party. It suggested that a sitting member has a right to expect he will never be challenged for preselection within their party.
If that position were accepted, logic demands that a sitting MP should never have to face the inconvenience of contesting an election – a ridiculous suggestion.
Every party MP should expect to be challenged for preselection at every election – that is the way the system is supposed to work.
Sadly many party MPs don’t see it that way. After going to the effort of organising delegates (i.e. rigging the ballot) to secure endorsement, they feel aggrieved should anyone else should have the audacity to do the same thing the next time election time comes around.
As a result, the time between elections is spent working to secure the renewal of their endorsements instead of servicing their electorates. Endorsement as a party candidate depends on how many members are put into critical branches and on promises made or broken with power brokers and other candidates.
The party system as it currently operates is directly responsible for the lamentable standard of MP we are forced to endure.
In contrast, genuinely Independent MPs are free of such distractions and can devote themselves completely to the task of working for constituents.
A genuinely independent MP’s electoral fate is determined by the work they do for their electorate not by their prowess at abusing a party constitution to engineer success at preselection.
