Early April 2017 & Sean Nicholls reports in the rural press about the embarrassing gaff of an Animal Justice Party MP who did the unthinkable. He ate sea food. Here's a link to Sean's article
http://www.theland.com.au/story/4590675/animal-justice-party-mp-mark-pearson-admits-i-strayed-for-that-morsel/?cs=4951
There's a couple of interesting angles to this. Firstly, he ate some seafood & his own party lay members think he's then lost "credibility". So who led the outrage? The Sydney Vegan Club Facebook page followers. Yes its always funny watching the swarm of savagery of internet indignation light up the screen like a forest fire.
Where noble causes are created out of nothing and villains are named and burnt on the digital stake from the safety of warm inner city spare rooms. How it get funny is the whole Animal Rights thing is such a moral vanguard of utter moral perfection yet the person who pitched the MP in for ordering oysters & salmon has a rocky moral high ground themselves.
Look how wholly indignant they were... "I follow his page and support his posts and the AJP completely. It was really upsetting to find out how much of a traitor he is to these poor fish."
The critic supports the AJP completely, pops a vein over the MPs heinous moral crime and believes the MP to be a traitor to the poor fish...yet he/she works in a seafood restaurant!!!
Its this type of false moral bellowing that needs addressing, where the keyboard becomes the platform for moral judgement but we're deprived of the source of the moral code or law they're using. Yes we all whinge, where it unravels is not just when we become hypocrites, but when the moral standard we use to condemn someone is of our own subjective invention. Its then just a nasty personal opinion at best.
It opens up the Animal Justice Party to a good flood light of proper inspection.
What is so wrong with eating seafood?
What's funnier is the MP even thinks it was only a morsel & he wouldn't do it again. Why not?
Your money, buy whatever food you like, there is no issue.
Why is eating seafood so wrong?
Animal Justice Party is not about justice, its about morally bellowing and pushing the extremist Vegan agenda. Why don't they change the name to the Vegan Justice Party?
Sunday 30 April 2017
Saturday 29 April 2017
Animal Welfare & Animal Rights...yes that old chestnut
Animal Welfare & Animal Rights
They're different, they're very different. Its a shame people don't push the distinguishing features to show everyone else the differences and the dangers of ignorance. It is those who are blissfully unaware that get fooled first & the worst.
Animal Welfare is all about reducing the stress and pain of an animal to the lowest possible point so it has the least amount of suffering between birth and death. That's pretty much as simple as it gets. Its not about anything else. These people generally understand that meat is food. Some might not eat meat. Some will, who knows & no one probably cares a huge deal. Its what our species has done since time immemorial. It is what it is. Meat producers are not fools, they know to make a better living, they can run a more profitable operation when they lower the animal's stress levels.
Animal Rights...ok, here's where things head intellectually south a bit. They can often regard Animal Welfare advocates as "welfarists" which is their derogatory term for those who are either against or are indifferent towards the Veganise-The-World idea. Here we'll see the activist play on emotion and aspiration to elitism group think by declaring that you're not a real vegan if you're only a welfarist, unless you're an abolitionist you are guilty and have innocent blood on your hands.
Animal Rights is a form of philosophical ideas deeply rooted amongst the moral relativism that's been on the rise. It is social construction from very non mainstream ideologues, not community builders nor pragmatic social thinkers. Somehow the animal, under no circumstances can be eaten. Because its akin to murder, the right to life of the animal has been immorally taken due to the speciesism of the sinful human savage.
Speciesism - That false non science term that comes from bizarre think cisterns like devout followers of Peter Singer. If as a farmer I raise an animal for food production I am therefore a murderous immoral low life savage who deserves the worst in life.
A lion eats an antelope but that's different, that's nature.
Someone say "speciesism"???
Hypocrisy much?
By virtue of my diet I'm a perpetrator of war crimes...and if one leftard is to be believed I am deserving of a "slow painful cancer filled death" due to my meat consumption. (Yes I was told that by a vegan activist)
Why "leftard" ?
Well because much of this rampant thought free logic of the radical vegan element comes from the rise of liberalism, where all is right and nothing is wrong...unless the liberal think thinks its disagreeable. Its then that anyone free thinking of a differing view is a bigot, a savage, a blight on humanity, immoral mentally diseased and devoid of moral compass.
Liberalism is deeply bedded in the left political sphere, but its only one faction of it. Its an isolated faction and whilst it has many left traits and beliefs, its not a total vegan thing. Its possible to be a leftard and eat meat. A lot harder for a vegan animal rights abolitionist to be from the centre or the right...yet to meet one actually.
Capitalist vegans exist and we shouldn't say Vegan Leftards? What, run a business or own a company that sells meat whilst being vegan because selling meat is just commerce and veganism is just a diet thing and nothing else?
Yeah see that much?
No, because the radical vegan is into noble causes and guilting others so they self elevate themselves in the moral scorecard they have invented...handy.
The leftard slang is a broad jab that anyone receiving generally dislikes but it has an element of factual foundation. Many people who are non theist are left leaning. Not all but most. Of the extremists who are Animal Rights Vegans very few are theists, in fact I'm yet to meet one who is not a monotheist. New age spiritual concoctions, yes. I haven't met too any Islamic Vegan Animal Rights Protestors. I haven't seen any Jewish Vegan Animal Rights Protestors, nor Christians.
Why? Because their vegan moral code implodes when you search the Scriptures.
Not seen a flood of Vegan Animal Rights protestors tear up their Liberal Party membership and join Cory Bernardi in the new Conservative Party either.
Most are left leaning or politically out to lunch. Very few if any are followers of traditional mainstream religions...if they follow a religion at all. They may well follow the Moral Relativism rants of clowns who say nothing is immoral if it works for you.
How is eating a steak or fish fillet or chicken leg immoral?
Under what moral code, where is the entire moral code and written by whom exactly?
If its subjective then it is not immoral or wrong for me to ignore, ridicule it and eat lamb chops tonight.
If it makes you angry to hear "leftard" and "vegan" in the same sentence then what then of those of us who get accused of murder for eating meat, being called rapists for using cows milk or breaking a moral code for running a sheep or beef farm?
Yes the radical Veganazis may not vote left. They may not vote at all but on the political spectrum they're more left than not, their logic is weighed in profoundly vague philosophical hollow theory and speciesism is a concoction of a person who rejects morals codes said to be transcendent in origin & binding in essence even if by choice.
I think it might be a little broad to call all Vegans leftards but not unfair. Even if they possess many leftard traits...thing is the radical vegans are vegan first and everything else is just a convenient vehicle to ride on whilst it suits and helps get along further. Many are just integrity joy riders, pretending to be whatever helps in their never ending virtue signalling to elevate them morally above all others.
Animal Welfarists however can include meat eating socialists, meat eating capitalists, meat eating swinging voters with no clue about politics. They can also be farmers and meat processors or people who work down a coal mine or up an office tower.
If eating meat is murder...how exactly?
You need to be in possession of leftard debating skills not your faculties.
They're different, they're very different. Its a shame people don't push the distinguishing features to show everyone else the differences and the dangers of ignorance. It is those who are blissfully unaware that get fooled first & the worst.
Animal Welfare is all about reducing the stress and pain of an animal to the lowest possible point so it has the least amount of suffering between birth and death. That's pretty much as simple as it gets. Its not about anything else. These people generally understand that meat is food. Some might not eat meat. Some will, who knows & no one probably cares a huge deal. Its what our species has done since time immemorial. It is what it is. Meat producers are not fools, they know to make a better living, they can run a more profitable operation when they lower the animal's stress levels.
Animal Rights...ok, here's where things head intellectually south a bit. They can often regard Animal Welfare advocates as "welfarists" which is their derogatory term for those who are either against or are indifferent towards the Veganise-The-World idea. Here we'll see the activist play on emotion and aspiration to elitism group think by declaring that you're not a real vegan if you're only a welfarist, unless you're an abolitionist you are guilty and have innocent blood on your hands.
Animal Rights is a form of philosophical ideas deeply rooted amongst the moral relativism that's been on the rise. It is social construction from very non mainstream ideologues, not community builders nor pragmatic social thinkers. Somehow the animal, under no circumstances can be eaten. Because its akin to murder, the right to life of the animal has been immorally taken due to the speciesism of the sinful human savage.
Speciesism - That false non science term that comes from bizarre think cisterns like devout followers of Peter Singer. If as a farmer I raise an animal for food production I am therefore a murderous immoral low life savage who deserves the worst in life.
A lion eats an antelope but that's different, that's nature.
Someone say "speciesism"???
Hypocrisy much?
By virtue of my diet I'm a perpetrator of war crimes...and if one leftard is to be believed I am deserving of a "slow painful cancer filled death" due to my meat consumption. (Yes I was told that by a vegan activist)
Why "leftard" ?
Well because much of this rampant thought free logic of the radical vegan element comes from the rise of liberalism, where all is right and nothing is wrong...unless the liberal think thinks its disagreeable. Its then that anyone free thinking of a differing view is a bigot, a savage, a blight on humanity, immoral mentally diseased and devoid of moral compass.
Liberalism is deeply bedded in the left political sphere, but its only one faction of it. Its an isolated faction and whilst it has many left traits and beliefs, its not a total vegan thing. Its possible to be a leftard and eat meat. A lot harder for a vegan animal rights abolitionist to be from the centre or the right...yet to meet one actually.
Capitalist vegans exist and we shouldn't say Vegan Leftards? What, run a business or own a company that sells meat whilst being vegan because selling meat is just commerce and veganism is just a diet thing and nothing else?
Yeah see that much?
No, because the radical vegan is into noble causes and guilting others so they self elevate themselves in the moral scorecard they have invented...handy.
The leftard slang is a broad jab that anyone receiving generally dislikes but it has an element of factual foundation. Many people who are non theist are left leaning. Not all but most. Of the extremists who are Animal Rights Vegans very few are theists, in fact I'm yet to meet one who is not a monotheist. New age spiritual concoctions, yes. I haven't met too any Islamic Vegan Animal Rights Protestors. I haven't seen any Jewish Vegan Animal Rights Protestors, nor Christians.
Why? Because their vegan moral code implodes when you search the Scriptures.
Not seen a flood of Vegan Animal Rights protestors tear up their Liberal Party membership and join Cory Bernardi in the new Conservative Party either.
Most are left leaning or politically out to lunch. Very few if any are followers of traditional mainstream religions...if they follow a religion at all. They may well follow the Moral Relativism rants of clowns who say nothing is immoral if it works for you.
How is eating a steak or fish fillet or chicken leg immoral?
Under what moral code, where is the entire moral code and written by whom exactly?
If its subjective then it is not immoral or wrong for me to ignore, ridicule it and eat lamb chops tonight.
If it makes you angry to hear "leftard" and "vegan" in the same sentence then what then of those of us who get accused of murder for eating meat, being called rapists for using cows milk or breaking a moral code for running a sheep or beef farm?
Yes the radical Veganazis may not vote left. They may not vote at all but on the political spectrum they're more left than not, their logic is weighed in profoundly vague philosophical hollow theory and speciesism is a concoction of a person who rejects morals codes said to be transcendent in origin & binding in essence even if by choice.
I think it might be a little broad to call all Vegans leftards but not unfair. Even if they possess many leftard traits...thing is the radical vegans are vegan first and everything else is just a convenient vehicle to ride on whilst it suits and helps get along further. Many are just integrity joy riders, pretending to be whatever helps in their never ending virtue signalling to elevate them morally above all others.
Animal Welfarists however can include meat eating socialists, meat eating capitalists, meat eating swinging voters with no clue about politics. They can also be farmers and meat processors or people who work down a coal mine or up an office tower.
If eating meat is murder...how exactly?
You need to be in possession of leftard debating skills not your faculties.
Wednesday 26 April 2017
In Debted to the Debters? No.
Debt has undergone a massive face lift in the last 40+ years. Once for a farmer to get a loan he/she'd have to prove they virtually didn't need it before they could get a loan. Nowadays main requirements are a legal name & a pulse. Somewhere in between we saw interest rates hit 25+% and some folk that survived or avoided that debt period learnt good but very hard lessons.
Nowadays housing has turning into a investment currency whereas it used to be somewhere for the family to buy & live in. The rise of investor buyers meant that housing prices rose faster than actual value or to put it another way, the market value was greater than the real value so we had what most people call...a bubble. It's not burst, but it is slowly leaking, faster in some areas than others.
Last night on TV a chap in severe mortgage stress was interviewed. He is at the point where he's using what equity he has in the family home to pay the latest payments. This should scream serious mis-strategy.
He's reducing what equity he has because he can't pay off that which he hasn't.
His debt is ballooning, he is losing his home and the sad part is he's going to lose more and more along with whatever credit rating he has.
It comes down to this, the old adage I was told as a kid fresh out of school.
"There's a good time to use debt, there's a bad time to use debt but there's absolutely no such thing as a bad time to pay debt off"
It seems we have all sorts of financial advisors, most are motivational speakers pretending to be financial gurus. Selling seats in the latest strategies to make it great but how is it so?
Possibly some of their advice & strategy are useful, some definitely isn't.
We teach mathematics in school, but not the basic fundamentals in finances.
I think its time to teach school kids the basics of finance, the traps, the pit falls and the strategies to avoid financial horror.
Its time to teach financial literacy.
It's time to teach financial fundamentals.
Its time to teach financial strategies.
Its time to warn of the traps, the pitfalls and the ruthless that will sell people up the river with way too much risk.
I see a young couple in town who've bought a rough fixer-upper house.
They have the skills, the plans the drive and the support family to help turn it into something far better than it is.
They could have gone for a massive loan and bought a new or near new 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom McMansion. They didn't. Its very hard to add value to a finished top end home.
The fixer-upper, they may even double their money if they buy it, fix it and either rent it out or live in it for 4 or 5 years.
They're not lucky. Its not luck. They're fortunate to have parent like they do who have worked out what works, what doesn't and how to get ahead at a slower & safer pace. Chances are these 2 happy kids will not be 2.4kids and a massive double mortgage at 55 years of age.
Thing is, if all of WA were taught both in school and after school these sort of financial fundamentals we may well see less artificial growth in various sectors like housing but we'd see a much less heart breaking amount of financial grief that inevitably brings undue stress and hardship with untold pressure on marriages.
Time for a political party to push financial literacy policy for schools.
Time to financially drought proof farms, town businesses, communities, families & government budgets in WA
Nowadays housing has turning into a investment currency whereas it used to be somewhere for the family to buy & live in. The rise of investor buyers meant that housing prices rose faster than actual value or to put it another way, the market value was greater than the real value so we had what most people call...a bubble. It's not burst, but it is slowly leaking, faster in some areas than others.
Last night on TV a chap in severe mortgage stress was interviewed. He is at the point where he's using what equity he has in the family home to pay the latest payments. This should scream serious mis-strategy.
He's reducing what equity he has because he can't pay off that which he hasn't.
His debt is ballooning, he is losing his home and the sad part is he's going to lose more and more along with whatever credit rating he has.
It comes down to this, the old adage I was told as a kid fresh out of school.
"There's a good time to use debt, there's a bad time to use debt but there's absolutely no such thing as a bad time to pay debt off"
It seems we have all sorts of financial advisors, most are motivational speakers pretending to be financial gurus. Selling seats in the latest strategies to make it great but how is it so?
Possibly some of their advice & strategy are useful, some definitely isn't.
We teach mathematics in school, but not the basic fundamentals in finances.
I think its time to teach school kids the basics of finance, the traps, the pit falls and the strategies to avoid financial horror.
Its time to teach financial literacy.
It's time to teach financial fundamentals.
Its time to teach financial strategies.
Its time to warn of the traps, the pitfalls and the ruthless that will sell people up the river with way too much risk.
I see a young couple in town who've bought a rough fixer-upper house.
They have the skills, the plans the drive and the support family to help turn it into something far better than it is.
They could have gone for a massive loan and bought a new or near new 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom McMansion. They didn't. Its very hard to add value to a finished top end home.
The fixer-upper, they may even double their money if they buy it, fix it and either rent it out or live in it for 4 or 5 years.
They're not lucky. Its not luck. They're fortunate to have parent like they do who have worked out what works, what doesn't and how to get ahead at a slower & safer pace. Chances are these 2 happy kids will not be 2.4kids and a massive double mortgage at 55 years of age.
Thing is, if all of WA were taught both in school and after school these sort of financial fundamentals we may well see less artificial growth in various sectors like housing but we'd see a much less heart breaking amount of financial grief that inevitably brings undue stress and hardship with untold pressure on marriages.
Time for a political party to push financial literacy policy for schools.
Time to financially drought proof farms, town businesses, communities, families & government budgets in WA
Kangaroos - Pinky Season
Its a term I hadn't heard of, "Pinky Season" referring to the season of young kangaroos in the pouch. Ones that are pretty much unable to survive without their mother. On South Coast ABC Radio a animal rescuer lady gave details on how to save the baby roos or least give a better chance of survival. If the mother roo is in a car accident, you search the pouch and with a knife cut the mother's teat off keeping it in the "pinky's" mouth.
Then get I onto a vet clinic or animal shelter.
Wasn't long before poor Andrew Collins had more than a few calls & texts messages asking why would you? OK the first one was a little balanced than that, it was "Jack" who said the people can save all the pinkys they like but perhaps they could also visit the farms in the South West and attend to the current Kangaroo plague.
And a plague it is. For a long time pastures and crops have been improving at a massive rate, with more dams, troughs and other water sources. Better mixes of cereal crops, clovers, ryegrasses the old kangaroo never had it so good. A grazing animal, with no Apex predator above it, roo shooting for meat production virtually down the drain, their number have soared.
Its very possibly a great noble gesture that some people make that really has no helpful outcome for anyone except the individual roos that, if they survive, make it into an over populated landscape. If one were to be a altruistic scenester perhaps picking a noble cause that benefits humans of lesser privilege?
When numbers get out of control, there's more car accidents...that's why there's more Pinkies in need of rescue or euthanasia.
Clear case of how sometimes "sensitivity" over-rides "sensibility". Its indeed the case that many of these pinkies may have been better served by putting them down. If number keep rising and no meat trade is developed we'll see an increased number of roos being shot by recreational shooters and landowners to try & get numbers down.
Why would you release an adult roo, that's been raised in captivity as a "rescued pinky" to be released only to be shot because its part of a plague.
On top of this, we haven't mentioned Hydadtis worms the roos are carrying and spreading across agricultural areas. Not such a big deal out in the harsher, hotter desert country, but in the ag regions its big and worrying problem. Not good for sheep, dogs or humans.
Miracle if the small "L" liberals wise up, possibly why there's also fox rescuers in the eastern states.
Wonders never cease...and often fools prosper & spread their non-logic
Then get I onto a vet clinic or animal shelter.
Wasn't long before poor Andrew Collins had more than a few calls & texts messages asking why would you? OK the first one was a little balanced than that, it was "Jack" who said the people can save all the pinkys they like but perhaps they could also visit the farms in the South West and attend to the current Kangaroo plague.
And a plague it is. For a long time pastures and crops have been improving at a massive rate, with more dams, troughs and other water sources. Better mixes of cereal crops, clovers, ryegrasses the old kangaroo never had it so good. A grazing animal, with no Apex predator above it, roo shooting for meat production virtually down the drain, their number have soared.
Its very possibly a great noble gesture that some people make that really has no helpful outcome for anyone except the individual roos that, if they survive, make it into an over populated landscape. If one were to be a altruistic scenester perhaps picking a noble cause that benefits humans of lesser privilege?
When numbers get out of control, there's more car accidents...that's why there's more Pinkies in need of rescue or euthanasia.
Clear case of how sometimes "sensitivity" over-rides "sensibility". Its indeed the case that many of these pinkies may have been better served by putting them down. If number keep rising and no meat trade is developed we'll see an increased number of roos being shot by recreational shooters and landowners to try & get numbers down.
Why would you release an adult roo, that's been raised in captivity as a "rescued pinky" to be released only to be shot because its part of a plague.
On top of this, we haven't mentioned Hydadtis worms the roos are carrying and spreading across agricultural areas. Not such a big deal out in the harsher, hotter desert country, but in the ag regions its big and worrying problem. Not good for sheep, dogs or humans.
Miracle if the small "L" liberals wise up, possibly why there's also fox rescuers in the eastern states.
Wonders never cease...and often fools prosper & spread their non-logic
Sunday 23 April 2017
Applying Moral Context Equally - Theism & Atheism
I have friends who are both religious and atheist. Its free will, everyone gets to choose.
Of those who are atheist, some are non religious and some are anti-religious. Yep some are a bit indifferent but some get quite anxious about anyone having any religious worldview leanings.
The angle that routinely pops up is a critical assessment of God. How is it he can allow all the pain & suffering in the world, the disease, the death, the wars, the murders, rapes, ritual killings, genocide, killing in the name of one god or another. The starvation, floods and other natural disasters...all the pain, suffering, slavery, death. God is then attributed with blame for either causing all these things by allowing them to happen & then...they pronounce judgement on the God they don't believe in.
How can God be anything else but a genocidal maniac, insensitve, uncaring, blood thirsty psychopath, a born killer full of hate and indifference? Its a question some atheists ask.
But why would anyone ask that question without asking them the same question with their worldview in mind. From the atheist why is it that the world has all this evil cruelty?
It can't be God's fault, He doesn't exist apparently.
It can't all be Theists fault, there are plenty of Atheists who have perpetrated crimes against humanity. Besides, if there's no God, the theists are just deceived people...so what then?
Q -If there is no God, why do all these things happen?
Well, based on the assumption there is no God whatsoever, there is only nature. Yes selfishness, greed and all the other motivations are there, but if there is no God, its only the Naturalist thinker that says "Animals are savage with good reason and without, humans are animals who have evolved no differently from any apex predator"
Q - "If a man lays sleeping under a palm tree and a coconut should come loose, falls down and strikes the man on the head & kills him, is that death as a result of an act of Good or Evil or something else?"
Invariably its regarded as an act of fate, an accident not good for the man obviously but not the direct result of an act of good nor an act of evil.
Q - "If a man lays sleeping under a palm tree and a deadly snake slithers up, bites him & he dies of snake bite, is that death a result of an act of good or evil or something else?"
Invariably now its gone from plant life to a poisonous animal its just an act of fate or nature doing what nature does. Its not a direct result of an act of good nor evil.
Q - " If a man lays sleeping under a palm tree and a hungry fresh water croc crawls ashore, grabs the man, drags him into the water, kills him and eats him, is that death the direct result of an Evil or Good act?"
Invariably its nature again, the croc was hunting, it was hungry. It was doing what hungry crocs do, it was just an opportunity for the reptile & sad for the man. Its very bad & tragic luck for the man but its neither a death caused by a Good Act nor an Act of Evil. Its just nature playing its part.
Q - " If a man lays sleeping under a palm tree when another man arrives & sees the sleeping man's possessions next o him. A Rolex watch, jewllery and an esky full of beer & food and then kills the sleeping man so he can take all the possessions.
Is the victim's death due to an Act of Good or an Act of Evil?"
Now things change a little. Yes its "against the law" and I get that, but legal statutes aside, look only at the moral angle. Assume it never gets to court or any legal process. Assume the killer's never caught and the dead man is never ever missed. Only the killer ever knows someone was killed, no crime is known to be committed.
Leave aside the legal angle, focus on the moral assessment.
Is one man killing the other immoral? Is it an act of evil? Is it an act of good?
Now for the Christian, its still very simple. Its a grave sin, its immoral, its against God's (moral) Law so it is therefore, very easily an act of evil. But for the atheist how's it go then?
Well the Atheist has few choices and they're both odd fitting.
Firstly they can say the killers, human, croc, snake & coconut are all earthly organisms that arrived to where they are today by all that evolution is said to contain. All were doing as survival dictates, even the coconut which was dropping its seed. The 3 animals had more intent than the coconut, albeit instinct perhaps more than anything. The 3 are all parts of the animal kingdom. They're all doing what nature does.
They could say its morally wrong for a croc, a snake or a coconut to kill a human, but there's nothing ethically binding. But they won't.
Apparently in the world that only came from nature, morals and the idea of Good & Evil are human social constructs so as to contain people in a society a little better. So all are less murderous and work to the general benefit of all human society.
Morals are a convenient social construct for the atheist and although the best outcome is we adhere to them, there is nothing within the laws of nature that says they're binding. In fact some societies thought cannibalism was an abomination, whilst other societies thought it was helpful, healthy and certainly not immoral.
Now you have the quintessential moral dilemma that sits with two people. The English explorer in the cooking pot and the noble islander adding herbs and spices. One has no moral problem, the other thinks he's being eaten by one.
Who's right? Apparently one's more primitive and one's more evolved hence the moral chasm. Poor explanation. The islander is still correct in his worldview.
So here we have Moral Relativism. What works for me, is right. What works for them is moral to them but if it is counter productive to me...its immoral to me. Pluralism is of little value if you're dinner not a dinner guest.
Or they can go straight to saying, the coconut, snake & Croc were acting out what's their natural behaviour as a part of the plant/animal kingdom. Its neither an act of Good nor Evil, there is no moral context, its just something tragic that happens in nature. Unlikely they reach for that explainer.
We start to see a sad facet of Liberalism, where everyone is right...even with opposing values.
Now we plainly see that atheistic morals, morals made by man not God are relative and have some fluidity where as God's moral laws are transcendent of man and do not change.
What if someone is killing people for spare change and in their moral mindset its quite ok because all victims are homeless people, no family, they're disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner and the victims were on drugs and committing crimes, a burden on society?
To the God follower, its still wrong, immoral, a sin and should stop. They should also be brought to account under the law of the land.
Then the most uncomfortable facet of all.
By what standard is there good or evil to judge an action if the goal posts can move due to culture or differing societal norms & standards? For the Christian it can only come from a transcendent moral law giver, not a fluid & subjective human depending on what cultural variables are present.
The Christian has no wriggle room. Morals are from God, they're absolute, binding and unchangeable to cause good not evil.
The atheist is left swinging a little.
This is why when an atheist says God if He exists is a blood thirsty sadistic maniac must say by what standard is that judgement made between good and evil and how can that standard flex and move if there's cultural influences amongst the moral subjectivity. Indeed how can we validly judge the cannibal today or the genocidal kings & knights of centuries ago? Or the religious systems of thousands of years ago?
Yes, the Christian has it a lot easier.
The Atheist needs far more faith and less intellectual rigour from others to sleep well due never being properly challenged in a similar way.
Liberalism. Where we tolerate all things different to us & if you don't agree then you're an intolerant bigot. I thought tolerance was having a different view but respecting the person with the different view. To liberals, clearly not.
Of those who are atheist, some are non religious and some are anti-religious. Yep some are a bit indifferent but some get quite anxious about anyone having any religious worldview leanings.
The angle that routinely pops up is a critical assessment of God. How is it he can allow all the pain & suffering in the world, the disease, the death, the wars, the murders, rapes, ritual killings, genocide, killing in the name of one god or another. The starvation, floods and other natural disasters...all the pain, suffering, slavery, death. God is then attributed with blame for either causing all these things by allowing them to happen & then...they pronounce judgement on the God they don't believe in.
How can God be anything else but a genocidal maniac, insensitve, uncaring, blood thirsty psychopath, a born killer full of hate and indifference? Its a question some atheists ask.
But why would anyone ask that question without asking them the same question with their worldview in mind. From the atheist why is it that the world has all this evil cruelty?
It can't be God's fault, He doesn't exist apparently.
It can't all be Theists fault, there are plenty of Atheists who have perpetrated crimes against humanity. Besides, if there's no God, the theists are just deceived people...so what then?
Q -If there is no God, why do all these things happen?
Well, based on the assumption there is no God whatsoever, there is only nature. Yes selfishness, greed and all the other motivations are there, but if there is no God, its only the Naturalist thinker that says "Animals are savage with good reason and without, humans are animals who have evolved no differently from any apex predator"
Q - "If a man lays sleeping under a palm tree and a coconut should come loose, falls down and strikes the man on the head & kills him, is that death as a result of an act of Good or Evil or something else?"
Invariably its regarded as an act of fate, an accident not good for the man obviously but not the direct result of an act of good nor an act of evil.
Q - "If a man lays sleeping under a palm tree and a deadly snake slithers up, bites him & he dies of snake bite, is that death a result of an act of good or evil or something else?"
Invariably now its gone from plant life to a poisonous animal its just an act of fate or nature doing what nature does. Its not a direct result of an act of good nor evil.
Q - " If a man lays sleeping under a palm tree and a hungry fresh water croc crawls ashore, grabs the man, drags him into the water, kills him and eats him, is that death the direct result of an Evil or Good act?"
Invariably its nature again, the croc was hunting, it was hungry. It was doing what hungry crocs do, it was just an opportunity for the reptile & sad for the man. Its very bad & tragic luck for the man but its neither a death caused by a Good Act nor an Act of Evil. Its just nature playing its part.
Q - " If a man lays sleeping under a palm tree when another man arrives & sees the sleeping man's possessions next o him. A Rolex watch, jewllery and an esky full of beer & food and then kills the sleeping man so he can take all the possessions.
Is the victim's death due to an Act of Good or an Act of Evil?"
Now things change a little. Yes its "against the law" and I get that, but legal statutes aside, look only at the moral angle. Assume it never gets to court or any legal process. Assume the killer's never caught and the dead man is never ever missed. Only the killer ever knows someone was killed, no crime is known to be committed.
Leave aside the legal angle, focus on the moral assessment.
Is one man killing the other immoral? Is it an act of evil? Is it an act of good?
Now for the Christian, its still very simple. Its a grave sin, its immoral, its against God's (moral) Law so it is therefore, very easily an act of evil. But for the atheist how's it go then?
Well the Atheist has few choices and they're both odd fitting.
Firstly they can say the killers, human, croc, snake & coconut are all earthly organisms that arrived to where they are today by all that evolution is said to contain. All were doing as survival dictates, even the coconut which was dropping its seed. The 3 animals had more intent than the coconut, albeit instinct perhaps more than anything. The 3 are all parts of the animal kingdom. They're all doing what nature does.
They could say its morally wrong for a croc, a snake or a coconut to kill a human, but there's nothing ethically binding. But they won't.
Apparently in the world that only came from nature, morals and the idea of Good & Evil are human social constructs so as to contain people in a society a little better. So all are less murderous and work to the general benefit of all human society.
Morals are a convenient social construct for the atheist and although the best outcome is we adhere to them, there is nothing within the laws of nature that says they're binding. In fact some societies thought cannibalism was an abomination, whilst other societies thought it was helpful, healthy and certainly not immoral.
Now you have the quintessential moral dilemma that sits with two people. The English explorer in the cooking pot and the noble islander adding herbs and spices. One has no moral problem, the other thinks he's being eaten by one.
Who's right? Apparently one's more primitive and one's more evolved hence the moral chasm. Poor explanation. The islander is still correct in his worldview.
So here we have Moral Relativism. What works for me, is right. What works for them is moral to them but if it is counter productive to me...its immoral to me. Pluralism is of little value if you're dinner not a dinner guest.
Or they can go straight to saying, the coconut, snake & Croc were acting out what's their natural behaviour as a part of the plant/animal kingdom. Its neither an act of Good nor Evil, there is no moral context, its just something tragic that happens in nature. Unlikely they reach for that explainer.
We start to see a sad facet of Liberalism, where everyone is right...even with opposing values.
Now we plainly see that atheistic morals, morals made by man not God are relative and have some fluidity where as God's moral laws are transcendent of man and do not change.
What if someone is killing people for spare change and in their moral mindset its quite ok because all victims are homeless people, no family, they're disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner and the victims were on drugs and committing crimes, a burden on society?
To the God follower, its still wrong, immoral, a sin and should stop. They should also be brought to account under the law of the land.
Then the most uncomfortable facet of all.
By what standard is there good or evil to judge an action if the goal posts can move due to culture or differing societal norms & standards? For the Christian it can only come from a transcendent moral law giver, not a fluid & subjective human depending on what cultural variables are present.
The Christian has no wriggle room. Morals are from God, they're absolute, binding and unchangeable to cause good not evil.
The atheist is left swinging a little.
This is why when an atheist says God if He exists is a blood thirsty sadistic maniac must say by what standard is that judgement made between good and evil and how can that standard flex and move if there's cultural influences amongst the moral subjectivity. Indeed how can we validly judge the cannibal today or the genocidal kings & knights of centuries ago? Or the religious systems of thousands of years ago?
Yes, the Christian has it a lot easier.
The Atheist needs far more faith and less intellectual rigour from others to sleep well due never being properly challenged in a similar way.
Liberalism. Where we tolerate all things different to us & if you don't agree then you're an intolerant bigot. I thought tolerance was having a different view but respecting the person with the different view. To liberals, clearly not.
Saturday 22 April 2017
WA Politics Report - Easter 2017
Here we sit in the shadow of a state election. The seismic shattering has subsided and soon all sides elected will slowly learn what it is they now do and how they'll do it. There's many newly elected members on every side of the house, left, right and cross bench. Some are in Government for the first time, some in opposition for the first time both needing to work out how different things are for them in their own New World. Others will find they haven't really got such a deep playbook to draw on, especially the members from the Pauline Hanson's One Nation party.
To me the landscape can be only broken down into what is & what might be and as unpredictable as the former is, its nothing compared to the latter which might be. Be it calm & beige or somewhere closer to the other end of the spectrum where its all wild & unpredictable horse trading all over the shop...well dull moments I hope for.
Really I can split it into what I hope for and sadly what's more likely. Even then, its guesses vs. guesses.
What I hope for #1 - I hope that greater and fuller rigour finds it's way into the parliament and the offices of all elected.
More likely #1 - More likely is whilst that may happen, most MPs will be inclined to follow their respective party line. I'm hoping to follow parliament enough during this next term to see who, if any, cross the floor and why. I expect none to cross the floor against their respective parties...I'm expecting the SFFP & the PHON to vote with the Liberals more often than not and if there's any exceptions, it'll be SFFP that diverts from Liberal lines.
What I hope for #2 - I hope that the 3 Upper House PHON MPs can find a good working space that is diligent, WA focused, fairness centred and sees a resounding amount of support for legislation that reflects WA's needs. That fosters best fitting solutions to problems and not be centred on political horse trading or defined party ideology...nor cause a double dissolution. I hope they keep their party platform by all means but not take directions from Pauline Hanson...she's an Australian Senator, head of their federal party. She is not the leader of the WA PHON Parliamentary Party. The fact she had dinner with Cormann & Cash to work out a preference deal every other PHON member in WA thought was completely OFF THE TABLE (as reported in the "Please Explain" 4 Corners show) worries me greatly.
More likely #2 - More likely the PHON MPs will face pressure they've not prepared for and highly likely behind close doors they'll wonder is it better to pay $25,000 exit fee & resign for the party. Chances are that although they're likely to be a different type of Liberal Party platform, the temptation to exert power & influence on bills so as to grab small miniature versions of Kingmaker Syndrome shots-in-the-arm is possible. I'm thinking more likely the PHONs will not all go full term and even more likely, whether they end up being good members or not, they won't be re-elected. I think PHON will closely follow the federal Clive Palmer path. Its doomed, its a matter of how much good they can do in the meantime or how much harm minimisation can be sustained between now & the next WA Fed election
What I hope for #3 - I hope that Upper House MPs replicate Rick Mazza MP's (SFFP) first 18 months of his first term in the Upper House. He sat on no less than 4 Sitting & Standing Committees, most notably chairing the pivotal RSPCA look-see. I hope personally that no Upper House Labor member will sit in Cabinet, they should be the house of review not part of forming legislation for the Lower House which they rubber stamp at their Upper House level.
More likely #3 - More likely Rick Mazza MP will deliver roughly the same sort of effort, the Nats & Libs will markedly lift their efforts (hopefully to the same high levels) and sadly some Labor Upper House MPs will enter cabinet and sit on no committees whatsoever.
What I hope for #4 - I had hoped Peter Watson MLC would sit in the chamber and represent the seat of Albany in decision making and also vote in Albany's best interests. I expected him to take a cabinet seat, but disappointed he'll be Speaker.
More likely #4 - Well...he's Speaker of the House so he cannot vote in the Lower House unless there's a tie. With their large majority there's no chance of that, but there's no chance anyway as Labor MPs sign a pledge to always side with the party. If they were to cross the floor, they lose their Labor Party membership straight away and if someone is a Cabinet member they'd lose that their membership and all support at the following election. Its by and large political death. The only exception is a conscience vote & not sure when WALabor had one of them last. I've asked but they won't comment at all. In Peter Watson's case, he could be his usual good rep for Albany, but he cannot vote in parliament, as Labor Speaker he doubly cannot cross the floor and it gets worse, he's the Speaker, the umpire effectively and as such plays no role in helping form government business. Albany has effectively elected a toothless tiger, we have own miniature version of the UN. "Full of sound & fury, signifying nothing"
What I hope for #5 - That the 3 largest of the Upper House cross bench members, Nats (5), PHON (3) and SFFP (1) work more closely together than either would individually would with either Liberal or Labor Party and present a more well oiled, cohesive cross bench bloc.
More likely #5 - Think Nats & to a lesser extent the SFFP will try that, there'll be pleasant noises publicly if there's any noises at all and PHON may just vote the way the Liberals each time but for differing reasons when asked. A recent "pub test" type comment I heard was "SFFP are Liberal supporters with guns and farmers with fishing rods, they despise the Nats & expect the Nats to fall in behind them at the Liberals table. Although Rick Mazza will be very guarded and discrete in comparison"
There's something in that but Rick Mazza is a very good MP with a good record and good standing when it comes to pushing rigour into policy. Rick will work well with the Nats but expect him to be very independent of the Nats. Very.
The PHON...probably very genuine folk, but are they WA or working under constant direction of a Queensland Senator?
As for our one Liberal Democrat, well journos couldn't get a hold of him, not sure if they have even yet. Calls are being fielded by a person in the Eastern Stats, a controller/handler. Worrying sign.
He's all for opposing and voting against new taxes and anything which threatens WA citizens liberties. He'll be of help with the SFFP agenda items but going to a while before the LDP effect unfolds and is known.
Could be all smooth sorta sailing in the Upper House, might be orderly and already have sorted out. Not expecting a cluster fluff of road blocks. So that'd be good.
We need good stable strong governance.
To me the landscape can be only broken down into what is & what might be and as unpredictable as the former is, its nothing compared to the latter which might be. Be it calm & beige or somewhere closer to the other end of the spectrum where its all wild & unpredictable horse trading all over the shop...well dull moments I hope for.
Really I can split it into what I hope for and sadly what's more likely. Even then, its guesses vs. guesses.
What I hope for #1 - I hope that greater and fuller rigour finds it's way into the parliament and the offices of all elected.
More likely #1 - More likely is whilst that may happen, most MPs will be inclined to follow their respective party line. I'm hoping to follow parliament enough during this next term to see who, if any, cross the floor and why. I expect none to cross the floor against their respective parties...I'm expecting the SFFP & the PHON to vote with the Liberals more often than not and if there's any exceptions, it'll be SFFP that diverts from Liberal lines.
What I hope for #2 - I hope that the 3 Upper House PHON MPs can find a good working space that is diligent, WA focused, fairness centred and sees a resounding amount of support for legislation that reflects WA's needs. That fosters best fitting solutions to problems and not be centred on political horse trading or defined party ideology...nor cause a double dissolution. I hope they keep their party platform by all means but not take directions from Pauline Hanson...she's an Australian Senator, head of their federal party. She is not the leader of the WA PHON Parliamentary Party. The fact she had dinner with Cormann & Cash to work out a preference deal every other PHON member in WA thought was completely OFF THE TABLE (as reported in the "Please Explain" 4 Corners show) worries me greatly.
More likely #2 - More likely the PHON MPs will face pressure they've not prepared for and highly likely behind close doors they'll wonder is it better to pay $25,000 exit fee & resign for the party. Chances are that although they're likely to be a different type of Liberal Party platform, the temptation to exert power & influence on bills so as to grab small miniature versions of Kingmaker Syndrome shots-in-the-arm is possible. I'm thinking more likely the PHONs will not all go full term and even more likely, whether they end up being good members or not, they won't be re-elected. I think PHON will closely follow the federal Clive Palmer path. Its doomed, its a matter of how much good they can do in the meantime or how much harm minimisation can be sustained between now & the next WA Fed election
What I hope for #3 - I hope that Upper House MPs replicate Rick Mazza MP's (SFFP) first 18 months of his first term in the Upper House. He sat on no less than 4 Sitting & Standing Committees, most notably chairing the pivotal RSPCA look-see. I hope personally that no Upper House Labor member will sit in Cabinet, they should be the house of review not part of forming legislation for the Lower House which they rubber stamp at their Upper House level.
More likely #3 - More likely Rick Mazza MP will deliver roughly the same sort of effort, the Nats & Libs will markedly lift their efforts (hopefully to the same high levels) and sadly some Labor Upper House MPs will enter cabinet and sit on no committees whatsoever.
What I hope for #4 - I had hoped Peter Watson MLC would sit in the chamber and represent the seat of Albany in decision making and also vote in Albany's best interests. I expected him to take a cabinet seat, but disappointed he'll be Speaker.
More likely #4 - Well...he's Speaker of the House so he cannot vote in the Lower House unless there's a tie. With their large majority there's no chance of that, but there's no chance anyway as Labor MPs sign a pledge to always side with the party. If they were to cross the floor, they lose their Labor Party membership straight away and if someone is a Cabinet member they'd lose that their membership and all support at the following election. Its by and large political death. The only exception is a conscience vote & not sure when WALabor had one of them last. I've asked but they won't comment at all. In Peter Watson's case, he could be his usual good rep for Albany, but he cannot vote in parliament, as Labor Speaker he doubly cannot cross the floor and it gets worse, he's the Speaker, the umpire effectively and as such plays no role in helping form government business. Albany has effectively elected a toothless tiger, we have own miniature version of the UN. "Full of sound & fury, signifying nothing"
What I hope for #5 - That the 3 largest of the Upper House cross bench members, Nats (5), PHON (3) and SFFP (1) work more closely together than either would individually would with either Liberal or Labor Party and present a more well oiled, cohesive cross bench bloc.
More likely #5 - Think Nats & to a lesser extent the SFFP will try that, there'll be pleasant noises publicly if there's any noises at all and PHON may just vote the way the Liberals each time but for differing reasons when asked. A recent "pub test" type comment I heard was "SFFP are Liberal supporters with guns and farmers with fishing rods, they despise the Nats & expect the Nats to fall in behind them at the Liberals table. Although Rick Mazza will be very guarded and discrete in comparison"
There's something in that but Rick Mazza is a very good MP with a good record and good standing when it comes to pushing rigour into policy. Rick will work well with the Nats but expect him to be very independent of the Nats. Very.
The PHON...probably very genuine folk, but are they WA or working under constant direction of a Queensland Senator?
As for our one Liberal Democrat, well journos couldn't get a hold of him, not sure if they have even yet. Calls are being fielded by a person in the Eastern Stats, a controller/handler. Worrying sign.
He's all for opposing and voting against new taxes and anything which threatens WA citizens liberties. He'll be of help with the SFFP agenda items but going to a while before the LDP effect unfolds and is known.
Could be all smooth sorta sailing in the Upper House, might be orderly and already have sorted out. Not expecting a cluster fluff of road blocks. So that'd be good.
We need good stable strong governance.
Thursday 20 April 2017
WA's Tier 2 Political Parties - Where Now, Where Future?
WA's Upper House is going to be part of the lynch pin for policy & legislative progress in this new WA Parliament. It hasn't sat yet & already some journos are getting ready for uncertain times. This entry is based on a view from a particular perspective. PHON, Greens, NatsWA & the SFFP are going to be well amongst the horse trading and the genuine development of WA's recovery. The Greens I'm not overly sure about but PHON I'm concerned about. Genuine folk, but are they part of eastern states franchise who will veto WA decisions to suit her senate standing with voters?
The ray of light & hope to me at least comes from the NatsWA & the SFFP members. In the case of the NatsWA, its a long held view by some that the NatsWA aren't really conservatives. They will challenge the status quo & won't religiously stick to the conservative play book. They will jump onto new ideas & present a good deal of independent free thinking. The SFFP is probably more Liberal aligned than any non Liberal group but still, they're independent. I think it'll be that the NatsWA & the SFFP won't get a lot their way in this next parliament, or not all their way but their way will be centred on what's good for WA as a whole. Scrappy fighters causing people to challenge their thinking is a good thing, whether than means the Labor/Liberal Duopoly concede to NatsWA or SFFP thinking is another thing.
NatsWA & SFFP present our best bet for our state going forward & a little bottleneck that causes all to slow down & free think is not such a bad thing. That's the premise...
I'm only going to look at the Tier 2 Parties I'm interested in and they're probably the only two that are interested in the things I'm interested in. No not the Greens, as they have a foundation which seems very fluid and means different things to different people so barge poling them as they'd be too much for this blog effort. Looking at The Nationals WA & The Shooters, Fishers & Farmers Party. I can't add Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party (PHON) because I think they're on borrowed time. Whilst the WA candidates might be genuine, I don't think the over arching party premise is really all that interested in WA or rural & regional WA. I think the PHON will go the way of the Palmer United Party, goodness knows it's done the partial implosion thing already and thrown plenty of their own folk under the bus. Yes the Liberal Democrats have an elected candidate, Aaron Stonehouse but when the journos try to contact him, they get put through to an eastern states handler. This concerns me, PHON & LDP MPs total 4 and they possibly more beholden to an eastern states person/party?
I think the "Deplorable" vote effect may still has some gas in the tank & maybe still have come next State Election but I think the PHON will be exceptionally lucky to have a single elected member in the next state Parliament. So I'll just focus on the other Tier 2 Parties.
Both are rural/regional based or at least equally focused. Nats here are definitely different than their eastern states counter parts by & large and the SFFP may have some minor differences from their eastern states counterparts too, well time'll tell. Downside is the eastern perception can affect some people's thinking here when looking at the WA Tier 2 Parties.
Some of the eastern states pockets of Nats are "country party" centred and others are LNP to the point where there are elected MPs state & federal (over there) that are just faction parts of the Liberal Party whether intentional or not.
Here, not so much. With NatsWA there are several pivotal milestones that are often forgotte or misunderstood.
1) 2008 - the toss up whether Nats WA would form government with Labor or Liberals
2) The City of Perth Bill - Opposing the Liberal Party on it as it spelt more amalgamations of rural shires.
3) The proposed Sale of Fremantle Port - Again opposing the Liberal Government on it
Just these 3 things alone show the NatsWA actually isn't a "Conservative" party at all. A conservative party would consult the Ideology Playbook and would not depart from it. On these 3 ocassions alone it demonstrated it wasn't doomed to stay shackled, it was determined to be independent and free thinking. I wish I could visit a parallel universe where the NatsWA did form government in 2008 with the Labor Party. I can only speculate how well or bad that would have gone, but all things aside, it would have cemented the NatsWA as being independent and unafraid of change or finding what they think is the best fitting solution to a given problem and not repeat party history, again and again...like a fool returning to their folly.
Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party(WA) pretty much is Rick Mazza MLC. He was breifly one of 2 SFFP MPs in WA, now the only one again. In his first 18 months in his first term, he sat on 4 Standing & Sitting Committees whilst many from the same chamber sat on just one and some even none. He's got the track record of punching above his weight. Hopefully that continues. He has the advantage of being the only elected member...which may only be a small advantage. Dowside is most the SFFP MPs in Parliament are over east where the Nats are seen as a Liberal Party faction or Liberal controlled side kick circus. Certainy some of the SFFP members over there think that. Robert Borsak even told me as much after the Orange by-election. I said to him I thought it boded well for country people that hopefully the Nats over there would wake up and work more closely with the SFFP to gather good outcomes for country people, to advance rural & regional Vic/NSW. Ahhh not quite how he saw it. He said they didn't want to work with the Nats, wanted nothing to do with them, they wanted the Nats out of parliament completely and the SFFP wanted all their seats.
So the east coast has huge voids of seperation between the Nats & the SFFP...even if they're desires and not actual differences.
In WA some people see the SFFP as "Liberals with guns and farmers with fishing rods". Its a whole lot deeper than that but pigeon holes tend to be very general and less than specific.
The Nats are slowly being seen as Independent & seperate from the Liberals but many people see them as traditional conservative partners of the Liberals and only differing on a few grounds. Think the NatsWA lost the opportunity to push the angle of being Independent, Independently Thinking and Independent Free Thinkers that they probably are.
Strangely if the NatsWA aren't Liberal Party faction, then SFFP shouldn't be either. If the Nats here are different than the east coast then the SFFP approach has to be different too.
There is no "LNP" in WA. There is only one SFFP in WA.
Why would the SFFP & the Nats here be working as closely as possible where they can?
Hopefully they will. I'm yet to see a Firearms Policy from the Nationals.
The cross bench in the Upper House here is a precarious place and its going to be interesting to watch & follow. Hopefully the NatsWA, the SFFP & PHON can work together well whether its supporting Liberal or Labor legislation. Hopefully they willgo for supporting rural & regional WA.
Goodness knows I have little faith in the Liberal/Labor Duopoly or the Greens in that regard.
I hope I can see more policy similarities amongst the the Nats & SFFP. They do need to work together, especially as the SFFP isn't going to replace all the Nats.
In WA we need NatsWA & SFFP working very closely together and hopefully where possible the PHONs won't be waiting for instructions daily from Pauline Hanson or the Cormann/Cash Dinner Club.
The ray of light & hope to me at least comes from the NatsWA & the SFFP members. In the case of the NatsWA, its a long held view by some that the NatsWA aren't really conservatives. They will challenge the status quo & won't religiously stick to the conservative play book. They will jump onto new ideas & present a good deal of independent free thinking. The SFFP is probably more Liberal aligned than any non Liberal group but still, they're independent. I think it'll be that the NatsWA & the SFFP won't get a lot their way in this next parliament, or not all their way but their way will be centred on what's good for WA as a whole. Scrappy fighters causing people to challenge their thinking is a good thing, whether than means the Labor/Liberal Duopoly concede to NatsWA or SFFP thinking is another thing.
NatsWA & SFFP present our best bet for our state going forward & a little bottleneck that causes all to slow down & free think is not such a bad thing. That's the premise...
I'm only going to look at the Tier 2 Parties I'm interested in and they're probably the only two that are interested in the things I'm interested in. No not the Greens, as they have a foundation which seems very fluid and means different things to different people so barge poling them as they'd be too much for this blog effort. Looking at The Nationals WA & The Shooters, Fishers & Farmers Party. I can't add Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party (PHON) because I think they're on borrowed time. Whilst the WA candidates might be genuine, I don't think the over arching party premise is really all that interested in WA or rural & regional WA. I think the PHON will go the way of the Palmer United Party, goodness knows it's done the partial implosion thing already and thrown plenty of their own folk under the bus. Yes the Liberal Democrats have an elected candidate, Aaron Stonehouse but when the journos try to contact him, they get put through to an eastern states handler. This concerns me, PHON & LDP MPs total 4 and they possibly more beholden to an eastern states person/party?
I think the "Deplorable" vote effect may still has some gas in the tank & maybe still have come next State Election but I think the PHON will be exceptionally lucky to have a single elected member in the next state Parliament. So I'll just focus on the other Tier 2 Parties.
Both are rural/regional based or at least equally focused. Nats here are definitely different than their eastern states counter parts by & large and the SFFP may have some minor differences from their eastern states counterparts too, well time'll tell. Downside is the eastern perception can affect some people's thinking here when looking at the WA Tier 2 Parties.
Some of the eastern states pockets of Nats are "country party" centred and others are LNP to the point where there are elected MPs state & federal (over there) that are just faction parts of the Liberal Party whether intentional or not.
Here, not so much. With NatsWA there are several pivotal milestones that are often forgotte or misunderstood.
1) 2008 - the toss up whether Nats WA would form government with Labor or Liberals
2) The City of Perth Bill - Opposing the Liberal Party on it as it spelt more amalgamations of rural shires.
3) The proposed Sale of Fremantle Port - Again opposing the Liberal Government on it
Just these 3 things alone show the NatsWA actually isn't a "Conservative" party at all. A conservative party would consult the Ideology Playbook and would not depart from it. On these 3 ocassions alone it demonstrated it wasn't doomed to stay shackled, it was determined to be independent and free thinking. I wish I could visit a parallel universe where the NatsWA did form government in 2008 with the Labor Party. I can only speculate how well or bad that would have gone, but all things aside, it would have cemented the NatsWA as being independent and unafraid of change or finding what they think is the best fitting solution to a given problem and not repeat party history, again and again...like a fool returning to their folly.
Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party(WA) pretty much is Rick Mazza MLC. He was breifly one of 2 SFFP MPs in WA, now the only one again. In his first 18 months in his first term, he sat on 4 Standing & Sitting Committees whilst many from the same chamber sat on just one and some even none. He's got the track record of punching above his weight. Hopefully that continues. He has the advantage of being the only elected member...which may only be a small advantage. Dowside is most the SFFP MPs in Parliament are over east where the Nats are seen as a Liberal Party faction or Liberal controlled side kick circus. Certainy some of the SFFP members over there think that. Robert Borsak even told me as much after the Orange by-election. I said to him I thought it boded well for country people that hopefully the Nats over there would wake up and work more closely with the SFFP to gather good outcomes for country people, to advance rural & regional Vic/NSW. Ahhh not quite how he saw it. He said they didn't want to work with the Nats, wanted nothing to do with them, they wanted the Nats out of parliament completely and the SFFP wanted all their seats.
So the east coast has huge voids of seperation between the Nats & the SFFP...even if they're desires and not actual differences.
In WA some people see the SFFP as "Liberals with guns and farmers with fishing rods". Its a whole lot deeper than that but pigeon holes tend to be very general and less than specific.
The Nats are slowly being seen as Independent & seperate from the Liberals but many people see them as traditional conservative partners of the Liberals and only differing on a few grounds. Think the NatsWA lost the opportunity to push the angle of being Independent, Independently Thinking and Independent Free Thinkers that they probably are.
Strangely if the NatsWA aren't Liberal Party faction, then SFFP shouldn't be either. If the Nats here are different than the east coast then the SFFP approach has to be different too.
There is no "LNP" in WA. There is only one SFFP in WA.
Why would the SFFP & the Nats here be working as closely as possible where they can?
Hopefully they will. I'm yet to see a Firearms Policy from the Nationals.
The cross bench in the Upper House here is a precarious place and its going to be interesting to watch & follow. Hopefully the NatsWA, the SFFP & PHON can work together well whether its supporting Liberal or Labor legislation. Hopefully they willgo for supporting rural & regional WA.
Goodness knows I have little faith in the Liberal/Labor Duopoly or the Greens in that regard.
I hope I can see more policy similarities amongst the the Nats & SFFP. They do need to work together, especially as the SFFP isn't going to replace all the Nats.
In WA we need NatsWA & SFFP working very closely together and hopefully where possible the PHONs won't be waiting for instructions daily from Pauline Hanson or the Cormann/Cash Dinner Club.
Wednesday 19 April 2017
Should WA Secede From the Rest of Australia?
Here's the latest looming large idea that's popped up again...well not a huge ground swell but funny thing is, if you ask someone, someone who's Western Australian then no, you do not get an answer like "No way, we're part of the eastern states, the whole Australia, bury your treacherous thoughts"
Between the last 2016 Federal Election & the 2017 WA State Election I was offered a genuinely sizable amount of money to start a WA Secede Party. Flattered as I was I declined but the ego of me couldn't help but mention it to a few friends and it didn't take long before the ego faded as it was apparent that no one I spoke to was against the idea of WA seceding. In fact might have gone close to raising 6 figure sum of money without much effort.
Will WA secede, can it, should it?
Well you can google the history of WA Seceding. Its not a new idea by a long stretch and surprising how close it came to nearly happening. Will it or will enough people try to is another question but there's certainly a number of big advantages and also a number of big reasons why the rest of the country would tell us we can't, shouldn't or won't.
Our biggest barrier?
Closer to home really. Western Australians they are too. Who?
WA Labor & WA Liberals.
Yes the Liberal/Labor Duopoly will not be in favour of it at all & you'd see some bipartisan opposition to quell us savages. Lots for both parties to lose and would probably highlight that their respective first priorities lie not with WA but they're own respective party machine.
Its the same barrier that prevented the Mining Special Rental Fee being raise from 25c to $5.00/tonne. Yes the massive subsidy that struggling Mums n Dads send overseas to 2 big foreign wealthy mining corporations.
Its the same barrier that's caused no WA Federal MPs to fight for WA's fairer slice of the GST carve up which rewards the worst performing states and penalises the best off. Not one federal WA MP has moved a private members bill to fix the rort...none except Tony Crook and only Bob Katter voted with him. The entire rest of parliament either crossed the floor against WA or stayed outside the chamber.
Its a cruel wonder that so many people stay rusted onto the Labor/Liberal Duopoly, supporting one side or the other loudly & proudly whilst they generally feather their own party's nest or further their own chances of a cabinet career.
WA will not be worse off if it secedes, it may do a bit better if seceding looks very likely & some carrots get dangled. If it were put to a referendum I think it might just get up. At present both colours of the Liberal/Labor Duopoly will avoid it & dismiss it because if it ever got so serious as to warrant a referendum it spells the death knell for some parliamentary careers both state & federal.
It would finally front and centre, in no uncertain terms, spell out in big fat mile high neon letters who's with and for WA and who's for their party. That truthful division of positions is the very very last thing the Labor/Liberal Duopoly would want to get out.
No conscience vote that day...they'd work hard to kill it way before it grew legs and traction.
Do I mind if we stay part of Australia or prefer we secede?
Wrong question...the problem we have is if we want our state to do better, it doesn't matter if we secede or not. The Barrier to a Better WA Will Still Be Here.
The Liberal/Labor Duopoly.
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you should rally for the other mob, the mob that's firmly aligned with...
#Time2StandUp4WA
Whoever they are, party or no party we need to put WA first.
Not wealthy foreign miners.
Not under performing states over east
Not Political Parties
No, time to put WA First.
Talk about that around the BBQ.
Between the last 2016 Federal Election & the 2017 WA State Election I was offered a genuinely sizable amount of money to start a WA Secede Party. Flattered as I was I declined but the ego of me couldn't help but mention it to a few friends and it didn't take long before the ego faded as it was apparent that no one I spoke to was against the idea of WA seceding. In fact might have gone close to raising 6 figure sum of money without much effort.
Will WA secede, can it, should it?
Well you can google the history of WA Seceding. Its not a new idea by a long stretch and surprising how close it came to nearly happening. Will it or will enough people try to is another question but there's certainly a number of big advantages and also a number of big reasons why the rest of the country would tell us we can't, shouldn't or won't.
Our biggest barrier?
Closer to home really. Western Australians they are too. Who?
WA Labor & WA Liberals.
Yes the Liberal/Labor Duopoly will not be in favour of it at all & you'd see some bipartisan opposition to quell us savages. Lots for both parties to lose and would probably highlight that their respective first priorities lie not with WA but they're own respective party machine.
Its the same barrier that prevented the Mining Special Rental Fee being raise from 25c to $5.00/tonne. Yes the massive subsidy that struggling Mums n Dads send overseas to 2 big foreign wealthy mining corporations.
Its the same barrier that's caused no WA Federal MPs to fight for WA's fairer slice of the GST carve up which rewards the worst performing states and penalises the best off. Not one federal WA MP has moved a private members bill to fix the rort...none except Tony Crook and only Bob Katter voted with him. The entire rest of parliament either crossed the floor against WA or stayed outside the chamber.
Its a cruel wonder that so many people stay rusted onto the Labor/Liberal Duopoly, supporting one side or the other loudly & proudly whilst they generally feather their own party's nest or further their own chances of a cabinet career.
WA will not be worse off if it secedes, it may do a bit better if seceding looks very likely & some carrots get dangled. If it were put to a referendum I think it might just get up. At present both colours of the Liberal/Labor Duopoly will avoid it & dismiss it because if it ever got so serious as to warrant a referendum it spells the death knell for some parliamentary careers both state & federal.
It would finally front and centre, in no uncertain terms, spell out in big fat mile high neon letters who's with and for WA and who's for their party. That truthful division of positions is the very very last thing the Labor/Liberal Duopoly would want to get out.
No conscience vote that day...they'd work hard to kill it way before it grew legs and traction.
Do I mind if we stay part of Australia or prefer we secede?
Wrong question...the problem we have is if we want our state to do better, it doesn't matter if we secede or not. The Barrier to a Better WA Will Still Be Here.
The Liberal/Labor Duopoly.
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you should rally for the other mob, the mob that's firmly aligned with...
#Time2StandUp4WA
Whoever they are, party or no party we need to put WA first.
Not wealthy foreign miners.
Not under performing states over east
Not Political Parties
No, time to put WA First.
Talk about that around the BBQ.
Sunday 16 April 2017
Firearms Absurdities in W.A.
There's a whole bunch of them and absurd the really are. OK its absurd that Tony Abbott brought about the Adler Shotgun Import Ban which effectively banned the import of a firearm that was actually legal in every state. It failed the reasonable person test on every level but it remained.
Absurdity # 1 - The Adler capacity is not excessive and its firing rate was not "rapid fire" and no one ever set out the definition of "rapid fire". Comparing it to a double barrel action shotgun, using exactly the same ammunition...exactly the same, a double barrel fires 2 rounds faster. Firing 5 rounds, the Adler Lever Action is just faster and firing 10 rounds its the same. What is rapid fire because the Act doesn't explain it. Which makes it odd that law is enforced by a notion not quantified in Act.
Absurdity #2 - Revolvers. A Pastoralist in WA can carry a side arm like a revolver whilst at work as a form of Protective gear. Now what gets odd is, if the Pastoralist wants to drive to a Pistol Club for an event and compete, he/she cannot compete with the "work revolver", they have to purchase another revolver for competing. And if the revolver is identical, Brand, Make, Model, Calibre? Too bad, you have to by an identical 2nd revolver. Gets even more odd. If they use the "club revolver" at work, they're breaking the law too.
Absurdity #3 - If you're married & you're a licenced firearms owner but your spouse isn't they cannot have access to the gun safe. They mustn't even know where the key is. If your spouse is a licenced firearms owner the couple can only share the gun safe if they're both licenced for ALL the firearms in the safe. If there's a difference, there has to be 2 separate gun safes. Yes double the amount of storage. There was the case where the police arrived to carry out a safe inspection, the husband, who was the licenced firearms owner was away. The police asked the wife if she had the keys so they could inspect the safe's bolts. She went & got the key and opened the safe where the police said it was not securely stored and the firearms were seized. The wife had no gun licence.
Absurdity #5 - Pump action rifles. They're allowable as are pump action shot guns but I think the latter are Cat C so not easy for everyone. Remington make 2 very good pump action rifles. One's in .223 & the other in .308. Obviously .308 is a bigger round and is used by several military firearms like the AR-10. The .223 is a bullet that's very common, used in the AR-15.
No military service uses pump action .223 or .308
Absurdity is in WA you can get the much larger Pump Action .308 but not the smaller .223 because the .223 Pump Action shares the same magazine as a AR-15.
It shares no other part, function, action or appearance...just has the same magazine as an AR-15
No other reason. Now there's absurd and then there's just downright preposterous.
Pump action rifle is a useful tool for pig control, because no centrefire semi autos are allowed in WA. Not even feral contractors. You can get an Ag Permit in Queensland & other states but not here.
Absurdity #6 - Ruger make two very good rifles in .22 calibre, which is a rim fire round. One's bolt action, one's semi auto. They both use the exact same magazine, perfectly interchangeable. However you can use a 25 round magazine in the bolt action, but if you put it into the 10/22 its a prohibited firearm, you have just broken the law. the 10/22 can only have a 10 round magazine. Yes you can easily have a dozen 10 round magazines but you cannot have just one 25 round magazine.
Absurdity #6b - The semi auto 10/22 is 100% legal in WA. It has a wooden stock. Now should you need to change out the stock you can, because there's no change in the firearm except ergonomics. There's plenty to choose from. BUT - if you fit one such as an Arch-Angel polymer stock you have converted your legal Cat C firearm into a prohibited firearm due to its appearance change. No performance change, all exactly the same except you can more easily add different straps, lights, sights etc & have the advantage of a different hand grip which makes the firearm safer & easier to handle. Nope not allowed to use it. Only modifies the chassis, the action, calibre, firing rate is all exactly the same as before.
Absurdity #7 - The often talked about "appearance clause" which pretty much points out that if the firearm in question replicates action, function or has the appearance of a military firearm its banned. I get that it says that, I get what it says what is highly absurd is WHY? Why is the appearance a danger or elevated threat? A 10/22 with a wooden stock will shoot the same bullets at the same rate, with the same velocity with the same accuracy as an AR-15 type stock. Only thing that's changed is the chassis and its appearance. Why is that look change a problem and how exactly does the look cause a threat?
In essence, if no military army in the world uses a M-16 in service, its no longer a military firearm. Does it come off the appearance list because lever actions are fine on Cat A & B, so too flintlock muskets...all ex-military firearms.
If I change the chassis on the firearm to look more military what will that change be likely to cause, how & why?
The answer is not "you don't need it" the answer is an explanation why changing from legal old fashioned wood stock to a black polymer military style going to do to a person in lawful ownership? How is it likely to change them into a threat to society.
Ask an MP...you'll hear crickets or a tactical reply instead of an answer.
If the military appearance is a mind changer, why do we not extend this to clothing with so many people now wearing military style camouflage cargo pants, is a threat suddenly elevated?
Absurdity #8 - Silencers...thing is they don't silence, they suppress, that's why people who actually know a little about firearms call them SUPPRESSORS. I've never used one and they're currently illegal in WA but they don't "silence" a gun like the movies would have you think. I'm told the person who invented the auto muffler invented the firearm suppressor. In NZ and many other countries, they're a no big deal thing. They're helpful when hunting affording more hearing protection for the shooter and also for the first shot making it less of a fright noise for the other prey. You have a better chance of follow up shots of ferals. All it does though is lowers the dB levels a little but it also takes off some of the velocity so the bullet doesn't quite hit with the same punch. This means recoil is slightly reduced. The decibel drop is very minor, but its a drop nonetheless and it can vary a great deal depending on barrel length, calibre size and variance within the different (bullet) loads. Some rifles can hit 130db and a suppressor can drop that by an average of 30dB. For some of the smaller calibres you can get it down to a dB level where no hearing protection is required like the mid 80s.
They really only work really well on sub-sonic ammunition but super sonic does have a lower tone & dB rating. They work best on bolt action rifles, work quite ok but to a lesser extent on semi autos and they really don't work on revolvers because so much noise and blast comes out between the cylinder and the forcing cone. Every now & then a Bond film or some other spy/cop movie from the 1960s has a bad guy with a revolver and its got a suppressor fitted. It fires and makes a Hollywood suppressor noise of muffled note that's nearly silent.
They should be a registered item usable for hunting and gun range use. Some places overseas you can get into trouble shooting WITHOUT one. But here, it must be the appearance law or the Hollywood threat we'll all turn into Bond-like assassins if we buy one.
Lowering the dB level is a safety issue, helps the hunter and can even get the noise of urban based gun range down. For competition use, range officers & coaches have a better time helping shooters improve their competitive edge with the use of suppressors. They're a regulated item in the USA but perfectly legal in most states and readily available in New Zealand.
Absurdity #9 - For my mind, if a person is a properly licenced firearms owner they must be a fit and proper person to own a firearm. Therefore, if they have genuine need, a proper purpose and pass the reasonable person test of being a fit & proper person requirement then perhaps they should be allowed, with correct restrictions, be allowed to own any gun at all. Working in the USA, one of the ranch hands next door had an enormous gun collection. Among it he had a fully automatic AK-47 and an Israeli made Uzi sub machine gun. Both used for cleaning up vermin and "spraying cans". No not tagging graffiti but putting old out of date, shook up beer cans on a dirt mound out the paddock and spraying them with gun fire. Harmless & fun. Yes I concede an Uzi has unique traits we don't need. Terrible easy for anyone to hide it on the street under their jumper
Absurdity #10 - Reporting...the game needs to be lifted greatly. An otherwise good ABC reporter filed a TV News report on the attacks on Australia's offshore detention centres, how gun fire had broken out and locals were attacking the camp. He cited that he'd seen some of the bullets and they looked to him like "automatic bullets".
I sent him and the ABC a message asking exactly what an "automatic bullet" was, what it looked like and how it differs from a non automatic round.
No reply yet. Possibly they then embarked on a little research and realised what a total pillock comment it was. Now ok 9mm pistol rounds (and some others) are a little different due to a different type of extraction & spent round ejection and yes you need moon clips to use them in a 9mm revolver but pretty sure he wasn't talking about thing like that. A simple old garden variety .223 round is used in ("non automatic") bolt action rifles and in semi automatic AR-15 rifles and also in those few AR-15s that have the "full automatic" function switch. The range, muzzle velocity. accuracy & lethality is not great influence by the firearm's type of action. Just an observation...
Absurdity #11 - Not quite here yet, IT'S NOT LAW BUT IT'S BEING SUGGESTED. Centralised firearms storage facilities. Might work in the city when owners only visit the range, but if farmers have to go many kilometres to pick up their firearm to put down an animal, yes its ridiculous. The other ridiculous absurdity comes from the rise of stolen firearms from farms. At present it is illegal for a farmer or any other person with firearms to take the firearms out of their gun safe and lock them up in the neighbours safe whilst on holiday or absent from the home. This needs to be changed to make it legal.
Hopefully though installing electronic alarms doesn't become mandatory either. Of little use if the police are stationed 25km. If they're 25kms away, well that's close for many farmers but its not close enough to deal with a break in alarm.
Absurdity # 1 - The Adler capacity is not excessive and its firing rate was not "rapid fire" and no one ever set out the definition of "rapid fire". Comparing it to a double barrel action shotgun, using exactly the same ammunition...exactly the same, a double barrel fires 2 rounds faster. Firing 5 rounds, the Adler Lever Action is just faster and firing 10 rounds its the same. What is rapid fire because the Act doesn't explain it. Which makes it odd that law is enforced by a notion not quantified in Act.
Absurdity #2 - Revolvers. A Pastoralist in WA can carry a side arm like a revolver whilst at work as a form of Protective gear. Now what gets odd is, if the Pastoralist wants to drive to a Pistol Club for an event and compete, he/she cannot compete with the "work revolver", they have to purchase another revolver for competing. And if the revolver is identical, Brand, Make, Model, Calibre? Too bad, you have to by an identical 2nd revolver. Gets even more odd. If they use the "club revolver" at work, they're breaking the law too.
Absurdity #3 - If you're married & you're a licenced firearms owner but your spouse isn't they cannot have access to the gun safe. They mustn't even know where the key is. If your spouse is a licenced firearms owner the couple can only share the gun safe if they're both licenced for ALL the firearms in the safe. If there's a difference, there has to be 2 separate gun safes. Yes double the amount of storage. There was the case where the police arrived to carry out a safe inspection, the husband, who was the licenced firearms owner was away. The police asked the wife if she had the keys so they could inspect the safe's bolts. She went & got the key and opened the safe where the police said it was not securely stored and the firearms were seized. The wife had no gun licence.
Absurdity #5 - Pump action rifles. They're allowable as are pump action shot guns but I think the latter are Cat C so not easy for everyone. Remington make 2 very good pump action rifles. One's in .223 & the other in .308. Obviously .308 is a bigger round and is used by several military firearms like the AR-10. The .223 is a bullet that's very common, used in the AR-15.
No military service uses pump action .223 or .308
Absurdity is in WA you can get the much larger Pump Action .308 but not the smaller .223 because the .223 Pump Action shares the same magazine as a AR-15.
It shares no other part, function, action or appearance...just has the same magazine as an AR-15
No other reason. Now there's absurd and then there's just downright preposterous.
Pump action rifle is a useful tool for pig control, because no centrefire semi autos are allowed in WA. Not even feral contractors. You can get an Ag Permit in Queensland & other states but not here.
Absurdity #6 - Ruger make two very good rifles in .22 calibre, which is a rim fire round. One's bolt action, one's semi auto. They both use the exact same magazine, perfectly interchangeable. However you can use a 25 round magazine in the bolt action, but if you put it into the 10/22 its a prohibited firearm, you have just broken the law. the 10/22 can only have a 10 round magazine. Yes you can easily have a dozen 10 round magazines but you cannot have just one 25 round magazine.
Absurdity #6b - The semi auto 10/22 is 100% legal in WA. It has a wooden stock. Now should you need to change out the stock you can, because there's no change in the firearm except ergonomics. There's plenty to choose from. BUT - if you fit one such as an Arch-Angel polymer stock you have converted your legal Cat C firearm into a prohibited firearm due to its appearance change. No performance change, all exactly the same except you can more easily add different straps, lights, sights etc & have the advantage of a different hand grip which makes the firearm safer & easier to handle. Nope not allowed to use it. Only modifies the chassis, the action, calibre, firing rate is all exactly the same as before.
Absurdity #7 - The often talked about "appearance clause" which pretty much points out that if the firearm in question replicates action, function or has the appearance of a military firearm its banned. I get that it says that, I get what it says what is highly absurd is WHY? Why is the appearance a danger or elevated threat? A 10/22 with a wooden stock will shoot the same bullets at the same rate, with the same velocity with the same accuracy as an AR-15 type stock. Only thing that's changed is the chassis and its appearance. Why is that look change a problem and how exactly does the look cause a threat?
In essence, if no military army in the world uses a M-16 in service, its no longer a military firearm. Does it come off the appearance list because lever actions are fine on Cat A & B, so too flintlock muskets...all ex-military firearms.
If I change the chassis on the firearm to look more military what will that change be likely to cause, how & why?
The answer is not "you don't need it" the answer is an explanation why changing from legal old fashioned wood stock to a black polymer military style going to do to a person in lawful ownership? How is it likely to change them into a threat to society.
Ask an MP...you'll hear crickets or a tactical reply instead of an answer.
If the military appearance is a mind changer, why do we not extend this to clothing with so many people now wearing military style camouflage cargo pants, is a threat suddenly elevated?
Absurdity #8 - Silencers...thing is they don't silence, they suppress, that's why people who actually know a little about firearms call them SUPPRESSORS. I've never used one and they're currently illegal in WA but they don't "silence" a gun like the movies would have you think. I'm told the person who invented the auto muffler invented the firearm suppressor. In NZ and many other countries, they're a no big deal thing. They're helpful when hunting affording more hearing protection for the shooter and also for the first shot making it less of a fright noise for the other prey. You have a better chance of follow up shots of ferals. All it does though is lowers the dB levels a little but it also takes off some of the velocity so the bullet doesn't quite hit with the same punch. This means recoil is slightly reduced. The decibel drop is very minor, but its a drop nonetheless and it can vary a great deal depending on barrel length, calibre size and variance within the different (bullet) loads. Some rifles can hit 130db and a suppressor can drop that by an average of 30dB. For some of the smaller calibres you can get it down to a dB level where no hearing protection is required like the mid 80s.
They really only work really well on sub-sonic ammunition but super sonic does have a lower tone & dB rating. They work best on bolt action rifles, work quite ok but to a lesser extent on semi autos and they really don't work on revolvers because so much noise and blast comes out between the cylinder and the forcing cone. Every now & then a Bond film or some other spy/cop movie from the 1960s has a bad guy with a revolver and its got a suppressor fitted. It fires and makes a Hollywood suppressor noise of muffled note that's nearly silent.
They should be a registered item usable for hunting and gun range use. Some places overseas you can get into trouble shooting WITHOUT one. But here, it must be the appearance law or the Hollywood threat we'll all turn into Bond-like assassins if we buy one.
Lowering the dB level is a safety issue, helps the hunter and can even get the noise of urban based gun range down. For competition use, range officers & coaches have a better time helping shooters improve their competitive edge with the use of suppressors. They're a regulated item in the USA but perfectly legal in most states and readily available in New Zealand.
Absurdity #9 - For my mind, if a person is a properly licenced firearms owner they must be a fit and proper person to own a firearm. Therefore, if they have genuine need, a proper purpose and pass the reasonable person test of being a fit & proper person requirement then perhaps they should be allowed, with correct restrictions, be allowed to own any gun at all. Working in the USA, one of the ranch hands next door had an enormous gun collection. Among it he had a fully automatic AK-47 and an Israeli made Uzi sub machine gun. Both used for cleaning up vermin and "spraying cans". No not tagging graffiti but putting old out of date, shook up beer cans on a dirt mound out the paddock and spraying them with gun fire. Harmless & fun. Yes I concede an Uzi has unique traits we don't need. Terrible easy for anyone to hide it on the street under their jumper
Absurdity #10 - Reporting...the game needs to be lifted greatly. An otherwise good ABC reporter filed a TV News report on the attacks on Australia's offshore detention centres, how gun fire had broken out and locals were attacking the camp. He cited that he'd seen some of the bullets and they looked to him like "automatic bullets".
I sent him and the ABC a message asking exactly what an "automatic bullet" was, what it looked like and how it differs from a non automatic round.
No reply yet. Possibly they then embarked on a little research and realised what a total pillock comment it was. Now ok 9mm pistol rounds (and some others) are a little different due to a different type of extraction & spent round ejection and yes you need moon clips to use them in a 9mm revolver but pretty sure he wasn't talking about thing like that. A simple old garden variety .223 round is used in ("non automatic") bolt action rifles and in semi automatic AR-15 rifles and also in those few AR-15s that have the "full automatic" function switch. The range, muzzle velocity. accuracy & lethality is not great influence by the firearm's type of action. Just an observation...
Absurdity #11 - Not quite here yet, IT'S NOT LAW BUT IT'S BEING SUGGESTED. Centralised firearms storage facilities. Might work in the city when owners only visit the range, but if farmers have to go many kilometres to pick up their firearm to put down an animal, yes its ridiculous. The other ridiculous absurdity comes from the rise of stolen firearms from farms. At present it is illegal for a farmer or any other person with firearms to take the firearms out of their gun safe and lock them up in the neighbours safe whilst on holiday or absent from the home. This needs to be changed to make it legal.
Hopefully though installing electronic alarms doesn't become mandatory either. Of little use if the police are stationed 25km. If they're 25kms away, well that's close for many farmers but its not close enough to deal with a break in alarm.
Thursday 13 April 2017
W.A.Politics, Policies and Western Power
Question - So when is a political policy purely ideologically based rather than a solution best fitted for the problem at hand?
Answer - More often than you think, despite what the proponent/s of a policy may claim otherwise.
Liberal Policy is sell Western Power. Its apparently loss making, difficult to manage a profit and needs commercial managers who can bring in better efficiencies, better price for consumers, more reliable supply to users and basically solve its problems. Only the private sector can deliver
Labor Policy - To retain it in Public ownership because there's no point selling all the silver cutlery if you're continually renting over priced spoons and knives if you can get any utensils where you are anyway. Only Public Ownership can deliver decency and power at the best possible price for all, rich or poor.
So who's right? Kinda both, kinda neither is my best guess. For a different perspective look at the graphic below which broadly explains the Life Cycle of a Business.
Startup for Western Power (SECWA, SEC) was a long time ago but it certainly was the case that the 60's 70s and some of the 80s were in the Rapid Growth section. We're somewhere in the decline section at present most likely. I say most likely because I don't have a timeline of milestones to show where its at now, but if its up for sale and if its because its a financial non performer then its somewhere in that red section.
Curious though, if its in the red decline section it doesn't mean its a bottomless money pit. It could still be profitable at this stage, but declining. Indeed we were told that Fremantle Harbour was a profitable asset when the Liberal Cabinet tried to push it into a sale catalogue.
Western Power is likely to be going through the same J Curve journey that many, most or perhaps all businesses go through. Maybe the thought at the time was, time to sell whilst its still worth something, before it declines much more and brings much less. That's quite probable. With the online betting & smart phone betting apps companies are running, it might be time to sell the TAB...who knows?
Thing is Western Power is pointed towards Retention or Sale. Either way, its going to have go through a re-birth. Either way its going to need deadwood set free. Either way the people in the regions are going to be the worst affected and most likely everyone's going to pay more for the same service delivery.
Its at this point you should realise that Sale or no Sale is immaterial. At some point services, maintenance and repairs are going to fall away the further the customer is from the generation. And where services don't fall away, costs & fees will sky rocket. Arguably already the case.So we need a solution.
Possibly the solution is ditch ideology and go to the best return to society instead of dressing ideology up as the best return for society. Best idea is to develop a strategy that's firewalled from whether its sold or not. Policy related to this shouldn't be "Western Power Sale Policy" it should be a comprehensive integrated energy policy.
Is it possible to turn every farm or small town into some part of a community co-operative owned power generator that services its own community and feeds back into the grid for a financial return? The profitability really relies on the Co-Op producing more power than the community produces so ironically the communities best equipped to have a financially sound chance are small towns with large farms. The smaller the town & the bigger the farms the better.
Bio-mass is produced on farms at a huge rate. Bio-mass is the fuel for Bio-Reactors that make electricity. Many farmers are still burning their stubbles or trying to work around the trash. But its easily raked and baled and could be sent to a bio-reactor.
The technology is there and coupled with wind turbines in the right district and solar panels there's a good chance of off grid generation. It won't replace all current sources of power, but if you can more & more turn down the traditional fuels used. The savings are there.
Here's the thing, fast forward 150 years and the solutions we'd be using will be the same solutions used irrespective of whether Western Power is sold 150 years or not. We should remember that in the USA, prohibition stopped grog production. It also stopped farmers making their own energy source by distilling corn into a white spirit. It provided light and could fuel motors better than other fuels of the time. Its a pity we're not doing the same, with 25% of a farm's crop going into an alcohol based fuel to run farm equipment or run generators on farm with bio-waste from the crop, the stubbles going to town into bio-reactors.
The technology is not new, its whether or not the fuel is as efficient in a truck or tractor as diesel is.
There's a few certainties.
We cannot rely on naked ideology to magically fix Western Power. Simply retaining it or selling it to the private sector won't deliver everything people further away always need. It needs to be managed better and taken to the Rebirth part of the J Curve before it goes to the death part...whether its sold or not.
We don't need to hear Western Power Sale Policies from both sides, because they are ideology driven. We need to hear the new business strategy to take the business of Western Power to the Rebirth part of the business pathway.
If that's done, then it doesn't actually need to be sold and we can retain the asset as it rebirths into the new Rapid Growth stretch of a reset J Curve and we all benefit more. Now having said that, we're talking about a Utility that delivers an Essential Service, so it has to be there is some form. But retained it doesn't have to deliver dividends and/or capital growth.
Your library will be the same as every other library, big or small...they run at a loss.
But they're social assets, delivering social dividends and the real social cost is when they're closed or privatised.
Think the electricity generation might be the same.
So what's Collie do if we stop using coal? Same thing they'd do if the coal ran out...pursue their own rebirth. If they seek it now, they'll benefit from diversity in their local economy.
Coal & Collie is not the problem, the problem is rebirthing the electricity business and that might need to include renewables, clustered minor power stations throughout WA, wind turbines, solar farms, alcohol fuels or bio-reactors making good gas for power generation.
When the parties start spruiking a policy position, (like Western Power), drain off the ideology and flush it. Head to the business planning, see how they plan to take the business from Decline to Rebirth. If you can't get that from them...revise your policy makers. Their policy J Curve went from Start Up to Death by-passing everything in the middle.
The main ongoing problem with the policy settings is the business life cycle graphic above still applies to government entities like Western Power. The trouble is ideology is the speed hump that stops proper rebirth and just quitting is seen as the only avenue of rebirth. A Western Power will rebirth if sold or retained but if it isn't its retained in an ongoing decline spiral.
The real solution is probably outside of conventional ideology driven party platforms & is found within simpler, common sense approaches that grab lots of wider opportunities for growth.
This is likely to be opposed by the Liberal/Labor Duopoly think tanks.
We need to recognise its #Time2StandUp4WA and edge the ideologues to the side and let the genuine Nation Builders have a free look.
*Image is from http://opsmgt.edublogs.org/tag/product-life-cycle/
Answer - More often than you think, despite what the proponent/s of a policy may claim otherwise.
Liberal Policy is sell Western Power. Its apparently loss making, difficult to manage a profit and needs commercial managers who can bring in better efficiencies, better price for consumers, more reliable supply to users and basically solve its problems. Only the private sector can deliver
Labor Policy - To retain it in Public ownership because there's no point selling all the silver cutlery if you're continually renting over priced spoons and knives if you can get any utensils where you are anyway. Only Public Ownership can deliver decency and power at the best possible price for all, rich or poor.
So who's right? Kinda both, kinda neither is my best guess. For a different perspective look at the graphic below which broadly explains the Life Cycle of a Business.
Startup for Western Power (SECWA, SEC) was a long time ago but it certainly was the case that the 60's 70s and some of the 80s were in the Rapid Growth section. We're somewhere in the decline section at present most likely. I say most likely because I don't have a timeline of milestones to show where its at now, but if its up for sale and if its because its a financial non performer then its somewhere in that red section.
Curious though, if its in the red decline section it doesn't mean its a bottomless money pit. It could still be profitable at this stage, but declining. Indeed we were told that Fremantle Harbour was a profitable asset when the Liberal Cabinet tried to push it into a sale catalogue.
Western Power is likely to be going through the same J Curve journey that many, most or perhaps all businesses go through. Maybe the thought at the time was, time to sell whilst its still worth something, before it declines much more and brings much less. That's quite probable. With the online betting & smart phone betting apps companies are running, it might be time to sell the TAB...who knows?
Thing is Western Power is pointed towards Retention or Sale. Either way, its going to have go through a re-birth. Either way its going to need deadwood set free. Either way the people in the regions are going to be the worst affected and most likely everyone's going to pay more for the same service delivery.
Its at this point you should realise that Sale or no Sale is immaterial. At some point services, maintenance and repairs are going to fall away the further the customer is from the generation. And where services don't fall away, costs & fees will sky rocket. Arguably already the case.So we need a solution.
Possibly the solution is ditch ideology and go to the best return to society instead of dressing ideology up as the best return for society. Best idea is to develop a strategy that's firewalled from whether its sold or not. Policy related to this shouldn't be "Western Power Sale Policy" it should be a comprehensive integrated energy policy.
Is it possible to turn every farm or small town into some part of a community co-operative owned power generator that services its own community and feeds back into the grid for a financial return? The profitability really relies on the Co-Op producing more power than the community produces so ironically the communities best equipped to have a financially sound chance are small towns with large farms. The smaller the town & the bigger the farms the better.
Bio-mass is produced on farms at a huge rate. Bio-mass is the fuel for Bio-Reactors that make electricity. Many farmers are still burning their stubbles or trying to work around the trash. But its easily raked and baled and could be sent to a bio-reactor.
The technology is there and coupled with wind turbines in the right district and solar panels there's a good chance of off grid generation. It won't replace all current sources of power, but if you can more & more turn down the traditional fuels used. The savings are there.
Here's the thing, fast forward 150 years and the solutions we'd be using will be the same solutions used irrespective of whether Western Power is sold 150 years or not. We should remember that in the USA, prohibition stopped grog production. It also stopped farmers making their own energy source by distilling corn into a white spirit. It provided light and could fuel motors better than other fuels of the time. Its a pity we're not doing the same, with 25% of a farm's crop going into an alcohol based fuel to run farm equipment or run generators on farm with bio-waste from the crop, the stubbles going to town into bio-reactors.
The technology is not new, its whether or not the fuel is as efficient in a truck or tractor as diesel is.
There's a few certainties.
We cannot rely on naked ideology to magically fix Western Power. Simply retaining it or selling it to the private sector won't deliver everything people further away always need. It needs to be managed better and taken to the Rebirth part of the J Curve before it goes to the death part...whether its sold or not.
We don't need to hear Western Power Sale Policies from both sides, because they are ideology driven. We need to hear the new business strategy to take the business of Western Power to the Rebirth part of the business pathway.
If that's done, then it doesn't actually need to be sold and we can retain the asset as it rebirths into the new Rapid Growth stretch of a reset J Curve and we all benefit more. Now having said that, we're talking about a Utility that delivers an Essential Service, so it has to be there is some form. But retained it doesn't have to deliver dividends and/or capital growth.
Your library will be the same as every other library, big or small...they run at a loss.
But they're social assets, delivering social dividends and the real social cost is when they're closed or privatised.
Think the electricity generation might be the same.
So what's Collie do if we stop using coal? Same thing they'd do if the coal ran out...pursue their own rebirth. If they seek it now, they'll benefit from diversity in their local economy.
Coal & Collie is not the problem, the problem is rebirthing the electricity business and that might need to include renewables, clustered minor power stations throughout WA, wind turbines, solar farms, alcohol fuels or bio-reactors making good gas for power generation.
When the parties start spruiking a policy position, (like Western Power), drain off the ideology and flush it. Head to the business planning, see how they plan to take the business from Decline to Rebirth. If you can't get that from them...revise your policy makers. Their policy J Curve went from Start Up to Death by-passing everything in the middle.
The main ongoing problem with the policy settings is the business life cycle graphic above still applies to government entities like Western Power. The trouble is ideology is the speed hump that stops proper rebirth and just quitting is seen as the only avenue of rebirth. A Western Power will rebirth if sold or retained but if it isn't its retained in an ongoing decline spiral.
The real solution is probably outside of conventional ideology driven party platforms & is found within simpler, common sense approaches that grab lots of wider opportunities for growth.
This is likely to be opposed by the Liberal/Labor Duopoly think tanks.
We need to recognise its #Time2StandUp4WA and edge the ideologues to the side and let the genuine Nation Builders have a free look.
*Image is from http://opsmgt.edublogs.org/tag/product-life-cycle/
Saturday 8 April 2017
Raising the Rental Fee from 25c to $5 - Myths & Lies, Oh and Pesky Facts Too
Here we go...
Myth 1 - Its not a tax. Its a Special Rental Fee.
Myth 2 - It has nothing to do with taxes although as a cost of doing business (not a tax) its a tax deductible expense.
Myth 3 - The Mining companies pay $19+ dollars a tonne royalties, not 25 cents...well actually no one said anything about it being a 25c royalty except the deceptive advertising campaign. The 25c Special Rent Fee has nothing to do with Royalties at all. Only thing they have in common is they're both set a per tonne rate. That's it. Get fooled by the advert?
Myth 4 - Rio/BHP are Aussie companies paying tax here. Well they pay some tax here, and recently one got slugged a back dated tax bill for millions they hadn't properly paid...but that's not relevant of course. Fact is they're not Aussie Companies, they're Multi National Companies listed on the ASX & the London FTSE. Having said that, there's also a vehicle that allows you to buy shares via the NYSX too even though they're not directly listed there...but that's not relevant too I guess.
Here's what is relevant on the "Aussie Company" angle.
Rio Tinto has been a multi national since its inception in 1873 when it started mining, as a foreign miner in Spain. Its listed on 2 stock exchanges. They pay dividends to lots of people, Australian & non Australian...that's their job. Just because a dividend is paid it doesn't mean WA citizens who own the ore have to subsidise others with an unfairly low rental fee. Not valid, not fair. As of mid-February 2009, shareholders were geographically distributed 42% in the United Kingdom, 18% in North America, 16% in Australia, 14% in Asia, and 10% in continental Europe. You see that right, only 16% of shares are owned by Aussies.
Equates to FOREIGN owned. Lets look at the figures closely another way...
60% OF THE SHAREHOLDERS LIVE OVERSEAS IN THE UK & NORTH AMERICA WHILST ONLY 16% ARE AUSTRALIAN.
Combined, Asia & continental Europe own more shares than Australians.
Now BHP -
Again listed on 2 stock exchanges directly...
Biggest shareholder...BHP multi national listed on ASX & London's FTSE - biggest shareholder is Bank of America. Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, State of Wisconsin Trading Board, Credit Suisse, Bank of Montreal all listed as the biggest shareholders, along with a big number of foreign investment & clearing houses, don't take my word for it, go check for yourself. All easily obtainable information. Good luck finding Aussie super funds or individual shareholders in the 50 biggest shareholders...or the Top 100
Multi National, not Australian.
Myth 5 - Its profits benefit our Aussie Super Funds so slugging them will harm us. Well No. Quite frankly No, No, No way in God's green earth. Super funds are managed daily & hourly. If a stock should look to be likely to become a non performer, falling below the required return level, the stock is quit & replaced by better performers. Your Super Fund is NOT Rio/BHP fixed for life. Its about returns, not locked in for life. Absurd to think otherwise.
2nd point, the Super funds invest in a balanced fashion, so only a percentage is listed shares, only a percentage of that are Australian listed shares, only a percentage of that are Mining & Industrials shares and only a percentage of that are actually RIO or BHP.
Raising the rent fee to a fair for WA level of $5 will not affect your super at all.
Now some more facts...it is unfair and unreasonable to leave a company's cost of doing business, that is tax deductible at 1960s levels...unchanged whilst power, transport and other costs sky rocket. That point cannot be argued.
Whilst infrastructure needs ongoing money, it has to come from somewhere. It'll come from the dwindling pot and who pays?
Struggling W.A. Mum & Dad citizens & their families.
As a result, WA's struggling Mum n Dads and elderly citizens are subsidising 2 wealthy foreign owned Mining Companies. Remember when the iron ore price hit $38/tonne we saw the miners claim that they were competitive & profitable at that rate.
Its now hit $90/tonne. I think they have capacity to pay what is undeniable fair & just.
Its not a tax, nothing to do with royalties, its not going to affect your super, they're not Australian owned, they're wealthy, exporting huge profits and an added subsidised bonus from you if you're a WA citizen.
But if we make it unprofitable for the mining companies, they'll pack up & leave.
Really? Well that might be 100% right, but raising the rent fee to $5 will not make them leave. Where exactly are they going to get the same high grade ore, with the same stable government and NOT have to spend the same amount of money already invested in infrastructure and still gained great profits at $38/tonne?
Where exactly is such a place all set up ready to go, or where exactly is another place that's also viable? Here's the thing, if there's equal or better margins available elsewhere, they'll be there now or as soon as the can afford to be there no matter what happens in Australia's north. They will just expand and soak it up. All of it, as much as they can.
The $4.75/tonne they've been unfairly soaking up since the mid 1960s is a sweet surgical gouge that remains an industry joke it has been for decades.
And we pay.
Myth 6 - "Forcing them to pay..." We can't. Here's the funny thing, the arrangement is called a State Agreement and they're being used less and less these days. It requires both the Mining Company & the State Government to agree to the change. One party says no, its off the table. There is no unconstitutional tax bill required. So why does Rio and BHP just ignore it all until it gets put on the table and then say no? Because of Corporate Social Responsibility. If they have any they'll just say yes because to say no is indefensible and would affect their share price as the Corporate damage to their image would be immense. Better to see it nipped in the bud waaaaaay before it is negotiated. Perhaps its just coincidental and fortuitous that the Liberal/Labor Duopoly, the Chamber of Commerce & Industry WA and the Chamber of Mines & Energy all came in trying to bury it BEFORE it could be accepted and presented at the negotiation table. The fact that mining interests poured big dollars into knocking Brendon Grylls out of parliament over it speaks volumes. He tried to cut the unfair Mums n Dads subsidy going offshore but a wealthy foreign mining plutocracy got its way & the mining industry got to influence who got into the WA Parliament and who didn't.
That Sovereign Over Reach is every bit as despicable as the gouging social theft it sought to protect.
THE CURRENT SITUATION IS UNFAIR AND INDEFENSIBLE.
Its time.
#Time2StandUp4WA or its time to accept you should always export bits of your pay packet overseas to wealthy foreign investors.
Myth 1 - Its not a tax. Its a Special Rental Fee.
Myth 2 - It has nothing to do with taxes although as a cost of doing business (not a tax) its a tax deductible expense.
Myth 3 - The Mining companies pay $19+ dollars a tonne royalties, not 25 cents...well actually no one said anything about it being a 25c royalty except the deceptive advertising campaign. The 25c Special Rent Fee has nothing to do with Royalties at all. Only thing they have in common is they're both set a per tonne rate. That's it. Get fooled by the advert?
Myth 4 - Rio/BHP are Aussie companies paying tax here. Well they pay some tax here, and recently one got slugged a back dated tax bill for millions they hadn't properly paid...but that's not relevant of course. Fact is they're not Aussie Companies, they're Multi National Companies listed on the ASX & the London FTSE. Having said that, there's also a vehicle that allows you to buy shares via the NYSX too even though they're not directly listed there...but that's not relevant too I guess.
Here's what is relevant on the "Aussie Company" angle.
Rio Tinto has been a multi national since its inception in 1873 when it started mining, as a foreign miner in Spain. Its listed on 2 stock exchanges. They pay dividends to lots of people, Australian & non Australian...that's their job. Just because a dividend is paid it doesn't mean WA citizens who own the ore have to subsidise others with an unfairly low rental fee. Not valid, not fair. As of mid-February 2009, shareholders were geographically distributed 42% in the United Kingdom, 18% in North America, 16% in Australia, 14% in Asia, and 10% in continental Europe. You see that right, only 16% of shares are owned by Aussies.
Equates to FOREIGN owned. Lets look at the figures closely another way...
60% OF THE SHAREHOLDERS LIVE OVERSEAS IN THE UK & NORTH AMERICA WHILST ONLY 16% ARE AUSTRALIAN.
Combined, Asia & continental Europe own more shares than Australians.
Now BHP -
Again listed on 2 stock exchanges directly...
Biggest shareholder...BHP multi national listed on ASX & London's FTSE - biggest shareholder is Bank of America. Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, State of Wisconsin Trading Board, Credit Suisse, Bank of Montreal all listed as the biggest shareholders, along with a big number of foreign investment & clearing houses, don't take my word for it, go check for yourself. All easily obtainable information. Good luck finding Aussie super funds or individual shareholders in the 50 biggest shareholders...or the Top 100
Multi National, not Australian.
Myth 5 - Its profits benefit our Aussie Super Funds so slugging them will harm us. Well No. Quite frankly No, No, No way in God's green earth. Super funds are managed daily & hourly. If a stock should look to be likely to become a non performer, falling below the required return level, the stock is quit & replaced by better performers. Your Super Fund is NOT Rio/BHP fixed for life. Its about returns, not locked in for life. Absurd to think otherwise.
2nd point, the Super funds invest in a balanced fashion, so only a percentage is listed shares, only a percentage of that are Australian listed shares, only a percentage of that are Mining & Industrials shares and only a percentage of that are actually RIO or BHP.
Raising the rent fee to a fair for WA level of $5 will not affect your super at all.
Now some more facts...it is unfair and unreasonable to leave a company's cost of doing business, that is tax deductible at 1960s levels...unchanged whilst power, transport and other costs sky rocket. That point cannot be argued.
Whilst infrastructure needs ongoing money, it has to come from somewhere. It'll come from the dwindling pot and who pays?
Struggling W.A. Mum & Dad citizens & their families.
As a result, WA's struggling Mum n Dads and elderly citizens are subsidising 2 wealthy foreign owned Mining Companies. Remember when the iron ore price hit $38/tonne we saw the miners claim that they were competitive & profitable at that rate.
Its now hit $90/tonne. I think they have capacity to pay what is undeniable fair & just.
Its not a tax, nothing to do with royalties, its not going to affect your super, they're not Australian owned, they're wealthy, exporting huge profits and an added subsidised bonus from you if you're a WA citizen.
But if we make it unprofitable for the mining companies, they'll pack up & leave.
Really? Well that might be 100% right, but raising the rent fee to $5 will not make them leave. Where exactly are they going to get the same high grade ore, with the same stable government and NOT have to spend the same amount of money already invested in infrastructure and still gained great profits at $38/tonne?
Where exactly is such a place all set up ready to go, or where exactly is another place that's also viable? Here's the thing, if there's equal or better margins available elsewhere, they'll be there now or as soon as the can afford to be there no matter what happens in Australia's north. They will just expand and soak it up. All of it, as much as they can.
The $4.75/tonne they've been unfairly soaking up since the mid 1960s is a sweet surgical gouge that remains an industry joke it has been for decades.
And we pay.
Myth 6 - "Forcing them to pay..." We can't. Here's the funny thing, the arrangement is called a State Agreement and they're being used less and less these days. It requires both the Mining Company & the State Government to agree to the change. One party says no, its off the table. There is no unconstitutional tax bill required. So why does Rio and BHP just ignore it all until it gets put on the table and then say no? Because of Corporate Social Responsibility. If they have any they'll just say yes because to say no is indefensible and would affect their share price as the Corporate damage to their image would be immense. Better to see it nipped in the bud waaaaaay before it is negotiated. Perhaps its just coincidental and fortuitous that the Liberal/Labor Duopoly, the Chamber of Commerce & Industry WA and the Chamber of Mines & Energy all came in trying to bury it BEFORE it could be accepted and presented at the negotiation table. The fact that mining interests poured big dollars into knocking Brendon Grylls out of parliament over it speaks volumes. He tried to cut the unfair Mums n Dads subsidy going offshore but a wealthy foreign mining plutocracy got its way & the mining industry got to influence who got into the WA Parliament and who didn't.
That Sovereign Over Reach is every bit as despicable as the gouging social theft it sought to protect.
THE CURRENT SITUATION IS UNFAIR AND INDEFENSIBLE.
Its time.
#Time2StandUp4WA or its time to accept you should always export bits of your pay packet overseas to wealthy foreign investors.
Monday 3 April 2017
In the Cold Dark Post WA Election Shadow
The new opportunity of proper distinction now exists. But who, if anyone will take it up?
The chance to develop a platform of distinctively unique WA based representation. The recent 4Corners show titled "Please Explain" opened up a few One Nation cans of worms with many questions left unanswered but among them is who's in charge and who are they serving.
It appeared as though Paul Hanson's One Nation Party is very much the Pauline & James show. Here in WA we have 3 PHON MPs in the Upper House but its been very much Pauline calling the shots. One classic was candidates being told by the party there'd be no preference deal with the Liberals. In a day or so Pauline announced a preference deal.
So here we have a Queensland based politician, who sits in the Federal Senate calling the shots for a political party in WA. No, not unheard of but if there's no separation of states the duty they owe is clouded. Again its not unheard of but the thing is Pauline may have been in Parliament longer than most of us, but she's not exactly a sophisticated statesman. During the Fed & State campaigns she floundered on local issues and the local candidates at times were lost for answers.
Liberals appear to be for Liberals. WA's Fed Liberal MPs are for the federal party and the State Lib MPs are 100% for the WA Liberal Party.
Labor is similar but often to a lesser extent and Nationals to a lesser extent also.
But which will be the first Party in WA to put WA first at both the State & Federal arenas?
At present its likely to be anyone...but not the Liberals.
The Liberal/Labor Duopoly is not an unfair name. Especially as neither has done anything about WA's slice of the GST. Few complaints from state MPs but nothing earth shattering, more hollow platitudes, going through the motions.
The Nats went close with Tony Crook...for a while but now there's no Nats Fed MPs at all.
Shooters, Fishers & Farmers Party has Rick Mazza here and other MPs over east, but the eastern states based members, like Robert Borsak aren't from WA and they don't want to work with the Nationals, they want the Nats out, they want the Nat's seats. Rick has a largely Liberal platform, to the point where some think & refer to the SFFP here as being "Liberals with guns, farmers with fishing rods and just a few toothless bush bogans"
Think its a bit deeper than that, but there's a good deal of fact underpinning it.
What we're going to need is a party that is not so much a break away party, nor a new party, but one that will plug into the Deplorable, disenchanted mindset and put WA first. Its very hard for the Duopoly, they're very much tied to the east. I think its utterly impossible for PHON which only leaves the Nationals & the SFFP.
Chances there? Maybe slim but way better than any of the others. Be good if Nats & SFFP worked together more often.
Time'll tell.
The party that first successfully develops a distinctly WA Bias, a WA Strategy, a WA based strategic bias will be well placed in the next State and/or Fed election.
Yeah, its long time til both elections, lost of water to go under the bridge...or members under the bus in the case of PHON but it would be outstanding to see a party get horribly biased towards WA, very unapologetic about it, if not proudly waving the flag.
Wonder if any party will and who it'll be. Seeing I lost pretty much every bet I thought I'd win on elections past, I'll just go with no party will.
Sorry I just don't think any party in WA should be a sad franchise rules from outside our state...or at least remains quiet when they should be attacking their own MPs in Canberra.
I live in hope. Hope may arrive on the back of a rainbow coloured unicorn ridden by John Belushi in a dinner suit. That latter bit connects the hope with potential chances of happening perhaps.
Hope I get that wrong too
The chance to develop a platform of distinctively unique WA based representation. The recent 4Corners show titled "Please Explain" opened up a few One Nation cans of worms with many questions left unanswered but among them is who's in charge and who are they serving.
It appeared as though Paul Hanson's One Nation Party is very much the Pauline & James show. Here in WA we have 3 PHON MPs in the Upper House but its been very much Pauline calling the shots. One classic was candidates being told by the party there'd be no preference deal with the Liberals. In a day or so Pauline announced a preference deal.
So here we have a Queensland based politician, who sits in the Federal Senate calling the shots for a political party in WA. No, not unheard of but if there's no separation of states the duty they owe is clouded. Again its not unheard of but the thing is Pauline may have been in Parliament longer than most of us, but she's not exactly a sophisticated statesman. During the Fed & State campaigns she floundered on local issues and the local candidates at times were lost for answers.
Liberals appear to be for Liberals. WA's Fed Liberal MPs are for the federal party and the State Lib MPs are 100% for the WA Liberal Party.
Labor is similar but often to a lesser extent and Nationals to a lesser extent also.
But which will be the first Party in WA to put WA first at both the State & Federal arenas?
At present its likely to be anyone...but not the Liberals.
The Liberal/Labor Duopoly is not an unfair name. Especially as neither has done anything about WA's slice of the GST. Few complaints from state MPs but nothing earth shattering, more hollow platitudes, going through the motions.
The Nats went close with Tony Crook...for a while but now there's no Nats Fed MPs at all.
Shooters, Fishers & Farmers Party has Rick Mazza here and other MPs over east, but the eastern states based members, like Robert Borsak aren't from WA and they don't want to work with the Nationals, they want the Nats out, they want the Nat's seats. Rick has a largely Liberal platform, to the point where some think & refer to the SFFP here as being "Liberals with guns, farmers with fishing rods and just a few toothless bush bogans"
Think its a bit deeper than that, but there's a good deal of fact underpinning it.
What we're going to need is a party that is not so much a break away party, nor a new party, but one that will plug into the Deplorable, disenchanted mindset and put WA first. Its very hard for the Duopoly, they're very much tied to the east. I think its utterly impossible for PHON which only leaves the Nationals & the SFFP.
Chances there? Maybe slim but way better than any of the others. Be good if Nats & SFFP worked together more often.
Time'll tell.
The party that first successfully develops a distinctly WA Bias, a WA Strategy, a WA based strategic bias will be well placed in the next State and/or Fed election.
Yeah, its long time til both elections, lost of water to go under the bridge...or members under the bus in the case of PHON but it would be outstanding to see a party get horribly biased towards WA, very unapologetic about it, if not proudly waving the flag.
Wonder if any party will and who it'll be. Seeing I lost pretty much every bet I thought I'd win on elections past, I'll just go with no party will.
Sorry I just don't think any party in WA should be a sad franchise rules from outside our state...or at least remains quiet when they should be attacking their own MPs in Canberra.
I live in hope. Hope may arrive on the back of a rainbow coloured unicorn ridden by John Belushi in a dinner suit. That latter bit connects the hope with potential chances of happening perhaps.
Hope I get that wrong too
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)