Kerryn Phelps et al & The "Sensible Centre"

Yes, what the heck is the "Sensible Centre" ?

Well sensible is subjective and Kerryn applies it to the version of Centre that she thinks exists and she belongs to. Yes, she is saying she is "centre" and she is "sensible" possibly implying any & all others of whatever centre are not sensible. She's gone into Identity Politics straight away & as people do when they go Identity Politics she's also created the Hierarchy. At the top is...her. Also in her group are her fellow "sensibles" (arguably sensible)

One thing is for sure, her centre has many Leftist aspects. One think is for sure it seems Liberal defector Julia Banks is largely on the same Hymn Sheet and largely on song with Kerryn Phelps, the true extent will unfold in time. One other thing that has already unfolded is that Kerryn Phelps was in close contact with Malcolm Turnbull during the Wentworth election and probably since.

Its also now known that Liberal defector Julia Banks who is not yet through her first term in Parliament was a big Turnbull supporter. In the weeks prior to her resigning from the Liberal Party and going to the cross bench we now know she was consulting with Kerryn Phelps.

Imagine that, a person still in her first term office was consulting with another person who hadn't at the time actually entered the chamber as a MP. Yes, the same Kerryn Phelps that had been working quietly with Malcolm Turnbull.
Yes straight after Kerryn Phelps first speech upon entering the Parliament Julia Banks couldn't get down the front quick enough to hug & congratulate Kerryn's appointment. In fact she raced down one direction, saw it was too slow, raced back up past her own seat and went the way Julie Bishop went. Not walked, more like bolted.

This not looking like a new cross bench this is looking more like the Liberal Left who were trounced and are beginning to think about leaving to join "the sensible centre". Well one member and possibly 3 others before the end of the week. Negotiations will turn white hot & some will gain some great incentives to stay on. Some may still defect to the cross bench where media attention, power & control will be on offer in spades.
Thing is the "sensible centre" looks remarkable like code for "independent centre left" not at all conservative nor centre nor of the right.

Identity Politics will be a hall mark if they're more left than they prefer to admit.
Watch and see.
Julia Banks being a big Turnbull ally will probably have been in consultation with Malcolm over resigning. We'll see.

So Malcolm being probably the most leftist Liberal PM ever has attained full sniping ghost status and probably will be implicated in the Liberal Party's massive unravelling since he went to New York.

Prince Machiavelli would be very impressed.

Malcolm is not putting the nation's interest first.
Neither was Julia Banks.
It remains to be seen if Julia & the new Cross Bench do put the nation first because of late "Nationhood & Statesmanship" have eluded the Parliament generally and so far are looking very absent from the current Lower House cross bench.

I expect that Equal Outcomes will be pushed ahead of Equal Opportunities. That will be co-joined with a version of Identity Politics that will create it's own protected hierarchy that will be entirely made up of most of the cross bench and the Labor Party when it suits.
Think Bob Katter will be marginalised by the new Hierarchy that's coming.

The new "sensible centre" will in fact be a "neo-centre left" that is centred on identity politics and very leftist in nature.
A corrupted form of feminism will be one plank & if it's not careful it will successfully become counter productive to women by being focused on equal outcomes, not equal opportunities.

I'll watch with interest but I can firmly state I am very much in favour of Equal Opportunities but very much against bypassing that to achieve a short cut to Equal Outcomes.

I'll get the pop corn ready. I have a fairly good idea of the "sensible centre's narrative" & who will be painted unfairly as the victim & the villains.

WA's Voluntary Assissted Dying

Its begun again and there is a Select Committee that has compiled a report but legislation is probably not going to be put forward until late 2019.

That's where its at & by the way the report is 600+ pages long.

So soon we'll be asked where we stand & what we want so there's a couple of responses...

a) Glad we're being asked what we want. That's democracy.

b) I or the opposing view...one of us won't get our way. That's democracy.

c) Sometimes good things get legislated, sometimes bad things do. That's democracy.

d) Sometimes bad legislation isn't dropped, sometimes it is, sometimes good legislation gets dropped...that's democracy.
For all its faults I wouldn't want to be without democracy.

What I very much don't like is this being used as a vehicle to expand or attack a worldview whether its a religion or opposition to religion. I'm expecting that people of faith will be expected to enter into the debate with whatever view they have, (influenced or dictated by their religion or not) but argue from a secular basis. This is very much the way to go as it's pointless citing Christian Scripture to make a point when some people will never be Christians. Some of them are non Christians and some might be ANTI Christians.

Similarly I expect those who are atheists, agnostics, Humanists, Utilitarians to cite facts relevant to the issue & not cite their worldview or philosophy to make a point. When either side does this its an argument from authority that the other side may never ever agree to concede to.

Similarly whilst someone shouldn't cite in context exegesis of the Bible, people shouldn't cite out of context interpretations of any holy scripture. Nor should anyone use it as a vehicle to denigrate or pot shot at a world view they dismiss or dislike.

We do not live in a theocracy, there is no religion run government, no one is ramming the Bible down anyone's throat. That's a false premise.

Some people will have a view on the sanctity of life and that's possibly a self found premise or it's influence by their religious faith. Either way that's every bit as valid as anyone's view but if we're to look at a controversial issue like Euthanasia, Capital Punishment or Abortion (the big difficult three) then we have to look at them whichever way we want but present in the secular fashion.

Its not a vehicle to push a religious view (even if it comes from there) nor is it a vehicle to lampoon a religious view even if you disagree with it...I can go the religious pathway if either a religious or non religious person pipes up...but whilst I might win an argument from that angle it won't deliver an outcome that's fair to all.

You watch, its coming and I expect to hear the words happy clappers, god botherers, religious nut jobs, sky fairies.
Good chance of hearing the words sinners, killers, suicide, murder, God haters and the list goes on.

If there's to be a proper cogent argument, its going to be bloody difficult to keep anyone's worldview out of it but that has to be everyone's aim

On the big difficult 3...
Its always difficult.

Huge amount of back ground information is available here
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/commit.nsf/($all)/702507C2CB8742824825818700247E53?opendocument

The Select Committee Report is available here
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/commit.nsf/(Report+Lookup+by+Com+ID)/71C9AFECD0FAEE6E482582F200037B37/$file/Joint%20Select%20Committe%20on%20the%20End%20of%20Life%20Choices%20-%20Report%20for%20Website.pdf

So Barnaby Joyce...

Yes Barnaby Joyce popped up in the news again & a good friend who's of a different political bent than me contacted me. As always a cordial exchange, even when we disagree we don't get disagreeable. Who won? Dunno, who cares?

Friend - So I suppose you heard Barnaby Joyce is in the news this morning? He won pre-selection for the seat of New England. What's the go there for goodness sakes?

Me - Ahh ok, no I didn't know that but yeah I guess he ran, process was run and he was chosen. What's the issue?

Friend - Well after all his goings on you'd think they'd tip him out?

Me - Why?

Friend - Well after all those allegations you'd think the Nats would have the decency & the good sense to throw him on the tip don't you think?

Me - Well no not really.

Friend - Why the hell not? Are you completely mad?

Me - Mad? Possibly if so I probably wouldn't know but that's not relevant. What's relevant is I don't know what he did or didn't do. I know some allegations were made but never made public, no charges have been laid & the Nats process deemed it all to be "inconclusive". So if he's not proven to have done anything one way or the other, beyond reasonable doubt it's not really blind natural justice to push a penalty on him just for penalty sake. If the pre-selectors thought he was the best person to stand and his selection is in the best interests of the Party, the NSW Nats party then so it is.

Friend - I can't believe you're defending him

Me - I am not defending anyone, nor attacking anyone but I am defending the rights of all our citizens to be considered innocent until proven otherwise. That's not defending guilty, that's defending citizen rights to a fair hearing or if need be a fair trial. We cannot short circuit due process and convict people just because. There's a reason there is no Star Chamber in this country.

Friend - Yeah but you got to admit, its on the nose?

Me - Ignore this is concocted but imagine I went public and said "Do not trust Mother Teresa, she stole from me, she is a thief. Tell everyone not to trust her at all. Thieving woman" What would your response be?

Friend - I'd say you're talking rubbish end of story.

Me - Possibly. Effectively I made a claim without evidence that could potentially harm anther person's character and your response was not to ask for facts to back the statement up or contact the authorities it was just to respond in a dismissive way...a dismissive way that makes a claim "that's rubbish". Either way NO facts used, presented or exchanged. Do we convict & clear all charged people this way?

Friend - OK I see your point.

Me - That's all I hope for, disagreeing is your choice but staking a premise that conflicts with another needs facts and evidence as the blind justice pivot point to see which side on the scales rises and falls.
I dunno what he did or didn't do. I know allegations were made but I don't know where, what, when & why. I just know one person made a claim and its was found inconclusive. Not to say it did or didn't happen just that some one decided there's no definite answer.

Friend - So where do you sit with #metoo movement then?

Me - Simple, all allegations need to be taken seriously. All complainants need to be supported in coming forward and we should encourage anyone in coming forward. We need to hear their story & it needs to be test at arms length, independently by the system and let the system judge the result without fear or favour. Just on provable facts and evidence. That's not always what #metoo does.
In the Kavanagh case in the US the #metoo thing cranked right up and said women don't lie about these things, a woman must be believed no matter what. Well turns out one woman who claimed to have been raped subsequently admit she'd never met the guy.
Yes bad guys get convicted, sometimes bad guys get off but blind independent justice must be the process we defend & insist on.

Friend - What if a woman can't prove it then?

Me - Then that is a tragic thing but we must convict people "beyond reasonable doubt" not with reasonable opinion. Yes good people become victims and get no justice sometimes, male & female, adult & child but we cannot abandon due process & let in even a subtle lynch mob.

Friend - See what you mean but are you happy about Barnaby getting pre-selected?

Me - To be honest...2 words, staggering indifference. Pre-selectors made the decision, not my electorate, not even my state. Their call. He's a special envoy for the drought, so while he's there keep him working flat strap. I don't know if someone ran against him or if there was if they were better electorally or not. Barnaby is Barnaby. It is what it is.

Friend - You got to admit that #metoo is the best thing to happen lately?

Me - Depends on what you think its doing lately. Its caused 2 primary producers I know to decide to vow to not to employ any female back packers on their harvest & seeding workforce because there's a thing called Vicarious Liability. Its where its possible for an employer to be prosecuted or penalised if a worker is sexually assaulted by his/her co worker and the victim says the employer failed to provide a safe workplace. Saddens me to think things have descended to a point where this is a thing So instead of solving the problem some employers are delivering women a barrier to employment because its safer & easier. It's counter productive to fairness, equality & safety...and yet those two farmers are not changing their minds now.

Friend - So what's your answer?

Me - Well raise standards for sure. Support victims when they come forward. Help them to understand if they make an allegation it needs to be done properly with supportive yet independent process where an outcome is derived solely by evidence to ensure if a person is found guilty it's guilty beyond reasonable doubt...not gut feeling.

Friend - Yeah but will that work?

Me - Most of the time it probably will. Some victims will not ever get justice. This is the way its always been though & we can't go down the path way where unfounded allegations are enough to convict or defame people. Life's tough, life is hard but we must be the best we can be by sticking to blind natural justice.

Friend - In my opinion he shouldn't have been selected.

Me - Well that's an opinion, your opinion and respect your right to believe whatever you want. Me, I'm still stuck on staggering indifference. He's not charged nor convicted of anything. Irrespective of what may or may not have happened, no evidence means no charges or prejudice.
Fact remains the Federal Parliament lacks statesmanship & nationhood as primary drivers. That goes for all parties. When those 2 things left the building the decline quickened.
That's just an opinion so...

Friend - No we totally agree on that.

Me - Yeah but I haven't got the answers to that though ;-)

Is #metoo good or bad or...

Anything that helps reduce sexual assaults is good. Anything that reduces sexual harassment is good.

The #metoo "movement" went through a toxic & damaging phase where it was counter productive and frankly I haven't looked at the US phenomena for a very long time...but I do know some things.

I agree with the Ben Shapiro line of thought, name a perpetrator, state the offence and I'll very much support any victim justice. Not sure about Shapiro's idea of castrating & then jailing the guilty. I'll have to think about that although first thought is that's fine.

But if you make an allegation, name the person but not the detail then I cannot stand by that because its not how the rule of law & nature justice operates in the West.

Consider this false scenario yelled all over main stream media and insert your name where you see *INSERT NAME HERE*

"I want people to know that * INSERT NAME HERE* stole from me and you should not trust them at all, not ever for being a cold, heartless thief"

Is that enough to convict someone in court? No & rightly so.

Is that enough to convict someone on Social Media? For some it is, for some it's enough to have doubt about that person's character and yes it probably might result in some sort of legal action like defamation etc.

Bottom line is, without saying what was stolen, where and when whilst proving it you have tarnished someone's integrity...or potentially tarnished their reputation.

You cannot do that. The #metoo movement did do that or at least some people attaching themselves to the movement did.

The other problem is sexual harassment in the workplace. Yes it has to stop...in the workplace or anywhere but what is it? If there is any touching involved its pretty straight forward, but is flirting ok? Many people have married or had romances with co-workers.

Unwanted advances are sexual harassment? I'm sure they potentially can be but lines can be very blurry and among other things some employers are already worrying about productivity and reputational risk if there's a sexual harassment claim in their workplace. Not to mention any suffering it might cause people whether its true or not.

2 primary producers, different businesses, different districts (and although its irrelevant, different genders) said if it gets much worse they were only going to employ males.

This happened in the USA when some state passed a law regarding the equipment needed for workplaces that had disabled workers. Small shop front business found it easy. Any large business or factory it got hugely expensive with one factory need to install nearly a million dollars of modifications across their factory & the work yard when the disabled person was up front in a office doing data entry. Since the law came in the employment numbers of people with a disability plummeted noticeably.

So yes good intentions can have unintentional negative effects.

I'm also wary of stakeholders carving out a living as "experts" in the field of sexual harassment. I'm sure they're more knowledgeable than me on the subject but if they tout statistics or data that isn't scientifically collected and interpreted properly using sound methodology and peer reviewed...well its just an "experts" opinion on fallible data. That's not how we are supposed to make decisions.

This why I will quickly stand by anyone who does things properly, but if naming and not detailing allegations properly is to become some sort of norm we have a very big social problem ahead of us. We are gifting a free card to anyone willing to falsely smear another.
That is not how justice works.

Nor should it.

Yes I'm sure some people will get off the hook, they probably do everyday but unless proof and evidence convicts a person an allegation has to swept aside.
Its how our courts work much to the disgust and chagrin of the Leftist activist who really do embrace Post Modernist Marxism.