How They Affect You -> Aspiring Political Candidates.

Wiser man that me told me "It's easy to find a good candidate, it's damn hard to find that right person at that perfect sweet spot in their life's journey to become a candidate & a possibly a MP"

And yes, he was a MP but not quite through his first term.

And yes, it was when I'd been asked to help seek out & list potential candidates for them.

And yes, I found plenty. In a small electorate of 300 km² and a population of 35,000.

Strangely 2 of them were on a short list for that party but were never followed up. Both ran against that party, one came first, one came second. And no, I don't think the best person won. One that missed out would have made a great legislator having the over horizon vision needed to assess most likely outcomes good & bad whilst possessing pretty good interpersonal skills to negotiate concessions when needed. Often the best candidate does not get elected. Life goes on.

So yes the party in question found a long list of potential candidates. One seemed good but not in the right spot of their life's journey. Another definitely had the skills to be a very good legislator and was well versed in politics, parliamentary process & the role of policy makers but again, wrong timing.

But then there's the troubling paradox which is politely left unspoken. Not thought about perhaps (which is more troubling) but is very much unspoken...

The Unspoken Political Dilemma.

Who to select...those that might be a better chance of being elected versus those who are likely to be a damn good community builder within the Upper or Lower House? Those that by building & reviewing legislation, processing forward estimates, budget papers, learning to join the dots between the aspirations of their electorate & the ministers involved, whether you're in government or opposition.
Which, because the latter might not be the easiest of the two to elect?

Not being kind or unkind to the wise MP but I don't think he was hiding The Unspoken Political Dilemma but its now at the fore front of my mind.

So who should go into politics? Well I have always thought it should be someone who's spent time in the Party Machine, somewhere. Watched debate in parliament in person or online, has looked at Hansard more than a few times and has some understanding of Parliamentary Procedures, Process, Rules.
Sometimes MPs changes houses, sometimes they go from State to Federal or vice versa. If the person has been in Parliament it's a pretty tough call to deny them pre-selection if others running are green skins. The green skins may well be of a currently considered highly electable demographic, but how do they compare against a season MP? Honestly, not well.

If its Skills vs Frills at that level, it must be the case at all levels yeah?

No.

More often the driver is winning a seat. I can point to a number of candidates, both Federal & State, Upper & Lower Houses (in both) in the last 4 or 5 elections, in every major party where someone was parachuted in or was deemed the highly electable sort (at the time) bit of a name or bit of a star profile. Some got in & some didn't. Its sometimes difficult to hide the under performing new MP who probably has hit their peak level already

Then there are the ones who lost out. Some who didn't know even know which suburb Parliament House is in. Ones that ran & lost and never contributed to their campaign upfront like everyone else & afterwards when they lost said "Sorry I can't pay that, I haven't got the money"
Yup there's more than a few. I think they ran as a way of refinancing their failing personal finances.
You're going into Parliament, not changing bloody banks.

Why would you Pre-Select such people? To win the damn seat.
Some very electable people can turn out to be muppets & puppets. They might win, but they'll be of no use to anyone except the party Whip, Leader, Deputy because they know they can control that person if there's an internal threat, a spill.

And then there are the skills & experiences that a candidate should have before entering Politics. And yes it's great if someone is very young but if they lack skills & experiences and are then guided & directed by a dangerous faction or a strict ideologue what good are they to society whilst in Parliament?
I say little to none

How can they legislate in a way to help society if they've not run a business, raised a family, worked hard to pay a mortgage, all these life experience skills that give you the edge when it comes to legislation requiring wisdom not dogma?

Ahh just win the seat, worry about modelling the clay that is the new MP later?
Really?

Some people try to sneak a sunrise past a rooster, this is a big example. A big & very serious example.
If you're thinking about it, talk to an elected member, ask their workload, skills required.
Then if you're still keen, watch this short video. If you're failing to nail it and nail easily the points made in the short video then think about another career. 4 short minutes of wise advice you cannot afford to miss. And yes its only scratching the surface but if you can't satisfy these point, pull out now.

NEW!!! On Starting a Political Career - Jordan Peterson - YouTube

If you're not running but interested in who is what in the Parliament making your laws...do this.
Go pick a Parliament, pick a house then research all the MPs and put them in one of two columns...

Ones that have a suitable past, run a business, managed someone else's business, raised a family & done well. Ones that have come straight from university or only worked in a lobby group or for a political party or a MP only or had jobs & families but they went disasterously.
Now see what your ratio is.
Excuse me if I think the Good to Bad ratio is several times higher in the bad column. At one point I tried this and one particular house in one particular parliament...there were less than 20% in the good column.

If you're thinking of running yourself,  look to the party you've chosen, is it run well? Does it have good professional standards of Corporate Goevrnance? Does it have a structure that works like it says it does? 
Ideology? Yes that's important but its your guide not your damn ruler. Don't join the Liberal Party if you're inline with the Greens or Nationals or Labor or Daylight Saving Party. Yes some have joined parties they didn't align with because that was the party that took them.

If their higher ups are strict ideologues or dollar chasing pirates be very careful. Machivellen players exsist in every single party. Go in eyes wide open, with an idea what might be good or turn bad, have a good radar.

And do not discount the possibility, its not good for you afterall.

Climate Emissions, Communism, Outcomes & Targets...or in other words Confusion

 So most countries are off to Glasgow, targets will be set & we assume most will sign on. We'll see how that shakes out. Some of the bigger emitters aren't going, no restrictions will apply to them until 2030 anyway & if they ignore them, good luck bringing them into line. 

Sideline problem is when the bigger emitters aren't so much 3rd World Countries, the biggest are 2nd world countries. China, Russia and strangely mostly Marxist led to some extent. 
They will be the big elephant in the room.

Countries where the State rules everything and individual rights are abolished will be the problem. In these nations they have enjoyed huge economic growth over past decades. But in the case of China, communist as it may well claim to be, it does not and never has distribute wealth to all its citizens. It has not ever re-distributed the means of production to everyone. Instead the state approves or disapproves a venture. Is there corruption? Imagine if starting a business here in Australia or WA required heavy consideration by the very small, extremely powerful & authoratarian ruling class before approval or rejection is made. 

Communism in China requires non stop economic growth. Non stop.
It did in Cuba too but it was a very small island nation with few natural resources, no hordes of low paid workers in thousands of manufacturing firms...from sweat shop to factory floor. It really couldn't rise out of 3rd world under Castro, not without support from Russia and others.

China is different, it has replaced a lot of manufacturing industries worldwide. Staff are not just cheap, they're plentiful and sadly disposable in every sense of the word.
Its a business model the west cannot compete with. It is in effect an nation of sweatshop labor unless you're at the top where the wealth is again centralised.

So its communist by name, but its worse than free market. You may not pack & move to start a small business. You have virtually no individual rights like a Westerner. If you want to ask for those rights in order to be free to flourish, chances up you will be jailed for subversion or you will recieve an express ticket to meet your maker.

Is it legal? That state rules everything, everything the state does is legal. Everything.
Is it immoral? Its not a country running any moral code beyond the state is all, nothing worthwhile exists outside the state. So, the state can do anything at all & technically in their current law & culture it can never be legitmately called unlawful or immoral.
The state is God.

China's economy like all communist regimes is a smouldering house of cards and big winds are approaching. Collapse is not only inevitable, its unavoidable. Only constant growth can delay the collapse. Right now, their economy is still dining out on artifically growth.

Do you think China, a communist country intent on redistribution of wealth, the means & ownership of production would again be #2 country for billionaires & yet no Chinese citizen is permitted to own land and rural poverty is extreme.
It the big end of town is totally controlled by the militarised end of town.

For growth to continue, they cannot afford to match the emissions progress of other countries. So they won't. 

Marxist countries, any of them are charactierised by full state control. Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Nazis...all need supreme control wrested in the state, individual rights extinguished or near extinguished and dissent will be brutally crushed. That is the Marxist cat, the rest is just different stripes.

In the world economy our biggest threat is the artifical economies of far left governments. They will remain the biggest polluters and emitters. They will be exempted the longest if not always to keep the cards in a semblence of a house like structure.This will include movement. You cannot move communist countries to the right, towards proper individual rights and market economy so to keep things afloat you have to slowly move the west to the Communist model and break Agriculture, small business & slowly remove their rights, increase their burden.

Think we're seeing that?
Look at who the financial imposts & technical changes are being imposed on now and on whom the most. Those in western economies that are at primary end, that are small businesses, that are below the big end of town.
If you're not with a very large SME or bigger & even then somewhat up the food chain, good luck keeping your job if it can't be exported to a country who can do your job for a fraction of the cost, have no emissions taxes or costs and few rules to go by.

Ironically people forget Animal Farm. Its a predictive text. Communism ( or its different striped cats from the same litter) will replace a monarchy or republic only to create a deeply corrupt State that will control everything and if you're in their small murderous ruling class or approved by them you will be a billionaire. It will be an artificial economic boom requiring state brutalism to keep it running and artifical growth to sustain it.

If China ever has another revolution it will be a zombie apocalypse. It needs to avoid that & their problem is, their train wreck has just left the station, the inevitable is coming, they need to interfere to keep the artificial economy going as long as possible/.

Houston, We Have Problem. Our Economy and Emissions

 Yes we have to clean up our act, yes we have to be better when it comes to emissions but we also need economic growth. That is just one problem.

Coal equates to a lot of bread & butter.

From the Singleton Argus Feb 5th 2019...

The robust performance of the sector has delivered tangible benefits for all Australians including across the coal regions of Queensland and NSW. The benefits include over 150,000 direct and related jobs and rising tax and royalty collections.

Coal royalties provide $5.5 billion directly to those two State governments while overall tax collections and the flow on economic activity has helped improve the Commonwealth budget position.  - (i) 

Now this has another problem within a problem. If coal stops tomorrow we know what will likely replace it for generating residential & light industry energy power, potentially some heavy industry power. Technology is likely to be the thing that catches up & makes coal unprofitable and unable to compete when we try to avoid brown outs & blackouts. 

But thats not the problem, the problem is lost economic strength in our Nation's books.
Yes as for the export earning part that's deleted, the $5 billion in royalties & the forward nudging it provides the federal budget plus the nearly 50,000 direct jobs and the 100,000+ indirect jobs, yes it will be a lot of pain. It will create an economic void and if we shut down tomorrow, we have competitors to replace us. The emissions will not halt, they will be transferred to another countries ledger.

Then there's another problem. In this calender year of 2021 the price of many fertilisers for broad acre cropping has doubled. Since seeding alone Urea has doubled & there is already stern warnings that over seas suppliers including Russia & China are sending messages that fertilisers usually ear marked for export are to be largely held back for their own crops. Now unless those countries have suddenly increased their plantings to equal most of the Australia crop it's possible this is just market squeezing.

In any case, next year will be a very tough year for fertiliser. It will be a tough year for those of you who rely on export dollars & the tax generated for Australia. If coal & iron ore as well as grain take a hit all at the same time its a economic disaster heading our way.

Which prompts the question of an additional problem. Consumption. Why is this not driven down? Well if it is it's a bad hit to growth. We sadly need strong growth in our economy. Having said that, most emissions come from products that consumers eventually buy. Its better to buy as many timber products instead of plastics or chemical based products. Wooden furniture locks up carbon, plastic furniture doesn't. We can harvest timber & replant. Its actually harvesting carbon & long as it doesn't end up in a fire place the carbon is stored. Plastics...really not good especially as many have obsolescence engineered into the plastic product to make it reliably replacable. Add in, the air flight travel for recreational purposes. Jets burn a lot of fuel, make a lot of emissions. That will have to plummet to near on to pre 1955 rates but perhaps only essential travel only.

(Above) And no, that's not flights in a year, or month or a week or a day. That is a snapshot in time, that's most of the recordable flights at a solitary point in time (Sunday night Australian time).
It doesn't include all the military flights with no trackers & the many others that are below a set height, speed & direction so the tracking is off.
Do you think they're all essential travellers only? Potentially a lot of non essential emissions there that could be prevented.

International freight, well it's going to make exporting & importing a raw products a logistical gridlock or perhaps a practical minefield. 

Not long ago the Guardian quoted "The UN's International Maritime Organisation (IMO) released a report in 2007 saying a 10% reduction in fuel burning was possible on existing ships and 30-40% possible for new ships but the technology is largely unused, as the regulations are largely voluntary."

And then add onto that..." in one year, a single large container ship can emit cancer and asthma-causing pollutants equivalent to that of 50 million cars. The low grade bunker fuel used by the worlds 90,000 cargo ships contains up to 2,000 times the amount of sulfur compared to diesel fuel used in automobiles. The recent boom in the global trade of manufactured goods has also resulted in a new breed of super sized container ship which consume fuel not by the gallons, but by tons per hour, and shipping now accounts for 90% of global trade by volume.

So are you really needing those imported products or should you be buying them now before they get banned. Now bulk carriers that carrier for example Iron Ore. A panamax is a ship designed to travel through the Panama Canal. Most ship engines have been designed for top speeds ranging between 20 and 25 knots per hour, which is between 23 and 28 miles per hour. A Panamax container ship can consume 63,000 gallons of marine fuel per day at that speed. They are considered big alright & when you get on one you will feel like an ant. 
However they are far from being the biggest cargo or bulk carriers these days. Many dwarf them. 
They'll have to be wound back won't they?

It is funny people are talking about the distance of food production to consumer or food miles. It's a trendy thing, but how will you go if all your food must be grown within a 100 mile radius? 

Then there's another elephant in the room. What is the optimum level of CO2 in the air and which are the worst chemical emissions that are really worth our greatest fear & attention?
Which is the worst using the definition below?

By 

Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.

Updated January 09, 2020
A greenhouse gas is any gas that traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere rather than releasing the energy to space. If too much heat is conserved, the Earth's surface heats up, glaciers melt, and global warming occurs. But greenhouse gases aren't categorically bad, because they act as an insulating blanket keeping the planet a comfortable temperature for life.  

Well surprisingly its water vapour that beat out Carbon Dioxide. - (ii) 
And then it gets confusing, because many people argue that this order is wrong, some are worse than others regardless of volumes. Confused? You're not alone if you're thinking thats the plan all along.

I think recreational travel might have to end sometime soon if they're serious about "Climate Change" I think consumption of imported foreign goods will have to reduce to ships are only bring a full load of cargo in & leaving here with a full cargo out.

Problems of Climate Change/Zero Emissions Never Discussed

1) Export Losses we cop & others overseas pick it up. Who pays the $5B gap in 2 states & where do 50,000 jobs go?

2) Renewables are pretty good & ever improving, but the gear required is not renewable. It creates waste. Point in case the turbine blades being buried.

3) Air Travel, Much of it recreational. Does it have a future & will plane travel be restricted to very essential travel only? Cos y'know we should perhaps reduce it cos y'know "what's the cost of doing nothing"?

4) Sea Freight - It is massive and if you're buying rubbish off eBay out of China...you're adding to the waste.

5) Food Miles. With the likes of fertiliser doubling in the same calender year, will consumers foot the bill?

6) Or in short...why is consumption never mentioned, why are we not being urged to live in a more frugal, more environmentally friendly way like out parents & gran parents.

7) Renewables are good but many of things made to produce RE energy are not recycable so is that part costed & deducted from a "cheaper" equation?

8) The urgent need to promote local wood, paper, careboard & glass products over anything plastic that isn't durable, doesn't become waste quickly and doesn't lock up carbon. Emissions are one thing & the only rock star followed sadly.

9) The worst Greenhouse Gas is water vapour. What is the go there? Apart from silence...

Right now Federal Nationals are being mocked for gently applying the handbrake and asking questions. Don't think for a moment if this were a Labor Government, despite them currently being more a Greens leaning in this they would be having or had the same split & questioning except most will be behind closed doors. Amongst Labor's record there's good & bad and it does include do support/don't support coal industry shape shifting. which helped further solidify Anthony Albanese's nick name "Each Way Albo" and yes same applied to Bill Shorten.

- (i) Coal is our largest export and it remains the dominant fuel in our energy mix says Coal Council of Australia. | The Singleton Argus | Singleton, NSW

- (ii) Worst Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere (thoughtco.com)

Young Nationals Motion At Nationals State Conference

This motion was rolled out by the Young Nationals at the 2021 Nationals WA State Conference in Northam and yes it raises some questions that I'm sure will be answered in the next few days or weeks. Some social media posts report it as being passed unanimously, some suggest otherwise. It matters not beyond... it 'll unfold whether it was or not & how it was worded soon enough.

At first glance I think it's a little cart before the horse to begin with but in any case it raises other concerns. I should say up front I didn't attend the 2021 WA Nationals State Conference so I didn't hear debate on this item, nor do I know if the motion was amended at all before or during debate.

What it does say in this original motion is "incentives & disincentives" which is kind of wise to leave wriggle room for what will follow in the way of legislation, fines, penalties, taxes, possible legal proceedings against companies or individuals...and possible rebates & subsidies. It's an awful lot of "dunno what" in the words "incentives & disincentives". At some point a list of acceptable & unacceptable line items will have to be drawn up as battle lines, political lines in the sand I guess. Perhaps that's the purpose of this.

So I'll put that in the wait-n-see drawer & see what unfolds positively & negatively when those actual details finally arrive. It's the 10th of October as I type so we'll see what transpires and when.

The other thing is on Social Media, the Young Nationals are promoting this motion they helped put together but they refer to it as Zero Emissions whereas the motion reads "negative emissions by 2050"

I'm unsure if this was amended to read "zero emissions" before being passed or if there's a mistake somewhere. I think however, those 2 things are definitely two different things by a huge magnitude I cannot even calculate.

So I'll wait eagerly to learn which it is as that makes a profound difference to regional small businesses that aren't that small any more. The defined wealth creators of an economy always include agriculture & mining. We'll see how that goes. 

If you switch your coffee shop in Subiaco or Claremont over to recyclable paper cups you can feel warm & fuzzy but it's a different story for a grain producer who needs torque more than horsepower to pull an air seeder that weighs a lot more than 10 tonne. Remain calm, remain positive & remain patient.

Details will come. Whether the Young Nationals have these details or not I don't know but within minutes of posting a shorter version of this on Social Media I got a message tackling me. What I said was, there needs to be proper costings on this, there also needs to be clarity around whether or not net zero or negative emissions is even possible without closing the economy down & turning Australia into a hippy commune. What will it cost to get to that level of emissions & what goes under the bus, who pays for the changes to keep people in business. It is a lot of devil in the missing detail.

So the message I got was critical of me. For that I honestly don't care. It was saying (deleting the personal comment & I'll put them in red me in black so you can follow the exchange easier)...

 "...it's more expensive to do nothing"

"Well that may well be the case, however that will be reflected in the costings which will include costs of modifying processing, manufacturing, production & specifying who pays these as yet unknown costs & what the net bottom line profit might be percentage wise, when will that arrive & who pays throughout the transition phases to full net profit"

"Its not all about profit you know, we need to stop the greed and hit the repair button. Businesses can survive once they adapt"

"Greed is not in play here. if this works out to being a cost of say (just a ramdom guess) $10-15,000 per man woman & child in Australia is that cheap for businesses to make the changes?"

"I don't know what the cost will be but if its that or even more, its still cheap. Its immoral, unethical and totally wrong not to step up & pay it"

"Look I'll set aside the moral claim for now but if I were to agree with you, then we look at the total cost across the country & then charge every man woman & child $10-15,000 out of their bank account to pay for it, I mean over a set time, not in one hit, then we have have a deal?"

"No businesses & greedy corporations should pay and a small part passed onto consumers in some ways perhaps"

"So its wrong to not make these changes that may cost a fortune but only corporations, small business that employ people should pay?
Wow and you wonder why people in business think this is more than unfair, its sheer socialist madness. In other words you want everyone else to change & everyone else to pay for these changes & if they don't do that whilst leaving you totally uneffected it's "immoral, unethical & totally wrong?
Can I be very fair and ask what area your small business is in or what sector is your employer in, private or government"

Well I'm not repeating the final reply, it was a bit rude and derogatory.
Final take home I got from them -> All business and corporations must pay all the costs of transition, no one else is to be affected and there are absolutely no costings on the transitions at all

Got it.

Speaking to a mining exec, he said the problem is not getting electrical vehicles into the mining industry, there's the problem of getting equipment to produce big torque on demand for a full shift AND then paying for the offsets incurred in the manufacture of that product if it could be made. He said the sums don't add up with the current technology of moving say 100-300 tonne of ore in one load

He said its a moving feast of poison & they're trying to go flat out & make hay while the sun shines.

So yeah I'll wait & see. I won't pronounce any view on this motion. As with all State Conferences a matter is raised & passed. From there it goes into the ether never to be seen nor heard again or it gets modified, reversed.

Again, I think the devil is in the lack of detail nor the understanding of the horsepower & torque used in Ag & mining...and transport because your latte coffee beans are not Bluetoothed in across the nation.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

LATE EDIT - Just advised that the Motion was amended to read "That this State Convention of The Nationals WA supports the adoption of a net zero carbon emissions target by 2050 with clear support for sectors that need assistance to transition."
Whilst that is a quantum leap forward from the absurdly worded original motion, its timing is still bizarre & the implications still unknown. We don't actually know how much "clear support" is needed, how much it will cost and who funds it because we don't actually know what is required to achieve Zero Emissions in all the combined Australian industries.

Should add to achieve "negative emissions" I don't know what is required but it's obvious it would be a lot more than "zero emissions" because that is actually removing CO2 from the air. I am not sure what the original motioners were thinking there but so far the world experience is become like Bhutan if you want good reliable "negative emissions".

Yes, technology will evolve. But apart from looking at this motion as puffy motherhood statement I'd be a little hesitant to sign up to a target that we aren't sure how to reach or at what cost is involved or whultimately pays.

Got an idea who will pay, probably largely not consumers.
I'm not anti Zero Emissions by any date. I'm actually not anti Negative Emissions by any date, but for me to get behind it & support it, how does it affect which industries, whats it cost & who pays?

With the NFF looking at this I would hope & expect Nats liased with them (?)
Colour me a bit shocked. Bit early to commit without so much prior working knowledge.

Hard Left Moronic Decay - Raising Criminal Responsibility.

 Yup, I can hardly believe my ears. The WA Labor Party has decided at its State Conference to (according to media reports) to raise the age of Crimiminal Responsibility to 14 years of age.

Now I think this is from the Hard Left & it is totally moronic decay. Here's why.

This came up with another group I was involved in & they were going to push for a change in the legislation to raise it to 14.

THEY DIDN'T READ THAT SECTION OF THE ACT OR THEY READ ONLY A PART OF IT OR THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE READING. OR THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT THEIR INTENDED CHANGE WOULD BRING.

IT'S THE CRIMINAL CODE ACT COMPILATION ACT 1913

If you want to read it for yourself go to this link & scroll down to Section 29
Click here 

WALW - Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 - Home Page (legislation.wa.gov.au)

But if not, here it is 

29. Immature age A person under the age of 10 years is not criminally responsible for any act or omission. 

A person under the age of 14 years is not criminally responsible for an act or omission, unless it is proved that at the time of doing the act or making the omission he had capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission. [Section 29 amended: No. 74 of 1985 s. 4; No. 49 of 1988 s. 44.] 

Now what that means is Children under 10 have no Criminal Responsibility no matter what.
What the second paragraph means all other Children between that age and 14 years of age are not crimiminally responsible unless the police can prove they commited the act or omission whilst they had the capacity to know they should not.

In other words WA Labor is not raisiing the age of Criminal Responsibilty, they are removing the ability of the Police being able to prove the child knew what they doing & therefore duly culpable and deserving of criminal responsibility.

Why is this moronic madness?
Drug dealers will recruit under 14 year olds. They can sell drugs under the new changes & get off Scott Free. They may also be more likely to carry a knife or other weapon, they can get off Scott Free.

The Wilful & Deliberate act of assault, murder, rape, burglary, arson, car theft, graffiti, all consequence free.
If you're a teacher in a rough school with some troubled kids...I'd suggest if this is passed, consider only teaching pre-school, lower primary school or classes of over 14 year olds. If you have one wayward, troubled, angry & potentially violent student...they can come for you & get off Scott Free.

A wise educator told me "If a kid doesn't get it by 9 they maybe won't get it by 19" and if the 10-14 year olds are recruited to sell drugs or break a window or they decide to do serious criminal damage, assault, rape then their life pathway is set. They will be career criminals & some career monsters for life.

Its an utterly moronic idea. I hope they decide to genuinely not have it on their agenda ever even though it is passed at State Conference

WHAT THE DAMN HELL ARE THEY THINKING?

IS THIS MERELY A DISTRACTION THEN THEY TRULY ARE UTTERLY & WILFULLY MORONIC FOOLS 

God help us all.