"WHAT IS LEFT AND RIGHT?"
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
My kids are aged from six to older than me and I have never discussed politics or religion with any of eleven of them. Yesterday I was asked by the second oldest what this Left and Right business was all about. I had always thought it was the seating in the Parliaments of the French and the English. Tories (rich bastards) on the right of the Speaker and Labourers (dumb bastards) on the Left.
The rich bastards don’t want to share their money and the dumb bastards want to steal it, so they sit there and debate the best way to achieve their respective ends, while the working middle class pays the cost of their respective obsessions. "That’s about it!", I explained.
I didn’t attempt to explain where the current Liberal Party sits … that was far too complicated.
Anyway, they are all voting “Yes” in the marriage survey and I didn’t bother explaining that either because a sufficient number of the votes to decide the outcome are already in. It doesn’t matter now who spends what on TV ads, who continues telling lies or who paints how many rainbows on what toilet blocks… it’s all over!
Well, the vote may be over, probably closer than thought at around 60-40 to the “yes” mob, but the after effects are about to begin and I’m about to begin arranging to home-school my babies. The gangrenous Gay Greens have won this round and they will win all future rounds because their demands are about to be set in legislated concrete.
But there is still a tiny flicker of light at the end of the tunnel. The results of the “survey” are not binding on anyone and there is still a crumpled, undebated draft Bill somewhere in a private member’s pocket that we have not been allowed to see.
So far we have only seen the scribbling of a “yes” voting Senator in George Brandis where he asks: “Should the law be changed to allow same sex couples to marry?” That is an innocuous piece of polispoken drivel designed to mislead. What could be expected other than a “Yes” vote?
And what else could be expected from George Brandis?
It is dangerous to allow a politician to frame any question that might possibly lead to legislation. The question will always evoke an answer the politician wants. Politicians will never commission a survey on anything unless they already know, or can confidently manufacture, the outcome.
The question should have been: “Should the Marriage Act be abolished and supplanted with gender-neutral, homosexual bullshit?” There ya go, they should have let me frame the question and a “No” vote would have been certain.
We will find no refuge in the High Court as it has already ruled the Government is on firm ground on the basis the whole thing is non-binding.
But back to that tiny flicker of light. The vote may be over but the fun and games are about to begin. There is sufficient time before the next election for all in the Liberal Party to see exactly what the cunning Gay/Green lobbyists were up to.
And there is sufficient time for many genuine Conservatives to cross the floor, thereby prompting a vote of no confidence in Turnbull and forcing a Party Room spill.
If someone like Dutton or even an unlikely Abbott can roll Turnbull, the next election can be won, especially with the help of Pauline’s and Cory’s preferences. If Turnbull stays, the election is lost to Shorten.
There will be sufficient time for nervous wives of nervous marginal seat-holders to get in their thick husbands’ cauliflower ears and talk some domestic economic sense into them. The numbers will be extremely tight, especially if Turnbull spits the dummy and shoots through, as he did before… but it’s doable!
And there isn’t really a choice because to sit and do nothing is terminal for the Libs.
If they can pull it off then a proper referendum can be part of the next election and this time an honest question can be asked as many will then be wise to the last dishonest question and to the subsequent intentions of the cunningly disastrous and well-funded Gay Greens who barely make up 10% of the voting public.
The electorate will be behind a concurrent referendum and the law can then be changed to accommodate acceptable legislation like, no more subsidies for greedy energy providers, get out of Paris accord, lift bans on gas and coal mining, outlaw deficit spending, restrict Muslim immigration, reform the tax base, get rid of the UN influence, and hand over the GST for the States to collect and adjust disparities through the Commonwealth Grants Commission...
Hmmm, okay, but I did say that light was only a tiny flicker.