NPR covered the anniversary of the Burning of Washington last week, reenacting the event as though it were happening live.
Have you ever experienced a more heartless politician? Some may argue (rightly so) that Morrison is more heartless. Some may also argue that the whole LNP Ideology is heartless. I have no answer for why the LNP are intent on creating a heartless society. But intent they are.
It doesn’t seem to matter to the LNP however many people march in the streets against this unnecessary budget. The LNP continues in it’s unwanted ideology against all opposition.
It matters not that leading economists have cast doubts over ‘budget emergency’ claims.
“SAUL ESLAKE: The truth in my view is that the budget deficit in prospect for 2014/15, prior to this week, was 2 per cent of GDP with public debt in the range of 14 per cent of GDP. That’s worse than it should have been; that’s worse than the previous government had let on, but it hardly amounted to a crisis or an emergency.”
“SAUL ESLAKE: The real problem that the Government inherited was the sharp increase in the budget deficits and in spending in 2017/18, the year after the forward estimates of the last Labor budget and, correctly in my view, most of the thrust of the measures in the budget are directed at the period 2017/18 and beyond. That’s where the problem was.”
Who is Saul Eslake? He is Bank of America Merrill Lynch chief economist.
All that matters is that many thousands of Australians are going to be hurt with this outrageously unnecessary, unwanted, and totally heartless budget.
The blame cannot be simply levelled towards Tony Abbott either. The whole LNP support this ideological stance.
A Royal Commission into Political Parties needs to be held in this country. Terms of reference should simply be “Corruption”.
Everybody knows that the Left and the Right of politics would be undone by a Royal Commission into political corruption.
Perhaps political parties would need to be held accountable for their actions and their members would need to be fined for each day of sitting unlawfully. (as per the Australian Constitution)
“44. Any person who - (v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons:
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.”
and the penalty?
“46. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared by this Constitution to be incapable of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on which he so sits, be liable to pay the sum of one hundred pounds to any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction.”
So every citizen of Australia should sue each member of parliament that is also a member of a political party..
Lets see how that works out for them..
The Coalition promised before the 2013 election to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in its current form, but indigenous Liberal MP Ken Wyatt has threatened to cross the floor to oppose the change.
Senator Brandis told the Senate on Monday he would soon be bringing forward an amendment that would ensure the Bolt case would never be repeated.
Never again in Australia will we have a situation in which a person may be taken to court for expressing a political opinion, Senator Brandis said in response to a question from indigenous Labor Senator Nova Peris.
Senator Brandis said the problem with the current law was that it dealt with racial vilification in the wrong way by political censorship.
People do have a right to be bigots, you know, Senator Brandis said.
“People have the right to say things that other people would find insulting, offensive or bigoted.”
Asked in the House of Representatives about Senator Brandis’ comments, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said it was in the nature of free speech that sometimes some people will not like it.
Many causes come together
March in March was different. It revealed itself to be organised by grassroots campaigners with few or no organisational affiliations. More importantly, it used social media, mainly Facebook, to organise people to attend protests.
The March in March campaigners claimed in very general terms that it was:
…to protest against government decisions that are against the common good of our nation. At the event in Sydney last weekend, I observed a range of issues – from shark culling to refugees to public service job cuts – on mostly handmade signs. While several flags were flown representing unions and small political parties, I was struck by the lack of co-ordinated political messaging in the signs or even among the rally speakers, compared to past rallies with higher profiles.
The largest rallies in Australia have tended to be on single issues; they focused on distinct political outcomes. For example, the goal was to “stop the war” and bring Australian soldiers home, in either Vietnam or Iraq, or to defeat government legislation, such as WorkChoices.