Hi to all comfy voters.
Julian Assange (Wikileaks Publisher of leaked govt documents) has already
been on posters with a likeness to Che Guevara, the cuban
revolutionary/terrorist depending on your viewpoint, the one well known in the black beret.
Julian and Wikileaks will be seen as freedom fighters and matyrs. (freedom
of the press and anti usa sentiment) .Below is an article about bob brown and Julia Gillard, which puts it so succinctly. When USA senators call for him to be executed, we know we have lost all pretense of justice and fairness, and Aussie independence.
This will prove to be the case of this century. Australians will have do
everything to help him fight this battle. Already he was refused bail, for a trumped up rape case with two women who admit consent. One charge said he used his body weight to coerce, and another says he refused to use a condom when asked. So he is accused of rape and is refused bail in a British court.
If you weren't political before, this case will make you take sides.
kind regards,
Meg
Below are two pertinent articles.
Julian Assange is Gillard's Hicks blunder
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42082.html
Glenn Milne
Julia Gillard needs to change her approach to condemning WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange - and quickly.
The risk of him becoming her final equivalent of John Howard's David Hicks
is much more dangerous to Gillard politically than Hicks ever was to Howard.
For the purpose of the Assange comparison it's worth recalling the details
of Hicks political-legal life. According to Assange's web cousin, Wikipedia,
Hicks trained at the Al Qaeda linked Al Farouq training camp in 2001. He was
captured in Afghanistan in December 2001 by the Afghan Northern Alliance and
sold for a $1,000 bounty to the United States military.
He was transported to Guantanamo Bay where he was designated an enemy
combatant, during which time he alleges he was tortured. Charges were first
laid against Hicks in 2004 under a military commission system newly created
by presidential order. Those proceedings failed in 2006 when the US Supreme
Court ruled the system unconstitutional.
Military commissions were subsequently re-established by an act of the US
Congress. Revised charges were laid against Hicks in February 2007 before a
new commission under the new act. The following month, in accordance with a
pre-trial agreement struck with convening authority Judge Susan J Crawford,
Hicks entered a plea to a single new codified charge of "providing material
support for terrorism". Hicks's legal team attributed his acceptance of the
plea bargain to "his desperation for release from Guantanamo".
In April 2007 Hicks was returned to Australia to serve the remaining nine
months of a suspended seven-year sentence. I lay out the facts to stress the
longitude of the Hicks case. This is important when we come to consider the
comparison of Gillard's relative knee-jerk reaction to Assange.
During the time his case lingered Hicks, despite admitting to carrying out
terrorist acts in the Indian border with Pakistan, became the poster boy for
so-called "Howard haters" across the country and internationally. Initially,
and for a good stretch of time afterwards, Howard's tough political line on
Hicks worked a treat for him in an electorate looking for the emotional post
9/11 security, albeit of the Marvel comic book form, offered up by George W
Bush's "war on terror".
But by the time of the 2007 election voters were jaundiced against Howard
generally. Swept up in that swing away from Howard personally was his
treatment of Hicks. Somewhere along the line Australians' notion of a "fair
go" kicked in and voters came to see Hicks's imprisonment without trial as
oppressive. Even Howard, in his recent memoirs "Lazarus Rising", admits he
vilified Hicks for too long and it ended being a net negative for him
politically.
Here it must be said that Julia Gillard is no John Howard. Which is exactly
the point. And also where the danger lies for the current Prime Minister
with her decision to try to smash Assange and his reputation so totally and
so fast and regardless of legal niceties.
Chief among those legal niceties is that Assange has not yet been found
guilty of any offence by any court anywhere in the world. That has not
stopped Gillard in her new role as information age Executioner-in-Chief
already judging Assange guilty of heinous - albeit undefined - crimes.
Here's what the Prime Minister had to say on Tuesday. She argued firstly
that the "foundation stone" (whatever that is) of the WikiLeaks website was
illegal. Then this: "We have the Australian Federal Police (AFP) looking to
see whether Australian laws have been broken and then we've got the gross
irresponsibility of this conduct."
Come Friday the AFP apparently still had not determined whether any of the
Australian laws Gillard cited had been broken. The remarkable nature of
Gillard's complete disregard for the notion of the presumption of innocence
was highlighted immediately by condemnation from both the shadow
attorney-general, George Brandis SC, and Malcolm Turnbull, who made his
legal and political bones by defending a Cold War MI5 agent's attempts to
publish his memoirs of an eventful life in the celebrated "Spycatcher" case.
But let's put the law to one side for the moment and simply focus on the
politics.
Howard's initial successful exploitation of the Hicks case rested on the
fact that he effectively drove a wedge between Labor's blue collar
mainstream base (who where anti-Hicks) and its Left urban civil libertarian
grouping, which in the end proved more articulate, persuasive and principled
when it came to Hicks. Over seven years they won the day by winning over the
majority of Australians, if not to their cause at least to their case.
In the Assange matter Gillard has done exactly the same as Howard. Except
she is the one doing the wedging between herself and a critical part of her
own Labor base. Consider who turned up at Assange's London committal hearing
with self publicity serving offers of bail backing; Australian left-wing
proselytizer, polemicist and general anti-US myth maker John Pilger,
millionaire celebrity cricket divorcee, Jemima Kahn, and film maker Ken
Loach. None of them had actually met Assange.
Such is the Townsville born Australian's capacity to mobilise and divide
public opinion. Back in Australia when social activists Jeff Sparrow and
Elizabeth O'Shea posted an open letter to Gillard on The Drum about her
pre-emptive legal condemnation of Assange the site received more than 4,000
comments, mostly signatures in support of the appeal, before collapsing,
literally, under the weight of the response.
The names of some of these signatories is informative: Julian Burnside,
Peter Singer, Adam Bandt, Mungo MacCallum, Webdy Bacon, Alastair Nicholson,
Julian Morrow, Helen Garner, Dennis Altman, Stepphen Keim, Hilary McPhee and
Greg Barns among lots of others.
You get the picture. In the broad this is the same group that defended
Hicks, condemns the treatment of asylum seekers, opposed the Iraq war, and
probably the war in Afghanistan. Most were - and are - "Howard haters". They
are natural Labor supporters. But Gillard's clumsy and morally suspect
assault on Assange has now emphatically pitted her against her most
articulate constituency.
And she hasn't even got it right on the broader front of mainstream
Australians. Howard, at least at the start, successfully mobilised this
group against David Hicks. This is not the case with Assange. A newspoll
published in The Australian on Thursday showed a massive 74.7 per cent of
Australians were opposed to any attempts to extradite Assange to the US.
That's "extradite", remind yourself. We haven't even got near the question
of whether he should be jailed - or incredibly as some US Right-wing desktop
assassins are suggesting - that he be taken out. On the ABC News Radio
website 88 per cent of respondents answered "no" to the question of whether
the Australian Government was acting "appropriately" towards Assange.
And surely that is the threshold question here. What has Assange done wrong
in the minds of the Australian public? To date no-one has died as a result
of his actions. He's dumped a bucketful of information onto the net which
most foot soldiers in a democracy (ie voters), who feel routinely threatened
by big government, probably feel their entitled to. And, most importantly
when it comes to public opinion, there are no pictures of Assange with a
rocket-propelled grenade, slung over his shoulder in Chechnya either.
So unlike Howard in the case of Hicks, Gillard does not even have majority
support on her side at the beginning of what will inevitably be the Assange
legal saga. And into whose arms is she driving the Labor culturally elite
malcontent cohort represented by Assange's celebrity supporters? Why Bob
Brown's of course.
Unlike Gillard, Brown, the dominant politician within the Government, knows
instinctively where his base is. He immediately knifed Gillard without qualm
on Assange declaring: "What we need from the Foreign Minister or the
Attorney-General is clear evidence that the Australian Government is
materially assisting to ensure that Assange's legal rights are met and that
everything is done possible to ensure that he is not fitted out with a
process to have him extradited to Sweden and then to the US under political
pressure that's not publicly obvious."
No niceties from Brown who's meant to be a coalition partner in a
Green-Labor Government. So Right when Brown has split the ALP and the
Government on totemic niche issues like gay marriage, right when Gillard
needs to shore up her Left flank, what does she do? She blows it on Assange.
It's a metaphor really for a Government and a Prime Minister that right now,
seemingly can't take a trick.
Glenn Milne has been covering Canberra politics for more than two decades.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-plans-to-surrender/story-e6freuy9-1225967047285
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange plans to surrender
a.. Lucy Carne, European correspondent
b.. From: The Daily Telegraph
c.. December 07, 2010 2:54PM
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Source: AP
THE hunt may soon be over for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as the
fugitive Australian plans to surrender to British police overnight.
Scotland Yard was expected to serve the 39-year-old with a European Arrest
Warrant over alleged sexual assaults in Sweden earlier this year.
The warrant forms the first steps in extraditing Mr Assange, who is believed
to be in hiding with friends southeast of London, to Sweden for questioning
over the "sex crimes" claims.
Two women - who met Mr Assange when he was in Sweden for lectures - claimed
he sexually attacked them.
Both said they had consensual sex with the notorious campaigner, but said he
refused to wear a condom.
In more bad news for the Australian fugitive, it has emerged that another
source of WikiLeaks' crucial funds has been frozen in an attempt to cripple
the whistleblowing website.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related Coverage
a.. Terror targets leaked
b.. Julian Assange: Murder threats to family
a.. Worldwide rallies to defend Assange Adelaide Now, 11 hours ago
b.. WikiLeaks spy charge 'not on' Herald Sun, 1 day ago
c.. WikiLeaks rival 'to open Monday' Herald Sun, 1 day ago
d.. It was only a matter of time before web war Courier Mail, 2 days ago
e.. Teen WikiLeaks 'hack-tivist' arrested The Daily Telegraph, 2 days ago
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
MasterCard has pulled the plug on payments to WikiLeaks, news website CNET
reported.
The move will further financially starve the embattled website.
"MasterCard is taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept
MasterCard-branded products," MasterCard Worldwide spokesman Chris Monteiro
said.
"MasterCard rules prohibit customers from directly or indirectly engaging in
or facilitating any action that is illegal."
WikiLeaks has responded to threats on its funding with online pleas to "Keep
us strong." People could still donate to the website using Visa, bank
transfers, or sending donations by old-fashioned "snail mail."
The sudden move follows US Government pressure on any companies connected to
WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate its relationship with them".
WikiLeaks estimated they have so far lost Au$133,000 from missed donations
due to the payment source collapses this week.
Swiss authorities also yesterday shut down a bank account belonging to Mr
Assange.
The Swiss Post Office's banking arm said it closed an account set up by the
Australian after he gave a false home address for Geneva but could not prove
he lived there.
WikiLeaks had advertised the PostFinance account details online to "donate
directly to the Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks Staff Defense Fund,"
giving an account name of "Assange Julian Paul, Geneve."
WikiLeaks was also recently dropped by its US servers and is now based out
of Switzerland.
It was also recently dumped by online payment service PayPal.
WikiLeaks also battled technological attacks when a "hacktivist" shut down
the website for 28 hours during last weekend.
Those responsible for the attack said in a statement on Twitter that the
hack was revenge for WikiLeaks "attempting to endanger the lives of our
troops, other assets & foreign relations".
He said the US Justice Department had "a very serious, active, ongoing
investigation that is criminal in nature" into the WikiLeaks saga.
Mr Assange sent a chilling threat to the US government saying if he was
prosecuted or assassinated he would unlock a 'poison pill' - the entire
archive of internal cables which have been downloaded in a secret document
by more than "100,000 people".
Since last Monday WikiLeaks have released just 1000 of the 251,287 cables .
Mr Assange has said he would appeal any charges stemming from the Swedish
sexual assault claims.
"We will fight them and expose them, naturally," he told Spain's El Pais
newspaper on Saturday.
"That there is something "wrong" with this case is now obvious to everyone."
His lawyer Mark Stephens, of Stephens Finers Innocent, said he believed the
Swedish claims were a "political stunt".
Mr Stephens confirmed British police had telephoned him to notify him that
they would serve the extradition request from Sweden.
He refused to confirm whether his client was in Britain, but said the
meeting would take place somewhere in Britain.
"The arrangements I have been making are for him to come and meet the
British police," Stephens said, without giving a date for the interview.
One British newspaper reported that Mr Assange would be expected to post
bail of between 100,000 pounds and 200,000 pounds and would need up to six
people offering surety.
But Mr Stephens said while he had been informed of the warrant, he knew
nothing of a pending court appearance.
"I have not concluded any arrangements with the police at this time," he
said.
The US Government was also yesterday increasing their efforts to prosecute
Mr Assange for criminal activity over WikiLeaks' release of 250,000 US
diplomatic cables.
Despite being an Australian citizen, Mr Assange would still be put on trial
in America, legal experts said.
US Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration was
considering using laws under the Espionage Act to prosecute Mr Assange over
releasing information that threatened public safety.
40 comments on this story
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
labor is in 76 (2 independents and 1 green.)
Now we know the result.
Labor is in with Oakshot and Windsor's support.
Julia is about to see the Govenor General now.
If we do have another election , can I ask all of you to consider supporting others (any like minded independent senate and or marginal seat contenders.) and explore how you can claim a 3rd party support refund for any money spent. (it is refundable)
I can only say, its a bit like investing..
you can't put all your eggs in one basket.
Not when so much is at stake. You must diversify and spread the risk.
Mning Tax, here it comes. The greens in the senate, will certainly push harder then Gillard. A constitutional challenge might work, but might not.
Labor is in with Oakshot and Windsor's support.
Julia is about to see the Govenor General now.
If we do have another election , can I ask all of you to consider supporting others (any like minded independent senate and or marginal seat contenders.) and explore how you can claim a 3rd party support refund for any money spent. (it is refundable)
I can only say, its a bit like investing..
you can't put all your eggs in one basket.
Not when so much is at stake. You must diversify and spread the risk.
Mning Tax, here it comes. The greens in the senate, will certainly push harder then Gillard. A constitutional challenge might work, but might not.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Thanks to all who voted for me..
What a result!. right now a possible hung parliament, but maybe a coalition win of one seat with negotiated agreement of the 3 independents.
The Liberals have a "moral right" to govern, in that they had a higher primary vote than labor. Labor had a preference swap with the greens, and that 2nd preference has helped them to be nearly "over the line". In some places their vote dropped as low as 35% others 38%.
The greens now will have 9 in the senate after July , and 1 in the house of reps. 14%of the vote, and the preferences made them the kingmakers.They are far left, not like the Australian Democrats who were centre -left.
We can look forward to much more instability, and a futher damage to our good investment destination - our reputation. The sharemarket is likely to remain under the 4500 level for sometime.
The USA looks to be in more trouble and the 2nd wave recession is looming. so cut back on your costs, and unecessary spending.
We might see another federal election in 18mths. so be ready.
The Liberals have a "moral right" to govern, in that they had a higher primary vote than labor. Labor had a preference swap with the greens, and that 2nd preference has helped them to be nearly "over the line". In some places their vote dropped as low as 35% others 38%.
The greens now will have 9 in the senate after July , and 1 in the house of reps. 14%of the vote, and the preferences made them the kingmakers.They are far left, not like the Australian Democrats who were centre -left.
We can look forward to much more instability, and a futher damage to our good investment destination - our reputation. The sharemarket is likely to remain under the 4500 level for sometime.
The USA looks to be in more trouble and the 2nd wave recession is looming. so cut back on your costs, and unecessary spending.
We might see another federal election in 18mths. so be ready.
Friday, August 20, 2010
why bother with politics?
I was asked what motivates Me to stand for the nsw senate COLUMN k.
Meg Explained, " 1. It was that the stimulus money was not given to long term unemployed. That was so unfair.
2. When I sat in a cafe and saw an older woman stealing lettuce and foodscraps from a vacated table.
I bought her a lunch, but I know I didn't do enough, and I know why she was desperate. Even though the pension has been increased,
the cost of affordable housing has increased at a higher rate.Landlords of boarding houses raised their rents so much that pensioners are left with about $30.00 a week to feed themselves.Cheap rental flats are now almost impossible to find. We must fund more public housing, and assist those who stay in their own homes. The stimulus money should have been spent on housing, in particular, social housing. many of hte free standing housing commission homes could be rebuilt as a block of four flats, and giving more people low cost housing. There are many others to be addressed,including climate change, transport and infrastructure, health and education.
:
Both Meg and June are ex Democrats, now independents, and both are concerned for the future of Australia. "We call ourselves the 2 OWLS - 2
older,wiser ladies" Meg said yesterday. You can see our pictures on our blog called Http://megansampson.blogspot.com and on twitter and facebook as both meg4sensampson and Megamoneybox.Meg Sampson stood for Cunningham in 1990 and almost won the seat, missing by
only 1.5%. Both Meg and June have ben interested in Politics for over 30 years, and June is showing her support as a 2nd on the ticket. They are both on low incomes, and therefor have no budget for advertising etc. They have directed the AEC to do a 3 way split ticket, equally between Labor,Liberal and the greens.
Current concerns:Meg says "Gilllard and Swan have painted themselves into a corner, with the Miners RSPT/PRRT. They should have raised the royalties or simply just removed some of the tax deductions. That would then have given the
country more tax income. Instead they did a classic "Pattern Bargaining" technique. Pick a vulnerable company or sector, get an agreement, then take that agreement to others as a blueprint. . goto my http://noresourcetax.blogspot.com to read more. So what sector will be next? Tax on churches and charities?
The election will be 21.08.10, and just a 2.5% swing against labor will translate into defeat. (except for the green vote and swap for 2nd preferences. even so, the greens seem to be taking labor ground rather than liberal national party) Right now we have an angry electorate. especially in the over 65 yrs, ie 20% of the voters. These voters are usually very reticent in changing sides, but right now they are rebelling, like teenagers.
Meg commented, "Everywhere we go on the campaign hustings, older people are now much more vocal. 20 years ago they were loyal, and reluctant to discuss how they would vote. 20 years ago they stuck to their class roots. But not now.
Labor has destabilised the country, (our stable reputation) they have lost the basic Aussie view of fairness, (no stimulus was given to the long
term unemployed!) Labor abandoned the high moral ground on climate change, (yet still announced another talkfest!) They oversaw 4 deaths and more fires in insulation debacle.. PLUS labor condoned a total rip -off in the schools funding... with tuck shops the size of cubby houses and most priced like marijuana mansions! Some costed at $25,000 per sq metre instead of $1,000.00 per sq metre. That won't be forgotten by every P and C forget the waste, when they are asked again to raise funds for school equipment.
Our retirees, superannuates and pensioners will struggle to pay higher electricity costs, and find affordable housing. (over 105,000 people are
homeless each night) We are selling off our houses and farms to overseas owners, while our rising homeless live in their old cars.
Now Labor will even buy back your old car for $2,000.00 but ONLY if you can afford a new one! If they've got an old bomb, it's because
they can't afford a new one! Pensioners will soon be living in their garages or old cars while they rent out the house. Just to make ends meet. Labor
has abandoned all it stood for. Labor is the new Liberals, the Liberals are the new Labor and the greens will be so purist that no one will be able to
use a natural gas heater because it's not renewable. so Vote for Independents first- and for us in Column K in the senate.Then for your other choice. If you simply tick the box for Column K in the senate, the AEC (The Australian Electoral office) will do a 3 way split ticket,
so your vote won't be wasted.
Don't forget that there is no need for pamphlets! The Australian Electoral office will print a booklet with all the preferences and it will
be in the voting booth. Just look at how much paper (and trees) the so-called Green parties will waste! do the right thing, make up your own mind and
refuse a pamphlet! Let's stop the Santa Claus spending! Let's look after our country and it's small businesses, it's poor and the disadvantaged. This is your opportunity to get it right".
Ph 0432885510 / 02 42 285774 Authorised by Megan Sampson Silent elector address, Wollongong NSW
email msmegansampson@gmail.com and Http://Megansampson.blogspot.com
blog at http//:megansampson.blogspot.com twitter as meg4sensampson or Megansampson and Megamoney, youtube as megamoneybox and facebook as megan sampson
Meg Explained, " 1. It was that the stimulus money was not given to long term unemployed. That was so unfair.
2. When I sat in a cafe and saw an older woman stealing lettuce and foodscraps from a vacated table.
I bought her a lunch, but I know I didn't do enough, and I know why she was desperate. Even though the pension has been increased,
the cost of affordable housing has increased at a higher rate.Landlords of boarding houses raised their rents so much that pensioners are left with about $30.00 a week to feed themselves.Cheap rental flats are now almost impossible to find. We must fund more public housing, and assist those who stay in their own homes. The stimulus money should have been spent on housing, in particular, social housing. many of hte free standing housing commission homes could be rebuilt as a block of four flats, and giving more people low cost housing. There are many others to be addressed,including climate change, transport and infrastructure, health and education.
:
Both Meg and June are ex Democrats, now independents, and both are concerned for the future of Australia. "We call ourselves the 2 OWLS - 2
older,wiser ladies" Meg said yesterday. You can see our pictures on our blog called Http://megansampson.blogspot.com and on twitter and facebook as both meg4sensampson and Megamoneybox.Meg Sampson stood for Cunningham in 1990 and almost won the seat, missing by
only 1.5%. Both Meg and June have ben interested in Politics for over 30 years, and June is showing her support as a 2nd on the ticket. They are both on low incomes, and therefor have no budget for advertising etc. They have directed the AEC to do a 3 way split ticket, equally between Labor,Liberal and the greens.
Current concerns:Meg says "Gilllard and Swan have painted themselves into a corner, with the Miners RSPT/PRRT. They should have raised the royalties or simply just removed some of the tax deductions. That would then have given the
country more tax income. Instead they did a classic "Pattern Bargaining" technique. Pick a vulnerable company or sector, get an agreement, then take that agreement to others as a blueprint. . goto my http://noresourcetax.blogspot.com to read more. So what sector will be next? Tax on churches and charities?
The election will be 21.08.10, and just a 2.5% swing against labor will translate into defeat. (except for the green vote and swap for 2nd preferences. even so, the greens seem to be taking labor ground rather than liberal national party) Right now we have an angry electorate. especially in the over 65 yrs, ie 20% of the voters. These voters are usually very reticent in changing sides, but right now they are rebelling, like teenagers.
Meg commented, "Everywhere we go on the campaign hustings, older people are now much more vocal. 20 years ago they were loyal, and reluctant to discuss how they would vote. 20 years ago they stuck to their class roots. But not now.
Labor has destabilised the country, (our stable reputation) they have lost the basic Aussie view of fairness, (no stimulus was given to the long
term unemployed!) Labor abandoned the high moral ground on climate change, (yet still announced another talkfest!) They oversaw 4 deaths and more fires in insulation debacle.. PLUS labor condoned a total rip -off in the schools funding... with tuck shops the size of cubby houses and most priced like marijuana mansions! Some costed at $25,000 per sq metre instead of $1,000.00 per sq metre. That won't be forgotten by every P and C forget the waste, when they are asked again to raise funds for school equipment.
Our retirees, superannuates and pensioners will struggle to pay higher electricity costs, and find affordable housing. (over 105,000 people are
homeless each night) We are selling off our houses and farms to overseas owners, while our rising homeless live in their old cars.
Now Labor will even buy back your old car for $2,000.00 but ONLY if you can afford a new one! If they've got an old bomb, it's because
they can't afford a new one! Pensioners will soon be living in their garages or old cars while they rent out the house. Just to make ends meet. Labor
has abandoned all it stood for. Labor is the new Liberals, the Liberals are the new Labor and the greens will be so purist that no one will be able to
use a natural gas heater because it's not renewable. so Vote for Independents first- and for us in Column K in the senate.Then for your other choice. If you simply tick the box for Column K in the senate, the AEC (The Australian Electoral office) will do a 3 way split ticket,
so your vote won't be wasted.
Don't forget that there is no need for pamphlets! The Australian Electoral office will print a booklet with all the preferences and it will
be in the voting booth. Just look at how much paper (and trees) the so-called Green parties will waste! do the right thing, make up your own mind and
refuse a pamphlet! Let's stop the Santa Claus spending! Let's look after our country and it's small businesses, it's poor and the disadvantaged. This is your opportunity to get it right".
Ph 0432885510 / 02 42 285774 Authorised by Megan Sampson Silent elector address, Wollongong NSW
email msmegansampson@gmail.com and Http://Megansampson.blogspot.com
blog at http//:megansampson.blogspot.com twitter as meg4sensampson or Megansampson and Megamoney, youtube as megamoneybox and facebook as megan sampson
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
so the greens accept huge UNION donations!
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Greens Bob Brown talk at the Press club today
Bob Brown spoke today at the national press club, and emphasised his plan to tax the miners and use that money for education and other causes.
The chances that the greens will hold the balance of power in the senate after Saturday 21.8.10 is very high, and the MRRT/Prrt will be revitalised. He gave the undertaking that he will try to take it further than Julia Gillard, and certainly seems determined.
Meg critised the greens today in saying that: the greens are not sticking to their green platform. They have acccepted donations from the unions which means they are now tied to the unions' demands.
" they haven't even stopped the over- use of electricity in city office blocks at night. All they had to do was to stop or reduce the amounts claimable on tax by 50%. Businesses have been able to claim electricity costs on their tax returns, and
that means that the taxpayer has been funding this shocking waste".
She added,
"1. The Greens have not stopped pamphlets in letterboxes,(they are delivering their own electoral material)
2. The Greens are still going to hand out at polling booths despite knowing that the electoral office
attaches a booklet in the polling booth with all the preferences directed by all parties and groups
3. They have had 3 years to negotiate with labor for a better outcome for climate change and didn't do it.
4. The greens have accepted large donations from unions,(I thought he said 3 million?) despite Bob Brown's pontification that all donations should not be allowed. The federal election is already funded by $2.30 for every vote over the minimum 4% and the greens and the other big parties, will be given that money, as well as having been given donations.
Surely they should have to repay to the government,the donation amount. But I cant see that ever getting past the senate.. they all have their own self interest to protect, rather than the interest of the voters.
5. If the greens do win the balance of power in the senate, it is likely that there will be a double dissolution within 18 months.
Greens Bob Brown talk at the Press club today
Bob Brown spoke today at the national press club, and emphasised his plan to tax the miners and use that money for education and other causes.
The chances that the greens will hold the balance of power in the senate after Saturday 21.8.10 is very high, and the MRRT/Prrt will be revitalised. He gave the undertaking that he will try to take it further than Julia Gillard, and certainly seems determined.
Meg critised the greens today in saying that: the greens are not sticking to their green platform. They have acccepted donations from the unions which means they are now tied to the unions' demands.
" they haven't even stopped the over- use of electricity in city office blocks at night. All they had to do was to stop or reduce the amounts claimable on tax by 50%. Businesses have been able to claim electricity costs on their tax returns, and
that means that the taxpayer has been funding this shocking waste".
She added,
"1. The Greens have not stopped pamphlets in letterboxes,(they are delivering their own electoral material)
2. The Greens are still going to hand out at polling booths despite knowing that the electoral office
attaches a booklet in the polling booth with all the preferences directed by all parties and groups
3. They have had 3 years to negotiate with labor for a better outcome for climate change and didn't do it.
4. The greens have accepted large donations from unions,(I thought he said 3 million?) despite Bob Brown's pontification that all donations should not be allowed. The federal election is already funded by $2.30 for every vote over the minimum 4% and the greens and the other big parties, will be given that money, as well as having been given donations.
Surely they should have to repay to the government,the donation amount. But I cant see that ever getting past the senate.. they all have their own self interest to protect, rather than the interest of the voters.
5. If the greens do win the balance of power in the senate, it is likely that there will be a double dissolution within 18 months.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
re Sedition laws-- not old and outdated.
re Sedition laws: Not old or outdated..
Australian sedition law is the area of the criminal law of Australia relating to the crime of sedition.Effectively defunct for nearly half a century, these laws returned to public notice in 2005 when changes were included in an Anti-terrorism Bill announced by Prime Minister Howard prior to a "counter-terrorism summit" of the Council of Australian Governments on September 27.
The Bill was introduced on November 3 and passed into law on December 6, 2005 after government amendments adding some protection for the reporting of news and matters of public interest were introduced in response to community pressure. The changed laws are to be reviewed in 2006.
Early prosecutions for sedition in Australia include:
the conviction of Henry Seekamp for seditious libel over the Eureka Rebellion in 1854; (how amazing that Julia Gillard is standing in the seat of Lalor Victoria- named after Peter Lalor the Eukeka Hero!)
the conviction of 13 trade union leaders of the 1891 Australian shearers' strike for sedition and conspiracy; and
the action against radical Harry Holland, jailed for two years in 1909 over his advocacy of violent revolution during the Broken Hill miners' strike.
During the First World War Sedition laws were used against those who opposed conscription and war, in particular the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in Australia [1]. In 1916 members of the IWW in Perth were charged with sedition including 83 year old Montague Miller, known as the grand old man of the labour movement. Miller was released after serving a few weeks of his sentence but was re-arrested in 1917 in Sydney at the age of 84 and sentenced to six months jail with hard labour at Long Bay Gaol on the charge of belonging to an unlawful association [2].
The Sydney Twelve were all charged and convicted with various offences including sedition.
ref wikpedia.
Australian sedition law is the area of the criminal law of Australia relating to the crime of sedition.Effectively defunct for nearly half a century, these laws returned to public notice in 2005 when changes were included in an Anti-terrorism Bill announced by Prime Minister Howard prior to a "counter-terrorism summit" of the Council of Australian Governments on September 27.
The Bill was introduced on November 3 and passed into law on December 6, 2005 after government amendments adding some protection for the reporting of news and matters of public interest were introduced in response to community pressure. The changed laws are to be reviewed in 2006.
Early prosecutions for sedition in Australia include:
the conviction of Henry Seekamp for seditious libel over the Eureka Rebellion in 1854; (how amazing that Julia Gillard is standing in the seat of Lalor Victoria- named after Peter Lalor the Eukeka Hero!)
the conviction of 13 trade union leaders of the 1891 Australian shearers' strike for sedition and conspiracy; and
the action against radical Harry Holland, jailed for two years in 1909 over his advocacy of violent revolution during the Broken Hill miners' strike.
During the First World War Sedition laws were used against those who opposed conscription and war, in particular the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in Australia [1]. In 1916 members of the IWW in Perth were charged with sedition including 83 year old Montague Miller, known as the grand old man of the labour movement. Miller was released after serving a few weeks of his sentence but was re-arrested in 1917 in Sydney at the age of 84 and sentenced to six months jail with hard labour at Long Bay Gaol on the charge of belonging to an unlawful association [2].
The Sydney Twelve were all charged and convicted with various offences including sedition.
ref wikpedia.
is Mark Latham guilty of Sedition or not..
Press release:
Wollongong Resident, Meg Sampson , senate candidate for NSW in Col K, said
today, " that she
supports Mark Latham's call to voters to not vote at all. Even though we
could both be charged with sedition. This election has been a sham, and
voters cannot trust labor, liberals or the greens.
The greens lied about not swapping preferences, and then swapped with
labor before other any candidates were known, and you can't trust the
other two leaders.
Experienced Federal election Candidates like myself and Mark Latham, know
exactly how the photo opportunities are manipulated and oppose such
deliberate orchestration.
Australians deserve better treatment."
Meg added that "she doesn't care if she doesn't get any votes, her job
right now is to highlight issues, and to support pensioners, and the
disadvantaged".
she also clarified that she had given a 3 party (lbor, Liberal and greens equally) split ticket to AEC fo rthe preferences
Wollongong Resident, Meg Sampson , senate candidate for NSW in Col K, said
today, " that she
supports Mark Latham's call to voters to not vote at all. Even though we
could both be charged with sedition. This election has been a sham, and
voters cannot trust labor, liberals or the greens.
The greens lied about not swapping preferences, and then swapped with
labor before other any candidates were known, and you can't trust the
other two leaders.
Experienced Federal election Candidates like myself and Mark Latham, know
exactly how the photo opportunities are manipulated and oppose such
deliberate orchestration.
Australians deserve better treatment."
Meg added that "she doesn't care if she doesn't get any votes, her job
right now is to highlight issues, and to support pensioners, and the
disadvantaged".
she also clarified that she had given a 3 party (lbor, Liberal and greens equally) split ticket to AEC fo rthe preferences
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Banks superprofits tax!
With the banks making larger than ever profits, the labor government should have created a bank super profits tax!
The commonwealth bank CEO is paid 9Million a year? and they made a bigger than ever profit!
But it was Wayne Swan who suported them, while they closed people's margin loans as soon as the sharemarket fell, and effectively made many shareholders homeless.
Wayne swan said "the poor banks".
So how much profit are they making on the non interest pensioner accounts? Those accounts that they created to pay no interest, so the pensioner would'nt supposedly owe the government any money!
Banks shoudl be charged a fee for for handling the pensions!
The commonwealth bank CEO is paid 9Million a year? and they made a bigger than ever profit!
But it was Wayne Swan who suported them, while they closed people's margin loans as soon as the sharemarket fell, and effectively made many shareholders homeless.
Wayne swan said "the poor banks".
So how much profit are they making on the non interest pensioner accounts? Those accounts that they created to pay no interest, so the pensioner would'nt supposedly owe the government any money!
Banks shoudl be charged a fee for for handling the pensions!
Monday, August 9, 2010
campaign junket and the Gov gen 28,000 a year clothing allowance
Monday, August 9, 2010
here's the link re the campaign junket
Here's the link to the campaign junket.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/05/2974190.htm?site=thedrum
And you can go to my blog http://megansamspon.blogspot.com
My campaign is not going forward.. as well as it should.
I'm not sure whether to agree to be a victim of the gruen nation or not..
I'll put up a pic of me in a tablecloth opposing the GG's 28,000 a year clothing allowance. Not sure if that will work.
Read More: http://noresourcetax.blogspot.com/
here's the link re the campaign junket
Here's the link to the campaign junket.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/05/2974190.htm?site=thedrum
And you can go to my blog http://megansamspon.blogspot.com
My campaign is not going forward.. as well as it should.
I'm not sure whether to agree to be a victim of the gruen nation or not..
I'll put up a pic of me in a tablecloth opposing the GG's 28,000 a year clothing allowance. Not sure if that will work.
Read More: http://noresourcetax.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Press Release 3.8.2010
Meg Sampson and June Hinchcliffe have Drawn Column K for the NSW senate.
Both Meg and June are ex Democrats, now independents, and both are concerned for the future of Australia. "We call ourselves the 2 OWLS - 2 older, wiser ladies" Meg said yesterday. You can see our pictures on our blog called Http://megansampson.blogspot.com and on twitter and facebook as both megansampson and Megamoneybox.
Meg says "Gilllard and Swan have painted themselves into a corner, with the Miners RSPT/PRRT. They should have raised the royalties or simply just removed some of the tax deductions. That would then have given the country more tax.
Instead they did a classic "Pattern Bargaining" technique. Pick a vulnerable company or sector, get an agreement, then take that agreement to others as a blueprint. . goto my http://noresourcetax.blogspot.com to read more.
So what sector will be next? Tax on churches and charities?
Soon the electors will send a message. The election will be 21.08.10, and just a 2.5% swing against labor will translate into defeat. Right now we have an angry electorate.
labor has destabilised the country, (our stable reputation) they have lost the basic Aussie view of fairness, (no stimulus was given to the long term unemployed!)
Labor abandoned the high moral ground on climate change, (yet still announced another talkfest!) They oversaw 4 deaths and more fires in insulation debacle..
PLUS Labor condoned a total rip -off in the schools funding... with tuck shops the size of cubby houses and most priced like marijuana mansions!
Some costed at $25,000 per sq metre instead of $1,000.00 per sq metre.
That won't be forgotten by every P and C and the parents. They will not forget the waste, when they are asked again to raise funds for school equipment.
Our retirees, superannuates and pensioners will struggle to pay higher electricity costs, and find affordable housing. We are selling off our houses and farms to overseas owners, while our rising homeless live in their old cars. Now Labor will even buy back your old car for $2,000.00 but ONLY if you can afford a new one! If they've got an old bomb, it's because they can't afford a new one! Pensioners will soon be living in their garages or old cars while they rent out the house. Just to make ends meet. Labor has abandoned all it stood for. Labor is the new Liberals, the Liberals are the new Labor and the greens will be so purist that no one will be able to use a natural gas heater because it's not renewable.
So, Vote for Independents first- and for us in Column K in the senate. Then for your other choice. If you simply tick the box for Column K in the senate, the AEC (The Australian Electoral office) will do a 3 way split ticket, so your vote won't be wasted.
Don't forget that there is no need for pamphlets! The Australian Electoral office will print a booklet with all the preferences and it will be in the voting booth. Just look at how much paper (and trees) the so-called Green parties will waste!
Let's stop the Santa Claus spending! Let's look after our country and it's small businesses, it's poor and the disadvantaged. This is your opportunity to get it right".
Ph 0432885510 Authorised by Megan Sampson Silent elector address, Wollongong NSW
email msmegansampson@ gmail.com
Both Meg and June are ex Democrats, now independents, and both are concerned for the future of Australia. "We call ourselves the 2 OWLS - 2 older, wiser ladies" Meg said yesterday. You can see our pictures on our blog called Http://megansampson.blogspot.com and on twitter and facebook as both megansampson and Megamoneybox.
Meg says "Gilllard and Swan have painted themselves into a corner, with the Miners RSPT/PRRT. They should have raised the royalties or simply just removed some of the tax deductions. That would then have given the country more tax.
Instead they did a classic "Pattern Bargaining" technique. Pick a vulnerable company or sector, get an agreement, then take that agreement to others as a blueprint. . goto my http://noresourcetax.blogspot.com to read more.
So what sector will be next? Tax on churches and charities?
Soon the electors will send a message. The election will be 21.08.10, and just a 2.5% swing against labor will translate into defeat. Right now we have an angry electorate.
labor has destabilised the country, (our stable reputation) they have lost the basic Aussie view of fairness, (no stimulus was given to the long term unemployed!)
Labor abandoned the high moral ground on climate change, (yet still announced another talkfest!) They oversaw 4 deaths and more fires in insulation debacle..
PLUS Labor condoned a total rip -off in the schools funding... with tuck shops the size of cubby houses and most priced like marijuana mansions!
Some costed at $25,000 per sq metre instead of $1,000.00 per sq metre.
That won't be forgotten by every P and C and the parents. They will not forget the waste, when they are asked again to raise funds for school equipment.
Our retirees, superannuates and pensioners will struggle to pay higher electricity costs, and find affordable housing. We are selling off our houses and farms to overseas owners, while our rising homeless live in their old cars. Now Labor will even buy back your old car for $2,000.00 but ONLY if you can afford a new one! If they've got an old bomb, it's because they can't afford a new one! Pensioners will soon be living in their garages or old cars while they rent out the house. Just to make ends meet. Labor has abandoned all it stood for. Labor is the new Liberals, the Liberals are the new Labor and the greens will be so purist that no one will be able to use a natural gas heater because it's not renewable.
So, Vote for Independents first- and for us in Column K in the senate. Then for your other choice. If you simply tick the box for Column K in the senate, the AEC (The Australian Electoral office) will do a 3 way split ticket, so your vote won't be wasted.
Don't forget that there is no need for pamphlets! The Australian Electoral office will print a booklet with all the preferences and it will be in the voting booth. Just look at how much paper (and trees) the so-called Green parties will waste!
Let's stop the Santa Claus spending! Let's look after our country and it's small businesses, it's poor and the disadvantaged. This is your opportunity to get it right".
Ph 0432885510 Authorised by Megan Sampson Silent elector address, Wollongong NSW
email msmegansampson@ gmail.com
what I stand for...Aussie fairness and commonsense
Gillard and Swan have painted themselves into a corner, with the Miners RSPT /PRRT.
They should have raised the royalties or simply just removed some of the tax deductions. That would then have given more tax.
instead they did a classic Pattern Bargaining. goto my http://noresourcetax.blogspot.com
So what sector will be next.
Soon the electors will really send a message.
The election will be 21.08.10, and just a 2.5% swing against will translate into defeat.
They have destabilised the country, (our stable reputation) they have lost the basic Aussie view of fairness, (no stimulus was given to the long term unemployed!)
abandoned the high moral ground on climate change, (still announced another talkfest!)
oversaw 4 deaths and more fires in insulation debacle..
PLUS they condoned a total rip -off in the schools funding... with tuck shops the size of cubby houses and most priced like marijuana mansions,
some costed at $25,000 per sq metre instead of $1,000.00 per sq metre.
That won't be forgotten by every P and C and the parents.
They will not forget the waste.
Our grandchildren will not forget the debt, and the higher tax costs that they will have to pay back.
Our retirees, superannuates and pensioners will struggle to pay higher electricity costs, and find affordable housing. We are selling off our houses and farms to overseas owners, while our rising homeless live in their old cars. Labor will even buy back your old car for $2,000.00 but ONLY if you can afford a new one!
If they've got an old bomb, it's because they can't afford a new one!
Pensioners will soon be living in their garages or old cars while they rent out the house. Just to make ends meet.
Labor Abandoned all it stood for. Labor is the new Liberals, the liberals are the new labor and the greens will be so purist that no one will be able to use a gas heater or coal fired electricity.. because it's not renewable. Vote for Independents first- and for us in Column K in the senate. Then for your other choice. If you simply tick the box for Column K, the AEC will do a 3 way split ticket, so your vote won't be wasted.
Don't forget that the re is no need for pamphlets. The Electoral office print a booklet with all the preference and it will be in the voting booth. Just look at how much paper (and trees) the so-called Green parties will waste.
Let's stop the Santa Claus spending!
Let's look after our country and it's small businesses, it's poor and the disadvantaged.
This is an opportunity to get it right.
I have several blogs
http://reduceyouruse.blogspot.com
http://reduceclimatechange.blogspot.com/
http://climatechangeandyou.blogspot.com/
plus others and
as well as below.
http://www.permaculturevisions.com/Pm-5rs.htm
and
http://www.permaculturevisions.com/cutcarbonimpacts.html
regards Megan Sampson
They should have raised the royalties or simply just removed some of the tax deductions. That would then have given more tax.
instead they did a classic Pattern Bargaining. goto my http://noresourcetax.blogspot.com
So what sector will be next.
Soon the electors will really send a message.
The election will be 21.08.10, and just a 2.5% swing against will translate into defeat.
They have destabilised the country, (our stable reputation) they have lost the basic Aussie view of fairness, (no stimulus was given to the long term unemployed!)
abandoned the high moral ground on climate change, (still announced another talkfest!)
oversaw 4 deaths and more fires in insulation debacle..
PLUS they condoned a total rip -off in the schools funding... with tuck shops the size of cubby houses and most priced like marijuana mansions,
some costed at $25,000 per sq metre instead of $1,000.00 per sq metre.
That won't be forgotten by every P and C and the parents.
They will not forget the waste.
Our grandchildren will not forget the debt, and the higher tax costs that they will have to pay back.
Our retirees, superannuates and pensioners will struggle to pay higher electricity costs, and find affordable housing. We are selling off our houses and farms to overseas owners, while our rising homeless live in their old cars. Labor will even buy back your old car for $2,000.00 but ONLY if you can afford a new one!
If they've got an old bomb, it's because they can't afford a new one!
Pensioners will soon be living in their garages or old cars while they rent out the house. Just to make ends meet.
Labor Abandoned all it stood for. Labor is the new Liberals, the liberals are the new labor and the greens will be so purist that no one will be able to use a gas heater or coal fired electricity.. because it's not renewable. Vote for Independents first- and for us in Column K in the senate. Then for your other choice. If you simply tick the box for Column K, the AEC will do a 3 way split ticket, so your vote won't be wasted.
Don't forget that the re is no need for pamphlets. The Electoral office print a booklet with all the preference and it will be in the voting booth. Just look at how much paper (and trees) the so-called Green parties will waste.
Let's stop the Santa Claus spending!
Let's look after our country and it's small businesses, it's poor and the disadvantaged.
This is an opportunity to get it right.
I have several blogs
http://reduceyouruse.blogspot.com
http://reduceclimatechange.blogspot.com/
http://climatechangeandyou.blogspot.com/
plus others and
as well as below.
http://www.permaculturevisions.com/Pm-5rs.htm
and
http://www.permaculturevisions.com/cutcarbonimpacts.html
regards Megan Sampson
Sunday, August 1, 2010
I'm greener than green..and the election preferences
I watched the mining industry's valiant efforts in the media recently,
but the Greens senate victory looks a certainty.
While I consider myself green, I'm not a fanatic. I want to see blue gen generators which use gas, and any other cheaper methods used.+solar and wave. Wind turbines seem good but are not the answer unless they are installed in windy areas away from people. I've even planted 18 trees to minimise my footprint and written blogs and articles to encourage people to live simply.
I and and my other independent team member, June Hinchcliffe, nominated
for the senate NSW, and drew col K.We are both older wiser ladies, with university degrees. We can still walk , talk read and write!
We actually gave a 3 way split ticket to each labor, lib and greens equally.
They all knew our intention, that we would "do the right thing",
but none gave us anything below 24th place.
Both of us are on low incomes and using any borrowed money for advertising
is out of the question.
Without funds for advertising, or enough mining companies to re send our
emails and blog info, a win is not probable.
If you go to Anthong greens blog or abc.net.au/elections and study the
senate pref. you will see what I mean.
I have continued working on the http://noresourcetax.blogspot.com and other
blogs, http://megansampson.blogspot.com
twitter and facebook, but right now, with no advertising or meaningful
funds, it looks to me as labor in nsw senate2, libs 3, and greens 1.
Without more effort the greens and Labor will win all the senate seats.
This means disaster for the mining industry. and nationally a greens held
senate.
I have been a political strategist, and cannot see any hope of the miners
defeating the mining tax,
unless they tell voters to vote for specific independent candidates.
(current liberal votes will remain good, but it is the "swinging voters" who
need a voice- (they usually won't cross over to the liberals because of rigid
loyalty or class).
Mining tax ads don't say who to vote for.. therefore they are not
delivering an understandable direction or outcome.
and worse,
Bob Brown is more determined than labor, in making the miners pay more tax.
He sees this issue as a moral victory.
I see it as a moral hazard. and political thuggery and damaging to our
future..
I have done what I said I would do, and I know my continued further efforts
over the next 3 weeks will not deliver the desired outcome, without help.
but I will keep on.
Can you please ask your ad manager to support us in your advertising, and
on-send our email and blog addresess to all mine workers nationally and in
NSW?
but the Greens senate victory looks a certainty.
While I consider myself green, I'm not a fanatic. I want to see blue gen generators which use gas, and any other cheaper methods used.+solar and wave. Wind turbines seem good but are not the answer unless they are installed in windy areas away from people. I've even planted 18 trees to minimise my footprint and written blogs and articles to encourage people to live simply.
I and and my other independent team member, June Hinchcliffe, nominated
for the senate NSW, and drew col K.We are both older wiser ladies, with university degrees. We can still walk , talk read and write!
We actually gave a 3 way split ticket to each labor, lib and greens equally.
They all knew our intention, that we would "do the right thing",
but none gave us anything below 24th place.
Both of us are on low incomes and using any borrowed money for advertising
is out of the question.
Without funds for advertising, or enough mining companies to re send our
emails and blog info, a win is not probable.
If you go to Anthong greens blog or abc.net.au/elections and study the
senate pref. you will see what I mean.
I have continued working on the http://noresourcetax.blogspot.com and other
blogs, http://megansampson.blogspot.com
twitter and facebook, but right now, with no advertising or meaningful
funds, it looks to me as labor in nsw senate2, libs 3, and greens 1.
Without more effort the greens and Labor will win all the senate seats.
This means disaster for the mining industry. and nationally a greens held
senate.
I have been a political strategist, and cannot see any hope of the miners
defeating the mining tax,
unless they tell voters to vote for specific independent candidates.
(current liberal votes will remain good, but it is the "swinging voters" who
need a voice- (they usually won't cross over to the liberals because of rigid
loyalty or class).
Mining tax ads don't say who to vote for.. therefore they are not
delivering an understandable direction or outcome.
and worse,
Bob Brown is more determined than labor, in making the miners pay more tax.
He sees this issue as a moral victory.
I see it as a moral hazard. and political thuggery and damaging to our
future..
I have done what I said I would do, and I know my continued further efforts
over the next 3 weeks will not deliver the desired outcome, without help.
but I will keep on.
Can you please ask your ad manager to support us in your advertising, and
on-send our email and blog addresess to all mine workers nationally and in
NSW?
Mining Tax is inevitable if green vote rises
The mining tax is inevitable if the green vote rises because Bob Brown sees this as a moral victory,and has the second preferences of labor. while I see it as a moral Hazard.
When our government engages in "pattern Bargaining" (ie force a vulnerable sector or business to an agreement, and then take that agreement to others, then we are in serious trouble. Governments are supposed to consult the electorates, via their members who then vote on the legislation in the lower house, and it is scrutinised and approved in the senate. Private negotiation with the 3 big miners is not democratic and is against the Australian constitution. It leaves the states being unfairly treated, with some states benefiting from the tax changes more than others.
The mining council and others need to tell the voters to vote for independents like myself, who have already been opposing this since it was first announced.
I'm standing for the NSW senate, as part of an unendosed group, independent and have directed our preferences to be split evenly 3 ways. Labor,Liberal,Greens.
written,and authorised by Megan Sampson Wollongong Silent elector address. NSW
When our government engages in "pattern Bargaining" (ie force a vulnerable sector or business to an agreement, and then take that agreement to others, then we are in serious trouble. Governments are supposed to consult the electorates, via their members who then vote on the legislation in the lower house, and it is scrutinised and approved in the senate. Private negotiation with the 3 big miners is not democratic and is against the Australian constitution. It leaves the states being unfairly treated, with some states benefiting from the tax changes more than others.
The mining council and others need to tell the voters to vote for independents like myself, who have already been opposing this since it was first announced.
I'm standing for the NSW senate, as part of an unendosed group, independent and have directed our preferences to be split evenly 3 ways. Labor,Liberal,Greens.
written,and authorised by Megan Sampson Wollongong Silent elector address. NSW
Friday, July 30, 2010
it's time to revisit some statistics
there's an interesting article from John Black (former labor senator) on
the green voters and their effect on labor.
He also talks about the miners stoush. The green vote may not flow 80% to labor. and the miners stoush could cost the ALP 22 seats !
REF: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2932279.htm
Transcript
NB This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.
NB This interview was first broadcast on Monday 21st June before Julia Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Two acronyms have signalled game changes in Australian political life, one was ETS. The more recent is RSPT. What precisely does it mean? Our next guest, former Queensland Labor senator John Black, says that what the resource super profits tax could mean is a loss of 22 Labor seats at the next federal election. John Black's company has drilled deep into demographic data and come up with a radical reappraisal of the attitudes and voting preferences of greens. This was discussed recently on ABC TV1's Insiders program, and Bob Brown admitted to Barry Cassidy that just because the Green primary vote goes up, this doesn't automatically imply that the ALP will pick up extra preferences. So a vote for the Greens is not automatically a vote for the ALP. Is that how John Black sees it?
John Black: There's no doubt about that. The impact for the Labor Party is disastrous. If you have 8% or so additional Green votes this time over and above what you had last time, I don't believe that there's any way that you can comfortably assume that 80% or so on average of those are going to end up in Labor's boxes, because they're not.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Let's drill down a little deeper into what we mean by 'greens'. You refer to French commentators, and they've noted that those who make green noises, they call them the bourgeois bohemians...
John Black: The Bobos.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: In fact the Bobos in France, in Europe, are economic drys. Is this the case in Australia too, on your understanding?
John Black: Well, they're certainly rich, there's no doubt about it,
that the greens are the richest group of voters in Australian politics. The poorest of course are the National Party voters...
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Can we just explore that again? The richest voters are the greens...well, Malcolm Turnbull I suppose wouldn't be surprised by that, looking at his electorate. But across the board..?
John Black: Absolutely, yes, there's no doubt about it.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: And the poorest are the Nationals?
John Black: That's right, the National Party is traditionally run by wealthy people who represent poor people, and the Greens tends to be run by lower income people representing rich people but who seem to have a view that their constituency is decidedly bolshy in terms of economic policy when in fact there's absolutely no evidence of that at all, and in fact the evidence is to the contrary.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: So in fact if green voters see green political parties threatening their income stream, they'll dump them. Is that how you see it?
John Black: In a New York second. This is not rocket science. People vote politically as consumers, and I fall back on my old Marxist historians for that little piece of wisdom. People do not vote to lose money, that's a case in point. Your green voter now has shares, your green voter now doesn't have children. Because they don't have children they have money, they have investment homes, they have shares. The simple correlations between ownership of investments, including shares, and the top income group was +0.94. You don't get any stronger than that. I mean, share ownership is clustered in then top quartile, green votes are clustered in the top quartile. Green voters are born overseas, they're the kind of people who were getting $100,000+ in WA on the old AWAs. They were into them with their ears back. These are rich, cosmopolitan, internationally qualified people.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Let's try and construct a profile then of a typical green voter in Australia in 2010.
John Black: I can't tell you about 2010 but I can tell you about 2007, and if I can just read down the list...field of study, they're defined by what they studied, and it was creative arts, your conventional arts
degrees, both male and female. And then it gets quite interesting: females in their mid 40s with no kids, female professionals. Religion: other. They're atheists, agnostics, there's no religious faith there. And then you've got other age groups, female age groups, in their 50s with no kids. And then you've got graduates in society and culture type courses. Then you've got 40-year-old women with no kids. Then you've got male professionals, people who work in arts and recreation. Field of study: architecture and building, that's another one. Field of study: eduction, industry education.
So you've got arts type graduates working in education, you've got professionals and overwhelmingly you've got no kids. And then you get down into the country of birth, green voters are overwhelmingly born in other countries, they're internationally qualified, people born in the USA or Canada or Singapore, what have you. It would be no surprise to me, sitting in the senate listening to Norm Sanders. Basically they're an internationally qualified group.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: John, what you're talking about then...a lot of our political rhetoric has been about working families, we've heard it until we're all blue in the face. But you're talking about 'a large agnostic group of younger professionals' who are really important.
John Black: That's right. Basically when you have a look at the charts, as I did, of women by age, for example, we have a situation where if a woman has two children or three children or more, they simply don't vote green. They tend to have less disposable income and they tend to vote Labor, until they're in their 40s and then sort of drift off to the coalition, which is sort of a pattern that's been going on since about 1900, so that's pretty much written in stone.
But if they have no kids, their support for the Greens remains strong right up until their 60s. If they have one, their support for the Greens doesn't start until their late 30s, but if they've had two they're lost to the Greens. So the Greens are a party of the inner city, of the professionals, of the higher incomes, and that's all a function of basically no kids. If you have kids, as a female professional you don't get the job opportunities, you don't get promoted, that's the cruel fact of life.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: So paid parental leave is not a policy that...well, it's interesting, Bob Brown says it's the go but it's not really
appealing to the core Green voter.
John Black: Well, the rate of pay is a bit of a joke really, isn't it. I mean, Bob would be better off with Tony Abbott's scheme basically and there's no two ways about it. The scheme that Labor's coming up with is not going to attract Green voters, from what I can see of their profile. It's better than nothing, I suppose, but the Green voters that I'm looking at now who live in the inner cities have a child in long day-care from the age of three to five to six months, and that child will stay in care in some form or another until they're 17. They move seamlessly from childcare into a private school. A private school doesn't cost any more. So they don't blink at putting them straight into pre-prep and the prep, and that child will stay at an inner-city private school right through until they're 17. And I tell you what, they'll come out the other end voting Green too.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Karl Marx wouldn't be surprised by this, would he, in terms of base and superstructure?
John Black: Yes, well, the 18-year-olds who come out from the government system will be voting Labor. It's interesting, when you look at teenagers, the ones with the private school backgrounds are the ones who are voting Greens, the ones who went to government schools are voting Labor, and then of course in their 20s people get married, they get a job, they get debts, they get liabilities, their votes are in a state of flux. And politicians have known this for years, which is why they tend to spoil them.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: That's why you say that if we look at young professionals in the inner city they produced a time bomb for the ALP demographic base.
John Black: Yes, we started looking at the occupational profiles using census data in the mid '70s and when we looked at safe Labor inner city electorates in those days you would find 60%, 70% of the male workforce, for example, would be employed in skilled blue-collar jobs or unskilled blue-collar jobs, and there was a perfect one-to-one relationship between that and the Labor vote. So there was a really rock-solid Labor vote, particularly at the federal level, it didn't change, and you could just read it like a book. And in fact the percentage of working class jobs was a better guide to the next vote than the previous vote, it was a better guide than the pendulum, statistically.
xxxxxxxxx
Rock solid.
And then over a lengthy period of time what's happened is that the price of inner city real estate has gone up and these richer young professionals have bought back into those suburbs and have shouldered aside all the old working class people, and now these seats are still returning historically strong Labor two-party preferred votes, but the votes now are coming from rich young people who have absolutely nothing in common with the old social mores that typified inner city Labor seats in the '70s. It's a time bomb for the Labor Party and they're just locked in this time warp where they're still looking after what they think is still there.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: We've got a time warp and we've got at time bomb, and then we've got a thing called the resource super profits tax. Does that kick the bomb along?
John Black: The simple truth is when you're looking at this particular professional group, they're rich, they're well qualified, and not withstanding many of them have studied arts they can still add up in a rudimentary way so they know what's to their own advantage, and if they own shares then they know that they're going to be losing money from a super tax on mining, that's where the tax is going to come from, it's going to come from the rich. Let's be frank about it, the ALP has been modelling this for years, we all know that. I mean, I've been modelling this for years. This was a tax designed to come off Liberal voters and go to Labor voters, that's what it's all about, but the Labor Party miscalculated, they didn't realise they had so many rich Labor voters and that they're clustered in a certain number of seats but also spread across a large number of their marginal seats as well.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Aren't there some caucus hard-heads who privately...I'm thinking of Lindsay Tanner, for example, doesn't he know what's what with the Green voters?
John Black: Yes, and you would think that he would have been consulted, but apparently he wasn't. This is not rocket science, mate, you just have to ask people smarter than yourself, and given the current prime minister and treasurer they've got a lot of people to choose from.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: On your analysis of this RSPT and given the demographic changes,
xxxxxxxxxxx
you see a possibility of a 15-seat majority to Tony Abbott with around 51.6% of the vote.
John Black: Yes, I was simply averaging the news poll and the Nielsen poll and taking into account the distribution of the Green voters across the electorates and the leakage of preferences last time and a range of other things. It wasn't particularly complicated, but I simply wanted to determine whether or not this swing would be bottled up in the safer Liberal seats that wouldn't be affected by a swing, and they weren't. And in fact the swings that we modelled were very close to those which you would get from an average swing model. So the maths stands up, I'm afraid.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Let's just round up looking at caucus. On your analysis, the Labor federal caucus is experiencing the seven stages of grief at the thought of life without Kevin. That's a wonderful metaphor.
John Black: I've been a member of the caucus and I know how it works and there's varying levels of sophistication in terms of perception, and I think the more perceptive ones are further along the stages of grief. But the first reaction is denial, and then they want to shoot the messenger, so anybody who utters any critical comments gets excoriated. Then they move on to the other stages in terms of bargaining and acceptance and that sort of thing and then moving on. And I just think it's fascinating when you talk to them that they're all going through these stages.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Speaking of sophistication, a final question; why do you describe Wayne Swan as 'the real sad sack of the seven stages of grief'?
John Black: I think Wayne probably believes in the tax itself and I think that's unfortunate for him really. I think the tax has clearly come out of a limited number of individuals and I just think it's a bit sad really. We've come through a recession which never was, and we've come through it reasonably well, and one of the underpinnings of that was the broader perception in the community that mining and our links to China have kept us strong. I fail to understand the logic behind this, and I know what's going on, clearly the government wanted to raise money and it was clearly unprepared to wind back on the stimulus, and this is what has come out of it. But I think governments avoid these pitfalls if they play the rules, if they release the recommendations as a green paper and then as a white paper, if they invite community discussion, if they allow for feedback from the broader community, and if they move progressively towards a solution. If they'd followed those steps I don't believe that they'd be in this position now and, as I said, that's why I regard that as a little bit unfortunate.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: John Black is a former Queensland Labor senator and managing director of Elaborate, a demographic profiling company. His analysis, 'A Rudd's Mining Tax Could Cost Labor 22 Seats' was published in the Australian Financial Review, for which he writes a regular column. We'll post a link on our website to his comprehensive analysis for the 2007 federal election.
the green voters and their effect on labor.
He also talks about the miners stoush. The green vote may not flow 80% to labor. and the miners stoush could cost the ALP 22 seats !
REF: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2932279.htm
Transcript
NB This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.
NB This interview was first broadcast on Monday 21st June before Julia Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Two acronyms have signalled game changes in Australian political life, one was ETS. The more recent is RSPT. What precisely does it mean? Our next guest, former Queensland Labor senator John Black, says that what the resource super profits tax could mean is a loss of 22 Labor seats at the next federal election. John Black's company has drilled deep into demographic data and come up with a radical reappraisal of the attitudes and voting preferences of greens. This was discussed recently on ABC TV1's Insiders program, and Bob Brown admitted to Barry Cassidy that just because the Green primary vote goes up, this doesn't automatically imply that the ALP will pick up extra preferences. So a vote for the Greens is not automatically a vote for the ALP. Is that how John Black sees it?
John Black: There's no doubt about that. The impact for the Labor Party is disastrous. If you have 8% or so additional Green votes this time over and above what you had last time, I don't believe that there's any way that you can comfortably assume that 80% or so on average of those are going to end up in Labor's boxes, because they're not.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Let's drill down a little deeper into what we mean by 'greens'. You refer to French commentators, and they've noted that those who make green noises, they call them the bourgeois bohemians...
John Black: The Bobos.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: In fact the Bobos in France, in Europe, are economic drys. Is this the case in Australia too, on your understanding?
John Black: Well, they're certainly rich, there's no doubt about it,
that the greens are the richest group of voters in Australian politics. The poorest of course are the National Party voters...
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Can we just explore that again? The richest voters are the greens...well, Malcolm Turnbull I suppose wouldn't be surprised by that, looking at his electorate. But across the board..?
John Black: Absolutely, yes, there's no doubt about it.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: And the poorest are the Nationals?
John Black: That's right, the National Party is traditionally run by wealthy people who represent poor people, and the Greens tends to be run by lower income people representing rich people but who seem to have a view that their constituency is decidedly bolshy in terms of economic policy when in fact there's absolutely no evidence of that at all, and in fact the evidence is to the contrary.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: So in fact if green voters see green political parties threatening their income stream, they'll dump them. Is that how you see it?
John Black: In a New York second. This is not rocket science. People vote politically as consumers, and I fall back on my old Marxist historians for that little piece of wisdom. People do not vote to lose money, that's a case in point. Your green voter now has shares, your green voter now doesn't have children. Because they don't have children they have money, they have investment homes, they have shares. The simple correlations between ownership of investments, including shares, and the top income group was +0.94. You don't get any stronger than that. I mean, share ownership is clustered in then top quartile, green votes are clustered in the top quartile. Green voters are born overseas, they're the kind of people who were getting $100,000+ in WA on the old AWAs. They were into them with their ears back. These are rich, cosmopolitan, internationally qualified people.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Let's try and construct a profile then of a typical green voter in Australia in 2010.
John Black: I can't tell you about 2010 but I can tell you about 2007, and if I can just read down the list...field of study, they're defined by what they studied, and it was creative arts, your conventional arts
degrees, both male and female. And then it gets quite interesting: females in their mid 40s with no kids, female professionals. Religion: other. They're atheists, agnostics, there's no religious faith there. And then you've got other age groups, female age groups, in their 50s with no kids. And then you've got graduates in society and culture type courses. Then you've got 40-year-old women with no kids. Then you've got male professionals, people who work in arts and recreation. Field of study: architecture and building, that's another one. Field of study: eduction, industry education.
So you've got arts type graduates working in education, you've got professionals and overwhelmingly you've got no kids. And then you get down into the country of birth, green voters are overwhelmingly born in other countries, they're internationally qualified, people born in the USA or Canada or Singapore, what have you. It would be no surprise to me, sitting in the senate listening to Norm Sanders. Basically they're an internationally qualified group.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: John, what you're talking about then...a lot of our political rhetoric has been about working families, we've heard it until we're all blue in the face. But you're talking about 'a large agnostic group of younger professionals' who are really important.
John Black: That's right. Basically when you have a look at the charts, as I did, of women by age, for example, we have a situation where if a woman has two children or three children or more, they simply don't vote green. They tend to have less disposable income and they tend to vote Labor, until they're in their 40s and then sort of drift off to the coalition, which is sort of a pattern that's been going on since about 1900, so that's pretty much written in stone.
But if they have no kids, their support for the Greens remains strong right up until their 60s. If they have one, their support for the Greens doesn't start until their late 30s, but if they've had two they're lost to the Greens. So the Greens are a party of the inner city, of the professionals, of the higher incomes, and that's all a function of basically no kids. If you have kids, as a female professional you don't get the job opportunities, you don't get promoted, that's the cruel fact of life.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: So paid parental leave is not a policy that...well, it's interesting, Bob Brown says it's the go but it's not really
appealing to the core Green voter.
John Black: Well, the rate of pay is a bit of a joke really, isn't it. I mean, Bob would be better off with Tony Abbott's scheme basically and there's no two ways about it. The scheme that Labor's coming up with is not going to attract Green voters, from what I can see of their profile. It's better than nothing, I suppose, but the Green voters that I'm looking at now who live in the inner cities have a child in long day-care from the age of three to five to six months, and that child will stay in care in some form or another until they're 17. They move seamlessly from childcare into a private school. A private school doesn't cost any more. So they don't blink at putting them straight into pre-prep and the prep, and that child will stay at an inner-city private school right through until they're 17. And I tell you what, they'll come out the other end voting Green too.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Karl Marx wouldn't be surprised by this, would he, in terms of base and superstructure?
John Black: Yes, well, the 18-year-olds who come out from the government system will be voting Labor. It's interesting, when you look at teenagers, the ones with the private school backgrounds are the ones who are voting Greens, the ones who went to government schools are voting Labor, and then of course in their 20s people get married, they get a job, they get debts, they get liabilities, their votes are in a state of flux. And politicians have known this for years, which is why they tend to spoil them.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: That's why you say that if we look at young professionals in the inner city they produced a time bomb for the ALP demographic base.
John Black: Yes, we started looking at the occupational profiles using census data in the mid '70s and when we looked at safe Labor inner city electorates in those days you would find 60%, 70% of the male workforce, for example, would be employed in skilled blue-collar jobs or unskilled blue-collar jobs, and there was a perfect one-to-one relationship between that and the Labor vote. So there was a really rock-solid Labor vote, particularly at the federal level, it didn't change, and you could just read it like a book. And in fact the percentage of working class jobs was a better guide to the next vote than the previous vote, it was a better guide than the pendulum, statistically.
xxxxxxxxx
Rock solid.
And then over a lengthy period of time what's happened is that the price of inner city real estate has gone up and these richer young professionals have bought back into those suburbs and have shouldered aside all the old working class people, and now these seats are still returning historically strong Labor two-party preferred votes, but the votes now are coming from rich young people who have absolutely nothing in common with the old social mores that typified inner city Labor seats in the '70s. It's a time bomb for the Labor Party and they're just locked in this time warp where they're still looking after what they think is still there.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: We've got a time warp and we've got at time bomb, and then we've got a thing called the resource super profits tax. Does that kick the bomb along?
John Black: The simple truth is when you're looking at this particular professional group, they're rich, they're well qualified, and not withstanding many of them have studied arts they can still add up in a rudimentary way so they know what's to their own advantage, and if they own shares then they know that they're going to be losing money from a super tax on mining, that's where the tax is going to come from, it's going to come from the rich. Let's be frank about it, the ALP has been modelling this for years, we all know that. I mean, I've been modelling this for years. This was a tax designed to come off Liberal voters and go to Labor voters, that's what it's all about, but the Labor Party miscalculated, they didn't realise they had so many rich Labor voters and that they're clustered in a certain number of seats but also spread across a large number of their marginal seats as well.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Aren't there some caucus hard-heads who privately...I'm thinking of Lindsay Tanner, for example, doesn't he know what's what with the Green voters?
John Black: Yes, and you would think that he would have been consulted, but apparently he wasn't. This is not rocket science, mate, you just have to ask people smarter than yourself, and given the current prime minister and treasurer they've got a lot of people to choose from.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: On your analysis of this RSPT and given the demographic changes,
xxxxxxxxxxx
you see a possibility of a 15-seat majority to Tony Abbott with around 51.6% of the vote.
John Black: Yes, I was simply averaging the news poll and the Nielsen poll and taking into account the distribution of the Green voters across the electorates and the leakage of preferences last time and a range of other things. It wasn't particularly complicated, but I simply wanted to determine whether or not this swing would be bottled up in the safer Liberal seats that wouldn't be affected by a swing, and they weren't. And in fact the swings that we modelled were very close to those which you would get from an average swing model. So the maths stands up, I'm afraid.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Let's just round up looking at caucus. On your analysis, the Labor federal caucus is experiencing the seven stages of grief at the thought of life without Kevin. That's a wonderful metaphor.
John Black: I've been a member of the caucus and I know how it works and there's varying levels of sophistication in terms of perception, and I think the more perceptive ones are further along the stages of grief. But the first reaction is denial, and then they want to shoot the messenger, so anybody who utters any critical comments gets excoriated. Then they move on to the other stages in terms of bargaining and acceptance and that sort of thing and then moving on. And I just think it's fascinating when you talk to them that they're all going through these stages.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: Speaking of sophistication, a final question; why do you describe Wayne Swan as 'the real sad sack of the seven stages of grief'?
John Black: I think Wayne probably believes in the tax itself and I think that's unfortunate for him really. I think the tax has clearly come out of a limited number of individuals and I just think it's a bit sad really. We've come through a recession which never was, and we've come through it reasonably well, and one of the underpinnings of that was the broader perception in the community that mining and our links to China have kept us strong. I fail to understand the logic behind this, and I know what's going on, clearly the government wanted to raise money and it was clearly unprepared to wind back on the stimulus, and this is what has come out of it. But I think governments avoid these pitfalls if they play the rules, if they release the recommendations as a green paper and then as a white paper, if they invite community discussion, if they allow for feedback from the broader community, and if they move progressively towards a solution. If they'd followed those steps I don't believe that they'd be in this position now and, as I said, that's why I regard that as a little bit unfortunate.
Paul Comrie-Thomson: John Black is a former Queensland Labor senator and managing director of Elaborate, a demographic profiling company. His analysis, 'A Rudd's Mining Tax Could Cost Labor 22 Seats' was published in the Australian Financial Review, for which he writes a regular column. We'll post a link on our website to his comprehensive analysis for the 2007 federal election.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
labors Pattern Bargaining & I'm standing for NSW senate.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Labors' Pattern Bargaining & I'm standing for the senate NSW
Miners are threatening to place ads during the election campaign.
well. so they should.
why? BECAUSE the Rudd/Gillard labor government engaged in PATTERN BARGAINING. essentially divide and conquer.
that's what the teamsters union do in the USA, and what our unions could do in AUSTRALIA. It's also what work choices was trying to stop.
LABOR picked an industry that they thought they could force to pay more money and one that they hoped that the voters would condone on moral grounds. THEN THEY picked only a few companies to force to an agreement. Then they would use that agreement to force others.
I oppose the mining tax because (1) it is against the constitution (you cannot create tax laws which might not treat the states fairly- in this case WA and QLD were being offered extra incentives.) and ( 2) because of this deceptive way of getting agreement instead of our representatives debating and creating a law about it..which could then be challenged in the supreme court.
(3) by abolishing the royalty system, labor is taking money from the states, and gaining more federally.
(4) Labor will target more industry sectors and bring them to heel one by one. It shouldn't be allowed.
(5) I also oppose the secrecy clauses in the PRRT (and in 176 other pieces of legislation.)
vote for me - Megan Sampson in the NSW senate.
read my posts on Http://noresourcetax.blogspot.com and other links.
read these articles,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/newmont-mining-and-barrick-gold-threaten-newcrests-lihir-bid/story-e6frg9df-1225876664954
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/clive-palmer-angry-over-mining-super-proft-taxation-advertisements/story-e6freon6-1225873061291
Posted by Mega at 1:39 AM
Labels: federal elections, http://megamoneybox.blogspot.com, www.fmgl.com.au, www.permaculturevisions.c
Read More: http://noresourcetax.blogspot.com/
Labors' Pattern Bargaining & I'm standing for the senate NSW
Miners are threatening to place ads during the election campaign.
well. so they should.
why? BECAUSE the Rudd/Gillard labor government engaged in PATTERN BARGAINING. essentially divide and conquer.
that's what the teamsters union do in the USA, and what our unions could do in AUSTRALIA. It's also what work choices was trying to stop.
LABOR picked an industry that they thought they could force to pay more money and one that they hoped that the voters would condone on moral grounds. THEN THEY picked only a few companies to force to an agreement. Then they would use that agreement to force others.
I oppose the mining tax because (1) it is against the constitution (you cannot create tax laws which might not treat the states fairly- in this case WA and QLD were being offered extra incentives.) and ( 2) because of this deceptive way of getting agreement instead of our representatives debating and creating a law about it..which could then be challenged in the supreme court.
(3) by abolishing the royalty system, labor is taking money from the states, and gaining more federally.
(4) Labor will target more industry sectors and bring them to heel one by one. It shouldn't be allowed.
(5) I also oppose the secrecy clauses in the PRRT (and in 176 other pieces of legislation.)
vote for me - Megan Sampson in the NSW senate.
read my posts on Http://noresourcetax.blogspot.com and other links.
read these articles,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/newmont-mining-and-barrick-gold-threaten-newcrests-lihir-bid/story-e6frg9df-1225876664954
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/clive-palmer-angry-over-mining-super-proft-taxation-advertisements/story-e6freon6-1225873061291
Posted by Mega at 1:39 AM
Labels: federal elections, http://megamoneybox.blogspot.com, www.fmgl.com.au, www.permaculturevisions.c
Read More: http://noresourcetax.blogspot.com/
Friday, July 16, 2010
so the Fed election is to be held on August 21st
So the election is announced for 21st August 2010., with the issue of writs on Monday(?)This will effectively cut off all new voters, and also the election will be fought on the old federal bondaries.
WHAT ARE THE MAIN ISSUES?
WELL JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING FROM ILLEGAL BOAT PEOPLE (PEACEFUL INVASION?) to employment, climate change, global financial crisis, schools funding and of course 50% tax deduction for school uniforms. etc etc.
Not much about the miners tax (MRRT) to the PRRT, yet anyway.
did you know that the PRRT has secrecy provisions as does 176 pieces of legislation.
Not just fines of $10,000 and or 2 years jail if you relay information but also saying you can't show a can't any documents from the company in question.
Might be great for AWB Directors but horrifying when you think that OUR government apples a law to prevent justice.
WHAT ARE THE MAIN ISSUES?
WELL JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING FROM ILLEGAL BOAT PEOPLE (PEACEFUL INVASION?) to employment, climate change, global financial crisis, schools funding and of course 50% tax deduction for school uniforms. etc etc.
Not much about the miners tax (MRRT) to the PRRT, yet anyway.
did you know that the PRRT has secrecy provisions as does 176 pieces of legislation.
Not just fines of $10,000 and or 2 years jail if you relay information but also saying you can't show a can't any documents from the company in question.
Might be great for AWB Directors but horrifying when you think that OUR government apples a law to prevent justice.
Monday, July 5, 2010
the Why, the Wherefore and the Where-to
I started my political activism and interest as a Member of the Australian Democrats, then became an independent.Then I ignored politics for a long time.
I've now realised us ordinary Aussies have been asleep at the wheel, and need to examine what has been, and is, going on.
Being a centre moderate, and trying to see the merits of both sides, REALLY DOES make you the ham in the middle. Unfortunately, it doubles your enemies.
Here's an interesting article from former Democrat Leader.
We weren't "friends" but I respect her ability and views.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Julia-Gillard-politics-mining-tax-RSPT-MRRT-pd20100705-72S87?OpenDocument&src=pmm
Gillard's Senate stockade
Natasha Stott Despoja
Published 6:54 AM, 5 Jul 2010 Last update 10:11 AM, 5 Jul 2010
Quickly moving on from the resource super profits tax, Prime Minister Gillard has flagged her next agenda item – promising action on the issue of asylum seekers.
The government has to decide on the moratorium on asylum seekers from Sri Lanka and, no doubt, Gillard will take the opportunity to announce broader, presumably tougher, immigration policy.
Crafting a suitable policy stance on the seemingly intractable issues of asylum seekers and climate change – the latter being the other outstanding issue Gillard has pledged to tackle – will be a greater test of Prime Minister Gillard’s effectiveness than resolving the RSPT, now the minerals resource rent tax (MRRT).
Voters won’t be easily appeased with compromises or backdowns in these key policy areas. On immigration policy, a lurch to the right, or greater toughness, risks alienating left-leaning Labor voters and gives the Greens fodder. Any move to the left, or a seemingly ‘softer policy’, will give the opposition plenty of dog-whistling room.
No one really expects a relaxing of treatment of asylum seekers. The Prime Minister has been down this road before (as Shadow Minister for Immigration in the wake of Tampa) and is already invoking debates about “political correctness” and “censorship” in an attempt to excuse a tougher stance in the eyes of her more progressive constituents. Her disdain for third-party views will probably be the same as when Tampa was on the agenda.
Third parties won’t prevent legislative or policy change on this issue given the almost bipartisan nature of immigration policy, but when it comes to the PM’s deal on the MRRT, they just might.
There was never any doubt that the Prime Minister’s first task – if not the only one before the election – was to resolve the RSPT dispute. The acrimony between mining chiefs and the government had already claimed a Prime Ministerial scalp, was costing money and bleeding poll points to the opposition.
The apparent alacrity with which the issue was resolved shouldn’t surprise us. Whether Andrew Forrest was right in claiming that he was on the verge of a deal with Kevin Rudd, it was clear that if the issue went on much longer it would start to weaken Gillard’s premiership as well.
Speculation now surrounds the likelihood of legislation being passed. In some ways, it’s a moot point given we will probably head to the polls before Parliament returns and the government is promising a long consultation period.
But a critical issue will be the timing of legislation. Under the RSPT proposal, the government committed to a staggered approach with consultation over the next 12 months before the release of an Issues Paper and a Final Design Paper with draft legislation prior to the commencement date on 1 July 2012.
Given the Senate doesn’t change until July 1, 2011, even if the ALP wins the election, Gillard faces a Senate in which the ALP holds only 32 seats.
An ALP government might even choose to introduce the MRRT legislation earlier given potential problems with a post 2011 Greens’ controlled Senate.
Furthermore, a post-election opposition licking its wounds after a Gillard victory may well reconsider its opposition to the MRRT if the mining companies want certainty as soon as possible.
Either way, if the balance of power comes into play, cross-bench views on the tax are fluid.
For the first half of next year, Family First’s Senator Stephen Fielding will be exercising his last hold on power, given he is likely to lose the seat and his stance on the tax has been hostile.
South Australian 'No Pokies' Senator Nick Xenophon , who will be half way through his term in July 2011, has shown his willingness to negotiate constructively on most legislation (drawing a line at the government’s ETS and the private health rebate changes). His concerns revolved around smaller mines.
The Greens – with five senators and set to increase – claimed ownership of the RSPT from the get go. They have denounced the Gillard deal and will seek to hit the mining industry harder through amendments but no one expects them to vote against the tax if their amendments fail. It is little wonder Prime Minister Gillard contacted Greens’ Leader Bob Brown the weekend she became leader. If she’s a more canny and inclusive negotiator than her predecessor she will realise that the Senate is crucial in achieving her agenda.
Those Prime Ministers who have succeeded in Senate negotiations have either had astute Ministers representing them such as Gareth Evans (Native Title) and Peter Reith (Workplace Relations 1996) or have recognised that they can catch more flies with the proverbial honey than “unrepresentative swill’ taunts.
So the mining industry may have won the battle, but the Senate is used to longer wars.
When the government of the day doesn’t control both Houses negotiation and compromise are inevitable. What’s unusual about the RSPT is that it galvanised the mining sector and resulted in change before legislation was even drafted.
Nonetheless, Gillard’s so-called consensus politics bodes well for future policy outcomes as to what that means for asylum seeker and climate change policy we will soon see
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)