VIC State election 2018

[Rorschach]

Victoria the LW Progressive State...

Victorian election: Liberal campaigners must stick to the game plan in Victoria
By Peta Credlin
12:00AM November 16, 2018

A few years ago in the federal parliam­ent, there was a motion condemning then Speaker Peter Slipper’s offensive characteris­ations of female genitalia. As I sat in the adviser’s box and saw crestfallen Labor faces, I felt we had their measure. After all, how on earth could this party of the hectoring, identity politics warriors defend his comments even though they needed his vote to survive; it was a perfect political pincer.

Until Julia Gillard took to the dispatch box and made her ­(in)famous misogyny speech. It should never be forgotten that her attack on a man with three daughters was to defend the putrid comment­s of a bought vote. But when it comes to shameless audacit­y, Labor has no peer.

Cut this week to Premier Danie­l Andrews professing outrage at the vile date-rape lyrics and ­offensive Facebook posts of the Greens candidate for the seat of Footscray, Angus McAlpine. By any measure, he’s an unworthy indiv­idual who takes pride in the degradation of women and coarse homophobic slurs. Asked about McAlpine’s songs and his social media posts, Andrews rightly called them out, saying the Greens had a “massive cultural problem”. Which, of course, they do. But the Premier’s words are hollow because in his desperation to retain government, he is taking Greens preferences, including those of the disgusting Footscray aspirant.

That McAlpine remains the endorsed candidate for the Greens says everything you need to know about their hypocrisy when it comes to women, and their in­sincere respect for minorities. That Labor will still do preference deals with them, not even demand McAlpine is removed as candid­ate, and, as we all know, if minority government beckons, will form an alliance with this fringe outfit, says a lot about Labor too.

As campaigns go, this has not been the usual state race. We’ve had ministers under investigation by the police fraud squad refusing to co-operate but still standing for election and hoping voters look the other way; we’ve had the ­diversions of Victoria’s horse-racin­g seaso­n; and last Friday terroris­m again turned up on Melbour­ne streets. When strateg­ists plan the perfect campaign (which of course, never eventuates), governments look for 33 days of announcements to cement their achievements and plenty of distractions (footy finals, school holidays, that sort of thing) to stop people thinking too much about the decision they’ll make, in the hope they’ll drift into polling day content enough to “roll over” the government for another term.

Oppositions, on the other hand, welcome the unplanned and hope unanticipated bumps in the road unsettle their opponent, and shift momentum in their favour.

Now I want to be clear here. No one would want to see the events of last week but neither party’s campaign would have failed to war-game how they might deal with such an occurrence either. Sadly, random acts of violence must be contemplated in modern campaigning, such is the scourge of Islamist terroris­m.

Depending on election timing, and in Victoria it has a fixed date, campaign teams war-game other “known unknowns” — ­inter­national calamity, natural disasters, the sudden death of a sittin­g member or candidate — all of which have happened at some time in recen­t memory. How you cope with it can swing a result. For the better part of three years, the Liberal opposition under Matthew Guy has made law and order a key electoral issue. He’s focus­ed on reform to bail laws, more uniformed police, tougher sentencing rules and a zero-­tolerance approach to ethnic gang violence.

For the Liberals, the Bourke Street attack has made it harder to keep up this policy argument lest they are perceived to be trying to capitalise on events. Yet failing to keep the pressure up on law-and-order issues risks letting a government soft in this area get away with policy neglect and excuses in the face of increased violent and ­sexual crimes in Victoria.

Too often, Liberal campaigners play it safe, but here they need to stick to their game plan and keep the pressure on Labor.

Last week’s terror death, yet another in a city now holding the sorry record of Australia’s terrorist attack capital, says something very real about law and order in Vic­toria. It doesn’t say everything — it’s more complex than that — but it can’t be excused away either.

[Rorschach]

VICTORIAN ELECTION
The left gets ready to scream 'haters!'
by Terri M. Kelleher and Chris McCormack
News Weekly, November 17, 2018

Ten organisations have penned an open letter to Victorian politicians “demanding that candidates and political parties do not divide Victorian communities with hate and fear this state election”.

Let’s revise the list of endangered species with proper priorities.

The organisations are all to the left of the political spectrum. They include the Victorian Trades Hall Council, Environment Victoria, Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth and a number of refugee advocates. Is this an attempt to silence debate on critical issues facing Victorians, under the guise of preventing “hate and fear”?

Political parties represent competing worldviews and their policies reflect this. It is unrealistic to expect bipartisan support on issues as diverse as drug-injecting rooms, euthanasia and abortion, dealing with crime, power generation, the state’s agenda in the content of the school curriculum, LGBT “rights”, anti-discrimination laws, locking up public land from bush users and the timber industry, water allocations for agriculture, public transport versus road infrastructure and the like. Is it divisive for parties to air their policies and let voters make up their own minds on election day as to which policies they support?

So, what are the views the left may not want discussed that would divide the community with hate and fear? Energy would be one. The three “environmental” group signatories take as gospel “anthropogenic climate change” and would see any prioritisation of low-cost, reliable power over reducing emissions as “divisive”.

The Victorian ALP wants 40 per cent renewable energy by 2025 on the way to “moving Victoria’s generation stock towards renewable and low-emissions energy, including household and community renewable generation”, and believes in “ensur[ing] that demand management is an essential component of any energy system”.

Demand management involves industry, business and householders turning off their power, or shutting down in times of peak demand. Rather than building enough power generation to meet the needs of Victorians, the ALP wants us to stop using power because ideology prevents them from building base-load power infrastructure. The Greens want “at least 90 per cent renewable [energy] by 2030” on their way to “100 per cent clean energy”.

By contrast, the Coalition and Labour DLP believe in building new coal-fired power generation and scrapping renewable-energy subsidies.

Water would be another divisive issue, with environmental groups supporting prioritising environmental flows over equitable allocation of water for farmers for irrigation and food production.

The ALP 2018 Party Platform says: “The water sector makes a significant contribution to greenhouse gases through energy use and sewage treatment. An ambitious target to achieve net zero emissions before 2050 is in place and Labor will continue to make sure Victoria is on track to achieve that.

“Labor will: require water authorities to continue developing plans for reducing emissions that are appropriate to the nature of each system and that together meet the 2050 target.”

Also: “It is important that investment in waterway and catchment health is maintained. This will help improve water quality and catchment health and protect our environment and biodiversity.” And Labor wants to “explore opportunities to return more flows to the environment”.

The ALP talks about supporting a thriving agricultural sector and supporting farmers, rural communities and regional centres, and investing in irrigation infrastructure. Yet there seems to be no answer to how to ensure an adequate water supply when the inevitable Australian droughts occur.

The Greens water policy is metro-centric. The showcase article is to “mak(e) the Yarra/Birrarung swimmable again” and “(b)ring other (metropolitan) rivers – like the Maribyrnong, and tributaries like Moonee Ponds Creek and Merri Creek – into an act similar to the Yarra River Protection (Wilip-gin Birrarung murron) Act”. The Greens would also “Legislate for minimum environmental waterflows”.

Not much comfort for farmers, our food producers, there. Labour DLP supports building new dams to assist farmers and boost agricultural production as well as increase water storage capacity in preparation for drought periods.

Then there is the issue of small enterprise taking a back seat to green ideology and environmentalism. The Heyfield timber mill was threatened with closure when the ALP Government cut its timber allowance by more than half. Then that same Government spent $61 million of taxpayers’ money to purchase it to save it from closure. In what would be a comedy of errors but for the tragic consequences, Heyfield then had its timber allocation increased, leading to one other mill closing and five other mills facing closure because their allocations were reduced to compensate.

The issue is whether saving the trees by reducing the timber available for milling should take priority over use of timber for human needs and over the value to the Victorian economy of the timber industry. Heyfield alone contributed $643 million a year to the Victorian economy, employing 250 people at Heyfield and counting 10,000 others employed in businesses that directly rely on the timber produced at Heyfield or sell the finished product. The forestry industry is worth $7.3 billion a year in Victoria.

The LGBT issue is already dividing the community. Everyone – parents, children and young people in schools – are being forced to prioritise what are claimed to be their needs and wants. Through the “Safe Schools” program, gender theory is being forced on all children whether parents consent or not. Parents are told they can’t opt out. School policy is that schools can determine that a student is a “mature minor” and support the student to transition gender without parental consent. “Safe Schools” is to be in all state high schools by the end of 2018.

The “Resilience, Rights and Respectful Relationships” curriculum also teaches that gender is how you feel and can differ from your biological sex. The Greens support “Safe Schools”. The Liberals will scrap “Safe Schools”. Labour DLP will scrap “Safe Schools” and all gender theory sex education from schools and review sex-education curriculum to remove inappropriately explicit content, including any discussion of sexual activity or sexual pleasure. The ALP Government, meanwhile, has allocated $29 million for a new (gay) Pride Centre.

Are these matters that should not be discussed?

If the ALP is returned to government in the coming election, Victoria will almost certainly face a continuation and expansion of school programs such as “Safe Schools”.

We will also face legislative proposals to repeal or restrict the protections in the Equal Opportunity Act for faith-based schools, charities, hospitals and other social services; amendment of the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act to add an X category or “Unspecified” or “Indeterminate” to male and female as sex descriptors and to remove the requirement to have gender reassignment surgery as a prerequisite for a person to change their sex on their birth certificate; as well as criminalising of gay conversion or reparative therapy.

Readers wanting to cast an informed vote on November 24 can view each party’s policies on their websites to find out where that party stands on issues of importance to them.

Victorians will have different views on these and many issues. To debate them in the election is not to divide the community with hate and fear.

Rather, the 10 organisations signatories to the open letter are indul­ging in the same behaviour as the activists in the universities have been in shutting down speakers they don’t agree with and branding them “haters”.

Views should not be censored just because special interest groups do not agree with them.

[Black Orchid]

POTENTIAL terrorists could be banned from the heart of Melbourne under new counter-terrorism plans proposed by the Victorian opposition.

Under the plan, likely violent extremists would face court-ordered Melbourne CBD bans and GPS tracking if the Liberal-Nationals win government.

>snip<

Under the $89.5 million plan, a coalition government would create terrorism restriction orders, train 100 more police in counter terrorism operations, add 50 more staff to the threat assessment centre and counter terrorism command unit and put more police on city streets.

Eight dedicated patrol teams, each with four officers, would also hit the streets in Melbourne’s CBD.

Restriction orders would be sought by police and enforced by a court.

National intelligence agency ASIO could also recommend to police for orders to be sought.

Opposition counter terrorism spokesman Robert Clark said people who had their passports cancelled and were showing violent tendencies would be subject to such orders.

The opposition is basing its policy on the Harper-Lay review done after the deadly 2017 Brighton siege attack.

Mr Clark said the party had also received a briefing from Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton following Friday’s events.

After making the announcement, Mr Guy headed to his electorate of Bulleen to cast an early vote in the upcoming state election, rather than waiting until polling day on November 24.

So far more than 150,000 Victorians have voted early.

https://www.news.com.au/national/victor ... 59a2c33545

All the potential radical terrorists should be GPS tracked as a standard practice. Having to endure massive bollards around Sydney and Melbourne isn't enough and not allowing them to leave the country is ludicrous.

Let them leave and THEN cancel their passports. Which idiot decided to cancel their passports so that they have to stay here?

[brian ross]

All that would do, would be to force the potential Terrorists out in the suburbs, to the local shopping centres away from the City centre, Black Orchid. It'd save the Tories' Politicians but it wouldn't save all that many people IMHO.

[Rorschach]

Oh dear bwian....

Confused are you?

[Rorschach]

I note LWhinger is avoiding a real topic on the VIC election an has started his own ALP cheerleader one yet again...

Come on Whinger address some reality for a change.

Why would anyone vote the ALP back in?

[cods]

All that would do, would be to force the potential Terrorists out in the suburbs, to the local shopping centres away from the City centre, Black Orchid. It'd save the Tories' Politicians but it wouldn't save all that many people IMHO.

I have to agree.. how about we give them their passports back and put them on the fast plane to Syria..with no return...

why the hell are we spending million keeping tabs on people who wish us harm...

they dont like us they dont like this country... good send them back...this melb guy had issues drugs and alcohol but most of those on the watch list dont they are radicals brain washed...send them packing..... no freebee legals and long drawn out court action.. bugger it...they have made their choice...

GO....

[Black Orchid]

I would think a GPS tacking device would cover a vaster area than just the CBD. It's a start until someone sensible stands up and says ... ENOUGH IS ENOUGH and puts them on the next plane to wherever.

[Rorschach]

gps in australia covers more than just cbds

[Rorschach]

GPS tracking network