Good observation on the “womens problem”. Simply a seed planted by labor over a few years and parroted by a few disgruntled liberal women and cucked liberal leaders. Perhaps some women change sides when they have boys growing up, but that takes a while I think. Unfortunately blokes just have to put their heads down and work. Only hope is if mark latham had a tilt at the PM!
quote.>"Decades after graduating, many of these feminists have successfully infiltrated the higher echelons of the public service where it is now possible to influence the direction of governments and policies. Institutions such as the Australian Law Reform Commission or the attorney generals and justice departments in the various states and territories." <unquote https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5010
Feminists hate conservatives. And most of all they hate conservative women because they consider conservative women to be traitors to the feminist cause.
Conservative parties must cease all pandering to feminists, and purely and truly focus on and encourage individual merit in men and women.
Conservatives need to face and deal with feminism as it is, a movement that babies women, encourages female victimhood, and pressures women to be group minded like a mob of sheep, instead of individually free minded and free willed. Conservatives need to call out contemporary feminists for what they are -- bullies of women.
In every female workplace the worst bullies of good women are the feminists. Good women need to wake up to that and stand up to these bullies.
Women, be your own individual, don't let feminists tell you how to be, how to speak, what your thoughts and opinions need to be, don't let them bully or pressure you in any way. Reject their cult of female victimhood. Be your own woman, strong and kind, with your own merit, and your own freewill.
Morrison was voted in by the men's vote in 2019. He had campaigned in working class areas, drinking with "the boys" at pubs and clubs, followed by the cameras.
There was hope of a better deal for men when he supported the family Law inquiry, but he showed his true colours as a feminist yes man.
There's a big lesson for conservative parties here but I don't think they are seeing it. The Coalitions new ministry is full of women who may or may not be radical feminists, only time will tell.
Good point. That’s true, for the “quiet Australias”. Yep, he got worn down with the Higgins stuff and cucked full tilt by the end. Never not voted liberal, except this year.
The "quiet Australians" need to become the "loud Australians" now that Labor is back and men are once again at the mercy of radical feminists in all sections of society.
I read somewhere that if only male voters were counted Trump would have won California. Labor knew what they were doing, but what is really dishonest (I'm a former ALP member) is the smearing, the outright abuse. Perhaps Scott just "turned the other cheek", he needed to fight back hard and where possible go legal. The attacks on conservative women MPs were just as vile.
Prior to the last federal election l wrote to each major political party stating that whilst money was made available to protect women and children, what money was being allocated to men's issues.
I received NO comment from Labor or Liberal.
As a result l notified both parties that my vote would not be allocated to them.
If all men wrote to the major parties with the intent of not voting for them unless they realised men's issues the major parties will take notice.
Collectively we count but individually they ignore us.
Well done for being proactive. I did write to a few regarding the covid lockdowns. But I wholeheartedly agree, each member getting 1000 letters with the same type of issues, then they would be brave ignoring them.
I found the statement by Heard's lawyer to be quite indicative of where we were at. He said words to the effect that 'it did not matter if Heard had been abusive, or how many times she had been abusive to Depp, if he had abused her just once then Heard deserved to win'. Luckily the jury did not swallow his twisted idea of what constitutes justice.
"Weighing in on the verdict, he reminded the jury that physical, emotional, psychological, and verbal are all acceptable abuses. He said, "If Amber was abused by Mr Depp even one time, then she wins. It’s not about who’s the better spouse. It’s not about whether you think Amber was also abusive to Mr Depp. They are trying to trick you into thinking Amber needs to be perfect in order to win." However, the Internet has not taken Rottenborn's closing statement too kindly and called it "boring".'
Not sure of the status of this website, it was not where I first saw the comment. If true it should be available on some reputable source.
Thought you might care to know that after about 6 years as a subscriber I just cancelled my subscription to The Australian primarily because of how they have reported on this trial. Wow! I could not believe what I was reading after having watched that trial live being streamed over the internet. It is disgusting. It really is. It is so disappointing, and disturbing, how Australian legacy media is now 'gaslighting' that trial.
My comment was not about The Australian. It was about the reported statement by Heard's Lawyer. In essense he was saying it did not matter if the female was abusing the male.
I mean The Australian as far as I know, is more Right than Left, and that is why I subscribed, I'm becoming more conservative the older that I get, but it was spewing the same biased angle out as what I would have expected from the Left.
The Australian like all media in Oz is dominated by women and women's issues . Journalists are afraid to upset the sisterhood so important stories such as Bettina publishes on the unfair treatment of men don't get a mention in the MSM.
It’s a well known truism that the vast majority of women have always given precedence to ‘feelings over facts’. The contemporary woman is no different, regardless of education.
The political left and mainstream media leverage this sentiment for all it's worth, and to great effect.
We only need to look at the significant gender split on highly emoted issues such as climate change, where the narrative has evolved to become completely disproportionate to the facts.
What women don't understand is that they are being weaponised by vested interests. The "Teals' are a case in point with their campaigns being underwritten, both directly and indirectly, by renewable energy investors. These women are representing their respective electorates in parliament by inadvertently promoting a business proposition - which is exactly what Net Zero is all about - on moral and sentimental grounds. (Net Zero is considered a significant element of the emerging ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ within business circles.)
Women have become the unwitting underwriters of their own weaponization, which encapsulates virtually every woke issue that pervades contemporary society. All of these issues, without exception, are cultivated based on feelings, not facts, which is why they are so appealing to women.
If the political right want to get serious about winning back the female vote, they need to stop being party to the surreptitious infantilization of women, which is ultimately what the endless concessions and capitulation to women’s social whims is doing.
We need conviction politicians that have the courage to get real with society and hold the media to account. Voters don’t have to like a politician, but they do respect courage, the truth (backed by empirical evidence), conviction, and above all, relevance to their own lives. When any of this formula is missing, voters simply let feelings take precedence and vote accordingly, especially women.
For virtually every election cycle in the Western World, the bulk of mainstream media has become the unpaid PR department of the left, effectively muting the centre right and conservatives.
The media are no longer reporters of facts based news, having transformed into vociferous articulators of contrived opinion. There was a time when mistruths would end a journalists career, or even lead to the demise of an entire publication.
In our contemporary world, alternative facts have become the daily fodder of media and politicians, alike. The assumed morality and responsibility attached to imparting information has become anathema to both.
It’s time for a new era of conviction politicians to reverse this cultural malaise, a conviction that should be, and once was, the instinctive precedent of the centre right and conservatives.
Yes, Mark Latham is the shining example of a conviction politician, although he wasn't always that way. And Pauline Hanson who is sadly still struggling to win her Senate place. I am shocked that more Queensland men didn't give her support after her years of bravely speaking out about how they have been treated.
Late on the party here.. would love to see mark as PM. Me too surprised how PH lost support. Thankfully she got in - she works very hard and among a few pollies that talks real on men’s issues such as suicide and family court. I can only think the main Channels don’t give her any airtime. Not sure? She has evolved over the years as a very slick operator. A little less emotion sometimes - such as being a bit more prepared with Covid arguments - because it is now clear the over-reaction by Gov (yet Queenslanders still put up with it).
The leftist media have reached a point where anyone with a political viewpoint that is even slightly to the right of centre is now deemed a fascist, and that increasingly includes simply being centre-right.
The fact that the media now lump conservatives in the same factional grouping as far-right radicals, who have no place in our federal and state parliaments, shows just how far the integrity and ethics of the contemporary media has fallen.
The hypocrisy of the media is palpable, with radical leftists given free rein to endlessly spout their far-left, nation destroying rhetoric, while those on the right, such as Pauline Hanson and Alex Antic, are given none.
Alex is a federal Liberal Party senator from South Australia, who is a conviction politician that should be supported by anyone serious about the social and economic future of our nation. From what I have seen so far, I think Alex is future Prime Minister material.
He is working extremely hard to help move the Liberal Party back to the right and away from the 'Labor-lite' position the party currently projects in the electorate.
Your comment about Ron De Santis and Alex Antic being analogous to each other within their respective political systems is spot on. They are both reformers and committed conservatives, with neither man ever resiling from their core values. Each man also refuses to engage in political theatre, unlike many of their peers, but rather choose to let their actions speak for themselves.
I have high hopes for both of them.
Western nations desperately need more politicians like these two. Let's hope more are willing to walk in their shadow.
I agree, Bettina. Mark Latham has most definitely proven himself to be a conviction politician. It was hard to accept for quite some time, as there is such a wide divide on the political spectrum between Labor leader and the conservative right. But there he is, standing tall and proud, and never foundering. He is certainly worthy of our respect.
I’m absolutely dumbfounded by the position Pauline Hanson finds herself in. To have such a large swing against her is hard to fathom.
There is undoubtedly a lot to unpack about this election as there is nothing ‘normal’ about it.
Many commentators believe Albo has a strong mandate from the voting public, but with only around 32% of the primary vote, that’s hardly the case. Even the Libs appear to have garnered a slightly more respectable 37% of the primary vote. (predominately male according to polls).
This election has undoubtedly turned into a preference distribution election, probably inadvertently for many voters. Very few Australians seem to understand the preferential system.
What is interesting to note is that no conservative Liberals lost their seats to the Teals, and yet all the seats that fell were held by progressive, left leaning Liberals. I think that says a lot about the significant error the coalition has made in moving progressively to the left. The voting public aren’t interested in a Labor clone dressed in blue, or even a Labor ‘lite’ party.
Something I did notice, anecdotally, is that the right leaning and conservative forums on sites such as The Spectator, Advance Australia, and George Christensen’s Substack were filled with voters - predominantly male - wanting to punish the coalition for their march to the left. Even conservative authors of pre-election political articles were encouraging this voting behaviour.
The problem with this logic is that the so called ‘Freedom Parties’ failed dismally in their attempt to rally voters, which ultimately played out with left leaning preferences flowing abundantly into Albo’s pot of gold.
There is no doubt that we are also approaching peak climate hysteria, which has influenced the vote of many who failed to recognise any alternative policies from the major parties that were worth hanging their hat on.
To a voter who has failed to do their due diligence on;
a/ the actual empirical scale of climate change, both historical and contemporary,
b/ the logistics and efficacy of the solutions,
c/ the cost of executing the solutions,
d/ the economic implications of the solutions,
would have seen this as a worthy and time critical policy to back.
Before the next election, I think many voters will undoubtedly come to realise the fatuous reality of the leftist cabals climate policies, as this issue will be placed front and centre during this term of government. Personally, I think it has the potential to unravel into Albo’s worst nightmare if he can’t quickly put a lid on the far left within his party, and the independents and Greens.
Not only are the policies that the voting public backed incredibly idealistic and fanciful, they are undeliverable. No amount of will or money will make it happen, particularly the Teal’s and Greens version of a ‘climate solution’, which is not only pure fantasy, but economy destroying rhetoric.
As I said in my previous comment, it is time for Australian politics to get real. When we do, I think male voters in particular, and even women, will move their vote back to the coalition.
I am one that had to pull the pin of my first selection being the liberals - first time in 20 years. I didn’t waste time with freedom parties though - I gave it to PHON. Scomo had some conviction the first time around but cucked to too many issues; the hyped lib women problem; Novak saga; and ruining the fair trial of a young man by cowering with an apology among others. I knew he lost his spine. Your sentiments are correct in that voters will flock to a conviction politician- problem is the media just uses twitter for their sources - and are generally too far gone left to give a fair hearing to even a “conviction” politician. It’s not click bait enough. the climate change policies are unworkable - but labor will just cover it by saying things take time blah blah. One thing I don’t agree on is the media use to report on facts. Frank and Kerry packer used to sway elections in a big way through untruths.
You are right, Charlie. Big media, such as the leviathans operated by the Murdoch, Hearst, Maxwell, and Packer families, to name a few, have certainly used their respective power throughout the world to influence election results, both left and right.
While the media that predated them certainly had an almost exclusive information monopoly over the public mind, the same can't be said for the 20th century and beyond.
For example, leftist orators and journalists often like to moralise about Rupert Murdoch's influence in the modern era, and perhaps there are some aspects of his media campaigns that are worthy of scrutiny, but at the end of the day, the left have completely hijacked social media, most of the mainstream media, popular culture, intellectual thought, and the public square in general. An antidote to the leftist narrative is essential and, in general, Murdoch has delivered just that - except when he hasn't of course, such as backing Tony Blair for Prime Minister in the UK.
The state of a nation's media is so often a key indicator of the health of its democracy.
With a mainstream media that has sold its soul to partisan politics in Australia, it is unsurprising that many of us on the centre right feel that democracy is failing, and freedom of speech is being neutered as a fundamental right by the woke left, who are ably facilitated by a censorious suite of social media entities.
We need the people of Australia to demand a much higher standard from both the political process, and all forms of media.
As a democracy that is so often perceived as the envy of the World, we deserve better. What we have at the moment is simply not living up to the hype.
Politicians learned a long time ago to bribe people with their own money. That is why the rate of income tax/provision of services, is always a major factor in swaying votes.
They have also learned well that to win an election, you appeal to the biggest block most of all. Almost every democracy in the world has a greater female electorate than male electorate. If women can be pandered to, even at the cost of men, that makes sense to the political scientists because the power is with the women.
In countries that do not have mandatory voting, voter interest has been declining for decades because men and women simply don't have a good choice to vote for. Only when a populist party arises—such as in Spain and Hungary—does the voter count suddenly go up. (And then the main parties decry the populist party, as though being popular is somehow damaging to democracy.)
As all parties continue to move to the left, it is inevitable that new parties will arise on the right. That tends to be a problem in itself, because such parties are often quite radical (or they would not have been created). Few countries have managed to create a political party that is family-friendly and yet moderate in social and economic policies; some do exist, such as in Germany and Brazil, but most countries are not constitutionally or culturally set up to accommodate them. Essentialism does not seem as exciting as radicalism.
I must admit I hadn't given this subject much thought; however, I never doubted that our universities humanities department were breeding grounds for left wing views and, of course, dominated by female students. Not sure what the pathway is to correct this. More women in science??
For a start - remove the student debt scheme; all it achieves is to burden the taxpayer, massively increases the cost of degrees, wastes on average 25% of the students time as they will never use the information being indoctrinated into them and encourages people that aren't very good at what they are studying to do out into the workforce where they weigh down profitable businesses. The HR department was created to have a place to put educated women in so they can pass on their marxist influences in the workplace.
Next - Stop disparaging marriage, motherhood and child raising.
Sorry girls, but you simply can't have it all... no matter what the propaganda tells you.
Ideology is even being pushed into stem subjects. I know serious male scientists who are now working overseas because they had no hope of advancement in the biased, anti-male world of Australian academia.
Never a truer word spoken. After this election the question has to be asked - with all this shameful pandering to women as detailed by Bettina and I would add Morrison appointing not only a Minister for Women and an Assistant Minister for Women and then to have each and every law scrutinised through the prism of the so-called "women's cabinet" did this get one single additional woman to vote for the coalition? I can see that I'm not the only one saying this. Here's another thing. Just prior to the previous federal election when I was in the public service I was sent an invitation by my union to march for equal pay for women. This was the same union that I had paid my dues to for many years. I wrote to the union pointing out the dishonesty of this march, considering the union knows for a fact that women in the public service get paid precisely the same as men irrespective of the position. if anyone knows this for a fact it is the union. Unsurprisingly, the union did not deny what I said and tried to make the ridiculous case that some departments get paid differently to other department because they were female-dominated and male-dominated departments - to which I replied this was "bullshit". The departments are departments. It is an absurdity to characterise them in this way. A little later I noticed my union was at it again making a similar misrepresentation in the media that women were paid differently to men, so I worked out from the Australian Public Service Commission website (anyone can do this) that even though 58% of the employees in the public service were women they did about 13% of the work, which roughly translated to men working some hundreds of millions of additional hours each year. By itself, this explains why the idea there should be equal numbers in management positions is clearly preposterous. I finished by saying that if I can do this simple exercise with publicly available information why can't the CPSU? Needless to say, I did not receive a response. I also pointed out that half the union membership who pay their dues happen to be men. Why should men contribute to a union who works day and night against their interests? My point was that it was hypocritical of the union to be carrying on about banks charging fees for no service, when they were doing precisely the same thing for half their membership. Except the unions were actually worse than the banks - they actively lobbied to unfairly cheat the men out of their careers. These were the union members who paid the union's wages.
Joe, I do not doubt your telling data on the APS. But I always like to get my information from the source. I went to the APSC website but could not locate the data you used. Could you tell me where to look on the website.
hi Keith - thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, my comments related to what I did some time years ago and the information on the website may have changed in the meantime. Because they came from memory they may not be entirely accurate but I am confident that what I said was substantially correct (in retrospect could be tens of millions per year rather than hundreds of millions which still adds up to hundreds of millions and even billions over time). What I did was a simple back of the envelope calculation based on the figures provided on the APSC website at the time - number of public servants, percentages that were women which gave me percentage of men, percentage of women working part time and percentage of men working part time. My calculation was based on the assumption that part time workers worked three days a week. Hope this helps. Cheers Joe
Hopefuly the "March 2022 budget allocation of $2.1 billion to services for women and girls" is especially for women of the penised variety. I've always considered myself a liberal, but I will NEVER, EVER vote for the left until they get an adult to drive the bus and publicly denounce and renounce the insanity of "transgenderism," which is a psychic epidemic, the most dangerous mass psychosis the world has ever faced. And the women with the luxury problems don't seem to understand that "transgenderism" seeks to ABOLISH you and your SEX (no one cares about gender) – SEX, your S E X, and that of your daughters. And you seem just fine with it. Shame on you.
Good observation on the “womens problem”. Simply a seed planted by labor over a few years and parroted by a few disgruntled liberal women and cucked liberal leaders. Perhaps some women change sides when they have boys growing up, but that takes a while I think. Unfortunately blokes just have to put their heads down and work. Only hope is if mark latham had a tilt at the PM!
quote.>"Decades after graduating, many of these feminists have successfully infiltrated the higher echelons of the public service where it is now possible to influence the direction of governments and policies. Institutions such as the Australian Law Reform Commission or the attorney generals and justice departments in the various states and territories." <unquote https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5010
What is interesting is many authors who wrote books last century are still relevant today.
Feminists hate conservatives. And most of all they hate conservative women because they consider conservative women to be traitors to the feminist cause.
Conservative parties must cease all pandering to feminists, and purely and truly focus on and encourage individual merit in men and women.
Conservatives need to face and deal with feminism as it is, a movement that babies women, encourages female victimhood, and pressures women to be group minded like a mob of sheep, instead of individually free minded and free willed. Conservatives need to call out contemporary feminists for what they are -- bullies of women.
In every female workplace the worst bullies of good women are the feminists. Good women need to wake up to that and stand up to these bullies.
Women, be your own individual, don't let feminists tell you how to be, how to speak, what your thoughts and opinions need to be, don't let them bully or pressure you in any way. Reject their cult of female victimhood. Be your own woman, strong and kind, with your own merit, and your own freewill.
Morrison was voted in by the men's vote in 2019. He had campaigned in working class areas, drinking with "the boys" at pubs and clubs, followed by the cameras.
There was hope of a better deal for men when he supported the family Law inquiry, but he showed his true colours as a feminist yes man.
There's a big lesson for conservative parties here but I don't think they are seeing it. The Coalitions new ministry is full of women who may or may not be radical feminists, only time will tell.
The only hope for men is in the small parties.
Good point. That’s true, for the “quiet Australias”. Yep, he got worn down with the Higgins stuff and cucked full tilt by the end. Never not voted liberal, except this year.
The "quiet Australians" need to become the "loud Australians" now that Labor is back and men are once again at the mercy of radical feminists in all sections of society.
I read somewhere that if only male voters were counted Trump would have won California. Labor knew what they were doing, but what is really dishonest (I'm a former ALP member) is the smearing, the outright abuse. Perhaps Scott just "turned the other cheek", he needed to fight back hard and where possible go legal. The attacks on conservative women MPs were just as vile.
Prior to the last federal election l wrote to each major political party stating that whilst money was made available to protect women and children, what money was being allocated to men's issues.
I received NO comment from Labor or Liberal.
As a result l notified both parties that my vote would not be allocated to them.
If all men wrote to the major parties with the intent of not voting for them unless they realised men's issues the major parties will take notice.
Collectively we count but individually they ignore us.
Well done for being proactive. I did write to a few regarding the covid lockdowns. But I wholeheartedly agree, each member getting 1000 letters with the same type of issues, then they would be brave ignoring them.
Another great article Bettina. Thank you. your insight is wonderful
I found the statement by Heard's lawyer to be quite indicative of where we were at. He said words to the effect that 'it did not matter if Heard had been abusive, or how many times she had been abusive to Depp, if he had abused her just once then Heard deserved to win'. Luckily the jury did not swallow his twisted idea of what constitutes justice.
That's interesting. I will have to track that down. Can you send that to me, Keith, if you can find it?
I thought it was on a commentary in The Australian but could not relocate it. Maybe it was one of the links on Microsoft Edge's home page.
It has been attributed to Ben Rottenborn's closing address: From https://meaww.com/amber-heard-lawyer-ben-rotteborn-called-boring-closing-statement-571542
"Weighing in on the verdict, he reminded the jury that physical, emotional, psychological, and verbal are all acceptable abuses. He said, "If Amber was abused by Mr Depp even one time, then she wins. It’s not about who’s the better spouse. It’s not about whether you think Amber was also abusive to Mr Depp. They are trying to trick you into thinking Amber needs to be perfect in order to win." However, the Internet has not taken Rottenborn's closing statement too kindly and called it "boring".'
Not sure of the status of this website, it was not where I first saw the comment. If true it should be available on some reputable source.
Thought you might care to know that after about 6 years as a subscriber I just cancelled my subscription to The Australian primarily because of how they have reported on this trial. Wow! I could not believe what I was reading after having watched that trial live being streamed over the internet. It is disgusting. It really is. It is so disappointing, and disturbing, how Australian legacy media is now 'gaslighting' that trial.
My comment was not about The Australian. It was about the reported statement by Heard's Lawyer. In essense he was saying it did not matter if the female was abusing the male.
I mean The Australian as far as I know, is more Right than Left, and that is why I subscribed, I'm becoming more conservative the older that I get, but it was spewing the same biased angle out as what I would have expected from the Left.
The Australian like all media in Oz is dominated by women and women's issues . Journalists are afraid to upset the sisterhood so important stories such as Bettina publishes on the unfair treatment of men don't get a mention in the MSM.
It’s a well known truism that the vast majority of women have always given precedence to ‘feelings over facts’. The contemporary woman is no different, regardless of education.
The political left and mainstream media leverage this sentiment for all it's worth, and to great effect.
We only need to look at the significant gender split on highly emoted issues such as climate change, where the narrative has evolved to become completely disproportionate to the facts.
What women don't understand is that they are being weaponised by vested interests. The "Teals' are a case in point with their campaigns being underwritten, both directly and indirectly, by renewable energy investors. These women are representing their respective electorates in parliament by inadvertently promoting a business proposition - which is exactly what Net Zero is all about - on moral and sentimental grounds. (Net Zero is considered a significant element of the emerging ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ within business circles.)
Women have become the unwitting underwriters of their own weaponization, which encapsulates virtually every woke issue that pervades contemporary society. All of these issues, without exception, are cultivated based on feelings, not facts, which is why they are so appealing to women.
If the political right want to get serious about winning back the female vote, they need to stop being party to the surreptitious infantilization of women, which is ultimately what the endless concessions and capitulation to women’s social whims is doing.
We need conviction politicians that have the courage to get real with society and hold the media to account. Voters don’t have to like a politician, but they do respect courage, the truth (backed by empirical evidence), conviction, and above all, relevance to their own lives. When any of this formula is missing, voters simply let feelings take precedence and vote accordingly, especially women.
For virtually every election cycle in the Western World, the bulk of mainstream media has become the unpaid PR department of the left, effectively muting the centre right and conservatives.
The media are no longer reporters of facts based news, having transformed into vociferous articulators of contrived opinion. There was a time when mistruths would end a journalists career, or even lead to the demise of an entire publication.
In our contemporary world, alternative facts have become the daily fodder of media and politicians, alike. The assumed morality and responsibility attached to imparting information has become anathema to both.
It’s time for a new era of conviction politicians to reverse this cultural malaise, a conviction that should be, and once was, the instinctive precedent of the centre right and conservatives.
Yes, Mark Latham is the shining example of a conviction politician, although he wasn't always that way. And Pauline Hanson who is sadly still struggling to win her Senate place. I am shocked that more Queensland men didn't give her support after her years of bravely speaking out about how they have been treated.
Late on the party here.. would love to see mark as PM. Me too surprised how PH lost support. Thankfully she got in - she works very hard and among a few pollies that talks real on men’s issues such as suicide and family court. I can only think the main Channels don’t give her any airtime. Not sure? She has evolved over the years as a very slick operator. A little less emotion sometimes - such as being a bit more prepared with Covid arguments - because it is now clear the over-reaction by Gov (yet Queenslanders still put up with it).
The leftist media have reached a point where anyone with a political viewpoint that is even slightly to the right of centre is now deemed a fascist, and that increasingly includes simply being centre-right.
The fact that the media now lump conservatives in the same factional grouping as far-right radicals, who have no place in our federal and state parliaments, shows just how far the integrity and ethics of the contemporary media has fallen.
The hypocrisy of the media is palpable, with radical leftists given free rein to endlessly spout their far-left, nation destroying rhetoric, while those on the right, such as Pauline Hanson and Alex Antic, are given none.
Alex is a federal Liberal Party senator from South Australia, who is a conviction politician that should be supported by anyone serious about the social and economic future of our nation. From what I have seen so far, I think Alex is future Prime Minister material.
He is working extremely hard to help move the Liberal Party back to the right and away from the 'Labor-lite' position the party currently projects in the electorate.
Hi Peter, appreciate all your comments. Thought out and intelligent. (You should start your own substack :).
I follow Antic and he presses hard in parliament. he would make a great PM. Has some De Santis flair about him.
Thank you for your kind remarks, Charlie.
Your comment about Ron De Santis and Alex Antic being analogous to each other within their respective political systems is spot on. They are both reformers and committed conservatives, with neither man ever resiling from their core values. Each man also refuses to engage in political theatre, unlike many of their peers, but rather choose to let their actions speak for themselves.
I have high hopes for both of them.
Western nations desperately need more politicians like these two. Let's hope more are willing to walk in their shadow.
I agree, Bettina. Mark Latham has most definitely proven himself to be a conviction politician. It was hard to accept for quite some time, as there is such a wide divide on the political spectrum between Labor leader and the conservative right. But there he is, standing tall and proud, and never foundering. He is certainly worthy of our respect.
I’m absolutely dumbfounded by the position Pauline Hanson finds herself in. To have such a large swing against her is hard to fathom.
There is undoubtedly a lot to unpack about this election as there is nothing ‘normal’ about it.
Many commentators believe Albo has a strong mandate from the voting public, but with only around 32% of the primary vote, that’s hardly the case. Even the Libs appear to have garnered a slightly more respectable 37% of the primary vote. (predominately male according to polls).
This election has undoubtedly turned into a preference distribution election, probably inadvertently for many voters. Very few Australians seem to understand the preferential system.
What is interesting to note is that no conservative Liberals lost their seats to the Teals, and yet all the seats that fell were held by progressive, left leaning Liberals. I think that says a lot about the significant error the coalition has made in moving progressively to the left. The voting public aren’t interested in a Labor clone dressed in blue, or even a Labor ‘lite’ party.
Something I did notice, anecdotally, is that the right leaning and conservative forums on sites such as The Spectator, Advance Australia, and George Christensen’s Substack were filled with voters - predominantly male - wanting to punish the coalition for their march to the left. Even conservative authors of pre-election political articles were encouraging this voting behaviour.
The problem with this logic is that the so called ‘Freedom Parties’ failed dismally in their attempt to rally voters, which ultimately played out with left leaning preferences flowing abundantly into Albo’s pot of gold.
There is no doubt that we are also approaching peak climate hysteria, which has influenced the vote of many who failed to recognise any alternative policies from the major parties that were worth hanging their hat on.
To a voter who has failed to do their due diligence on;
a/ the actual empirical scale of climate change, both historical and contemporary,
b/ the logistics and efficacy of the solutions,
c/ the cost of executing the solutions,
d/ the economic implications of the solutions,
would have seen this as a worthy and time critical policy to back.
Before the next election, I think many voters will undoubtedly come to realise the fatuous reality of the leftist cabals climate policies, as this issue will be placed front and centre during this term of government. Personally, I think it has the potential to unravel into Albo’s worst nightmare if he can’t quickly put a lid on the far left within his party, and the independents and Greens.
Not only are the policies that the voting public backed incredibly idealistic and fanciful, they are undeliverable. No amount of will or money will make it happen, particularly the Teal’s and Greens version of a ‘climate solution’, which is not only pure fantasy, but economy destroying rhetoric.
As I said in my previous comment, it is time for Australian politics to get real. When we do, I think male voters in particular, and even women, will move their vote back to the coalition.
I am one that had to pull the pin of my first selection being the liberals - first time in 20 years. I didn’t waste time with freedom parties though - I gave it to PHON. Scomo had some conviction the first time around but cucked to too many issues; the hyped lib women problem; Novak saga; and ruining the fair trial of a young man by cowering with an apology among others. I knew he lost his spine. Your sentiments are correct in that voters will flock to a conviction politician- problem is the media just uses twitter for their sources - and are generally too far gone left to give a fair hearing to even a “conviction” politician. It’s not click bait enough. the climate change policies are unworkable - but labor will just cover it by saying things take time blah blah. One thing I don’t agree on is the media use to report on facts. Frank and Kerry packer used to sway elections in a big way through untruths.
You are right, Charlie. Big media, such as the leviathans operated by the Murdoch, Hearst, Maxwell, and Packer families, to name a few, have certainly used their respective power throughout the world to influence election results, both left and right.
While the media that predated them certainly had an almost exclusive information monopoly over the public mind, the same can't be said for the 20th century and beyond.
For example, leftist orators and journalists often like to moralise about Rupert Murdoch's influence in the modern era, and perhaps there are some aspects of his media campaigns that are worthy of scrutiny, but at the end of the day, the left have completely hijacked social media, most of the mainstream media, popular culture, intellectual thought, and the public square in general. An antidote to the leftist narrative is essential and, in general, Murdoch has delivered just that - except when he hasn't of course, such as backing Tony Blair for Prime Minister in the UK.
Not sure many men have the strength of character to vote for Pauline...feminism has whipped them into submission...
Peter, You have hit the nail on the head. May I use some of your assessment when arguing the case.
Thanks, Keith. I appreciate your comment. You are more than welcome to use anything I have written in my comments, if you think it is useful.
Thanks for your comment, Jamie.
The state of a nation's media is so often a key indicator of the health of its democracy.
With a mainstream media that has sold its soul to partisan politics in Australia, it is unsurprising that many of us on the centre right feel that democracy is failing, and freedom of speech is being neutered as a fundamental right by the woke left, who are ably facilitated by a censorious suite of social media entities.
We need the people of Australia to demand a much higher standard from both the political process, and all forms of media.
As a democracy that is so often perceived as the envy of the World, we deserve better. What we have at the moment is simply not living up to the hype.
Nobody as blind as those who don't want to see
Good point, Johann.
As Mark Twain said, “It’s easier to fool someone than to convince them they are being fooled.”
Politicians learned a long time ago to bribe people with their own money. That is why the rate of income tax/provision of services, is always a major factor in swaying votes.
They have also learned well that to win an election, you appeal to the biggest block most of all. Almost every democracy in the world has a greater female electorate than male electorate. If women can be pandered to, even at the cost of men, that makes sense to the political scientists because the power is with the women.
In countries that do not have mandatory voting, voter interest has been declining for decades because men and women simply don't have a good choice to vote for. Only when a populist party arises—such as in Spain and Hungary—does the voter count suddenly go up. (And then the main parties decry the populist party, as though being popular is somehow damaging to democracy.)
As all parties continue to move to the left, it is inevitable that new parties will arise on the right. That tends to be a problem in itself, because such parties are often quite radical (or they would not have been created). Few countries have managed to create a political party that is family-friendly and yet moderate in social and economic policies; some do exist, such as in Germany and Brazil, but most countries are not constitutionally or culturally set up to accommodate them. Essentialism does not seem as exciting as radicalism.
Rustyn Thomas
Hear Hear
Hear hear ...
I must admit I hadn't given this subject much thought; however, I never doubted that our universities humanities department were breeding grounds for left wing views and, of course, dominated by female students. Not sure what the pathway is to correct this. More women in science??
For a start - remove the student debt scheme; all it achieves is to burden the taxpayer, massively increases the cost of degrees, wastes on average 25% of the students time as they will never use the information being indoctrinated into them and encourages people that aren't very good at what they are studying to do out into the workforce where they weigh down profitable businesses. The HR department was created to have a place to put educated women in so they can pass on their marxist influences in the workplace.
Next - Stop disparaging marriage, motherhood and child raising.
Sorry girls, but you simply can't have it all... no matter what the propaganda tells you.
Ideology is even being pushed into stem subjects. I know serious male scientists who are now working overseas because they had no hope of advancement in the biased, anti-male world of Australian academia.
Never a truer word spoken. After this election the question has to be asked - with all this shameful pandering to women as detailed by Bettina and I would add Morrison appointing not only a Minister for Women and an Assistant Minister for Women and then to have each and every law scrutinised through the prism of the so-called "women's cabinet" did this get one single additional woman to vote for the coalition? I can see that I'm not the only one saying this. Here's another thing. Just prior to the previous federal election when I was in the public service I was sent an invitation by my union to march for equal pay for women. This was the same union that I had paid my dues to for many years. I wrote to the union pointing out the dishonesty of this march, considering the union knows for a fact that women in the public service get paid precisely the same as men irrespective of the position. if anyone knows this for a fact it is the union. Unsurprisingly, the union did not deny what I said and tried to make the ridiculous case that some departments get paid differently to other department because they were female-dominated and male-dominated departments - to which I replied this was "bullshit". The departments are departments. It is an absurdity to characterise them in this way. A little later I noticed my union was at it again making a similar misrepresentation in the media that women were paid differently to men, so I worked out from the Australian Public Service Commission website (anyone can do this) that even though 58% of the employees in the public service were women they did about 13% of the work, which roughly translated to men working some hundreds of millions of additional hours each year. By itself, this explains why the idea there should be equal numbers in management positions is clearly preposterous. I finished by saying that if I can do this simple exercise with publicly available information why can't the CPSU? Needless to say, I did not receive a response. I also pointed out that half the union membership who pay their dues happen to be men. Why should men contribute to a union who works day and night against their interests? My point was that it was hypocritical of the union to be carrying on about banks charging fees for no service, when they were doing precisely the same thing for half their membership. Except the unions were actually worse than the banks - they actively lobbied to unfairly cheat the men out of their careers. These were the union members who paid the union's wages.
Joe, I do not doubt your telling data on the APS. But I always like to get my information from the source. I went to the APSC website but could not locate the data you used. Could you tell me where to look on the website.
hi Keith - thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, my comments related to what I did some time years ago and the information on the website may have changed in the meantime. Because they came from memory they may not be entirely accurate but I am confident that what I said was substantially correct (in retrospect could be tens of millions per year rather than hundreds of millions which still adds up to hundreds of millions and even billions over time). What I did was a simple back of the envelope calculation based on the figures provided on the APSC website at the time - number of public servants, percentages that were women which gave me percentage of men, percentage of women working part time and percentage of men working part time. My calculation was based on the assumption that part time workers worked three days a week. Hope this helps. Cheers Joe
Thanks.
Joe, that is very interesting. Could you please write to me privately, via my website. I would like to follow up.
Hopefuly the "March 2022 budget allocation of $2.1 billion to services for women and girls" is especially for women of the penised variety. I've always considered myself a liberal, but I will NEVER, EVER vote for the left until they get an adult to drive the bus and publicly denounce and renounce the insanity of "transgenderism," which is a psychic epidemic, the most dangerous mass psychosis the world has ever faced. And the women with the luxury problems don't seem to understand that "transgenderism" seeks to ABOLISH you and your SEX (no one cares about gender) – SEX, your S E X, and that of your daughters. And you seem just fine with it. Shame on you.
I assume you are not suggesting I am fine with it. I have been speaking out about this thuggish trans lobby for years!