Menzies House

Bleeding hearts plug their wounds on mandatory detention

With the constant babbling of the Greens and socialist left about the 'evils' of mandatory detention, I thought it quite interesting to read this piece in the normally socialist Toronto Sun, which promotes the virtues of mandatory detention. When even the true bastion of socialist crap in Canada's most left leaning city (Save for anything in Quebec) starts promoting mandatory detention, perhaps the Greens might do well to learn to, you know, read... Oh, and for Jula Gillard and her band of merry thieves, take note of the very last sentence.

Canada: A True Example of Fiscal Responsiblity

Keith Topolski celebrates Canada's real downsizing of its Public Service.

 Humphrey Appleby would be appalled at what is going on in Canada right now. Granted the performance bonus being offered to Departmental bosses would be tempting, it still means drastic cuts to the Federal Bureaucracy.

 And when I say cuts, I'm not kidding.

NDP Leadership Race: What the contenders mean for Conservatives in Canada.

Keith Topolski runs his eye over the current crop of New Democrat leadership aspirants.

As the main opposition party for the first time ever in the Canadian House of Commons, the New Democratic Party's leadership race could make or break this once fringe-left party, even by Canadian standards.

Since the departure of the often loony but always cheerful and charismatic Jack Layton from this world, the NDP has been stuck in a rut with interim leader Nycole Turmel's past as a Quebec separatist catching up with her.

But with the leadership race almost defined in terms of candidates running, who will provide the best option for Canada's left? Indeed, who would be the best leader for Canadian Conservative PM Stephen Harper to run into in 2015, and who would present Stephen Harper with an unprecedented 4^th term for a Canadian Conservative leader? Let's examine those who will be putting their hand up for the keys to Stornoway on 24 March, 2012:

 

Norway=Point Scoring... why?

The tragic events in Norway have allowed for a rash of unfair and unjustified political pointscoring, according to Keith Topolski.

The horrific slaughter of innocents in Norway over the weekend has left most of us lost for words. Some for reasons of shock, some for reasons of uncertainty.

However, there are also those who have used this event for their own political ends.

The deranged lunatic who took up arms against his own countrymen professed to be a fan of Geert Wilders, which, apparently, automatically makes him a right-wing extremist.

At the always useless ABC, Jeremy Thompson thought it newsworthy, or, more accurately, fun, to slip into his opening that the gunman admired four 'conservative leaders' in Australia.

However, I'm not sure how Keith Windschuttle qualifies as a leader of our community, nor how Cardinal George Pell's views on welfare qualify him as a conservative.

Curiously, or rather to be expected when discussing the ABC, Thompson clearly failed to do his homework before writing the piece.

The Death of 'News of the World': The beginning of the end. But, which end?

Keith Topolski celebrates why the death of The News of the World is a blow against socialism and a blow for freedom... if followed up correctly:

Since the announcement that News of the World (NOTW) would become a mere media memory, copious quantities of ink have been used decrying the loss of democracy, or heralding a new era of professional journalism.

Much of this debate, however, has failed to properly address the culture war aspect of the demise of the tabloid rag, or pride of Fleet Street, depending on your perspective.

Brendan O'Neill has opined today that the demise of NOTW is a sign of cowardice on the part of the conservatives in the culture wars.

While O'Neill makes some valid points, especially when he nails the hypocrisy of the latte left in trying to censor media they do not like, O'Neill also demonstrates why the conservatives have actually stepped up the war on the socialist left.

The hacking saga that has seen NOTW close can only be looked upon with total horror.

For the Julian Assange's of the world, the idea that a publication preaching no privacy rights can be turfed is morally repugnant.

On the other hand, for those of us who value our privacy, how can we possibly believe that anything we say won't find its way into the media?

However, the big win for conservatism in the culture wars here is the demonstration of how the cultural conservatives value a person's privacy miles ahead of those on the left.

The Senate: An Oxymoron of Democracy

1. 

The entire concept of an Upper House causes as many problems as it solves, according to Keith Topolski

Will Rogers once queried what would happen to the United States with a House and Senate, given Ancient Rome imploded with just a Senate.

Examining the usefulness of the Senate is quite appropriate given there is currently a rather energetic debate in Canada concerning what to do with the Senate in Ottawa.

The current Senate has no requirements for provincial representation, nor does the Canadian Senate represent the people. Its' members are appointed by the Government of the day.

However, this raises the broader question of the relevance of an Upper House in modern times.

In its dying days, the former British Labour Government decided it would push ahead with reforms to the House of Lords, by making it fully democratic.

This debate raises two questions.

Firstly, is a second House of Parliament really relevant in today's political structure?

If it is, what form should this House take?

Katter’s Australian Party? Never!

Keith Topolski discusses why Bob Katter's new political party is a paradox in democracy.

Every once in a while, there is a convergence of political rebellion sufficient in stature to warrant someone on the fringes of political thought starting a new political party.

These parties are almost always founded on the premise that the major political players are somehow less than moral, and they need to be taken down a peg.

We've seen how the major parties are beholden to big business (Greens), pander to the Aboriginal lobby (One Nation) and how they're all just bastards (Democrats).

On each occasion, these new political brands have found themselves quickly discarded into the loony bin of political thought through their shrillness and negativity.

Sadly, what could well be a genuine challenger in the battle of political ideas is about to do exactly the same.

The always curious Bob Katter has decided to kick off his own political party, somewhat on the basis that "you can't even boil a billy anymore".

Katter's basic social premise is sound: Too little freedom in Australia because Government is too big.

He has a good point. The amount of regulation that goes on in our lives is obscene, and has turned Australia from a forward thinking nation to a nation of rules and restrictions.

However, this is also a man who wants to see the Federal Government intervene and send tariffs through the roof, to levels not seen since Keynesian economics was thought to be sound policy.

Sorry Bob, the free marketeers won the economic debate. Socialism is over. When it comes to economic interference, the market gets it right.
Further to this, he wants to force the end of the duopoly of the supermarket giants.

Again, this may come as a shock to Bob, but people are free to shop elsewhere.

The virtues of public funds propping up political parties

The virtues of public funds propping up political parties

 

Keith Topolski discusses why the funding of political parties by the taxpayer is not only immoral, but dangerous for democracy.

To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is indeed an addition of insult to injury.

Although that quote is not my own, I would certainly sign up to claim ownership, because it goes to the very heart of one of the big issues in Canadian and Australian politics today.

With the recent triumph of freedom in Canada, or to put it another way, the Conservative Harper Government finally securing a majority in its' own right, it can come good on one of its core election promises-to abandon the public subsidy of political parties.

It is always ironic that the left, which so often seeks to deride parties of the right that can fundraise amongst its own supporters, demands that the general public subsidise their right to stand at elections.

The left, in this case the New Communists, also known as the New Democratic Party, sees the abolition of public subsidy as an effort by Stephen Harper to shore up his own party's position. Also on the left, the Canadian Liberals, now reduced to an adorable rump of 31 of 308 MPs in the Canadian Commons, claims this is an effort to destroy the Liberal Party in Canada.

Yeah, like Michael Ignatieff didn't already do that. Duuh!

What the real fear of the NDP and the Canadian Liberals is, is the truth of Harper Conservatism may finally be seen by the Canadian public.

First cab off the rank for the Harper majority is to abandon the rather shambolic gun registry.

Now, in Australia we have gun control because there aren't enough guns to justify mass gun ownership. In Canada and the US, however, guns are part of their history, particularly in the west.

The only people in Canada who have supported the gun registry reside in urbanised Ontario and Quebec, which should be instructive, given that Quebec sees the notion of 'Canada' itself as offensive, while Ontario way too closely resembles the uninspiring canvas that is Canberra.

You may now be asking, what does this have to do with funding of political parties? Well, it all comes back to the question of the people and the elites.