Liberal National Party caucus HQ

[tpfkaw]

I might do a little role-playing.

(Where do we claim our electoral division?  I'd like to take Curtin).



(My apologies to Rep. Scott Barrett, R-NJ)

Name: Martin Oakleigh
Age: 58
Ideology: Populist
Place of Birth: Fremantle, WA
Occupation: Syndicated columnist, radio talk show host, writes an investment newsletter.
Family: wife Emilie (56), 5 children aged 16-29

Brief Biography: The son of a fisherman, Oakleigh first achieved prominence in 1976, when, as President of the University of Western Australia Young Liberals, he responded to a campus demonstration "against racism, imperialism, and heterosexism" by provoking a near-riot in leading a group of students and several hundred hard-hatted workers he had recruited from a nearby construction site in a chant of "COMMIE FAGS WHO BURN THE FLAG; PUT 'EM ALL IN BODY BAGS!"  Thrown out of university and put on trial for incitement, a media and political circus developed as demonstrators screaming his memorable slogan gathered in the thousands outside the courthouse daily before the jury returned a unanimous not-guilty verdict.  He found work immediately after the election as a syndicated columnist and host of a local radio talk show, known for his caustic wit and strongly-held viewpoints.  He was elected to Parliament at the age of 28 in a 1981 by-election and has been returned by a strong majority ever since.

In Parliament, Oakleigh has been known for his theatrics, assigning unflattering nicknames to rival parliamentarians, such as "The Dullard" or "Flipsy."  When a judge granted an injunction on defamation grounds against the media publishing the details of a sex scandal against a prominent opposition frontbencher in 2005, Oakleigh unfurled a large banner in Parliament reading "WHY DIDN'T YOU PAY THE HOOKER?"  Oakleigh is generally known for his staunch conservatism, most notably railing against "boat people" and political correctness in his columns and speeches, as well as having opposed the government's gun measures in 1997.  However, he has been known to adopt economically populist positions as well, distancing himself from his own party's "Fightback!" manifesto in 1993, and consistently supporting generous increases in old age pensions, and he has been endorsed on occasion by union locals in his division.  He surprised many observers when he called for the repeal of sodomy laws in 1978 - not a mainstream position in Western Australia at the time, but he remains an opponent of same-sex marriage.  He did apologize to Perth's LGBT community in 2004 for his "overexuberance in my college days."  He opposed Australia's involvement in the Iraq War beginning in 2003 but frequently denounced "traitors" who accused Australian soldiers of committing war crimes.  He is one of the few prominent advocates of returning Australia to the gold standard, a position which would aid the mining industry of Western Australia.  Polls have shown on several occasions that many Liberal-Nationals would like for him to be their leader, and also that a hypothetical new party led by him could capture a significant portion of the right-wing and social conservative vote.

Other: Oakleigh is an avid birdwatcher, and has written several well-regarded books on the subject.

[tpfkaw]

How should frontbenchers (ministers/shadow ministers) be appointed? (please cross next to preference)
[ X ] Appointed by Party Leader
[    ] Elected by the caucus to each individual ministry

I nominate Mr. Oakleigh for the leadership of our party.

Seconded.  (Shameful self-promotion.  Shameful!)

[tpfkaw]

Since we have to have a leader elected soon ("election" is scheduled for next weekend, and we need to formulate policies and select a frontbench between then and now), I would suggest that Talleyrand and myself both write a speech of 1000 words or less in the next 24 hours and then we have a leadership ballot.

[tpfkaw]

I'm afraid I went over my own 1000-word limit, sorry!

...



There's a certain canard that Labor and the left-wing media wants you to believe – I'm sure you've heard it – “The Coalition doesn't have any big ideas of it's own!  All they do is oppose, oppose, oppose.”  Now, I and most sensible people reject the notion that there is anything wrong with opposing, particularly when we are serving as the opposition to the most radical government in our nation's history.  And when they say the phrase “big ideas,” what they mean is more big government, big spending, big tax grabs, big handouts, big debt, big prices, and big immigration.  But, I have to admit, there's an element of truth to every criticism.  We talk a lot about what we are against, but too little about what we are for.  And so our answer is that the big idea is:  Think small.

I talked to a woman the other day, who told me that this government makes her afraid for this country and afraid for her children.  But she told me that she doesn't trust the Coalition either.  “You're for big business.  You're for the big banks.  You stand up for the big guy.  You don't stand up for the little guy.”  And what I said to her is, “You're right!”  We don't stand up for the little guy.  We are recklessly leaving acres and acres of ground in the vital center for Labor to claim without articulating a positive agenda of our own.  Working Australians don't think we stand for them even as they are the ones who have suffered the most under this government.

So, what do I mean by “think small?”  I mean that big business and big government are doing well enough on their own.  We Australians have never cottoned to rule by distant and impersonal bureaucracies.  I mean to say that we are wholly in favor of the moral values that unite us as Australians.  I mean to say that we are and ought to be the party of the ties that bind us; our communities, and our churches and temples, and our shared cultural inheritance.  We are the party of mothers and fathers and mom-and-pop shops.  We are the party of small towns and lively neighborhoods.  We are the party of farmers, and fishermen like my father, and firm handshakes.  We are not the party of a free lunch, but we are the party of a fair shot for our children.

And we have failed our children in so many different ways.  We have stood idly by as they've been taught that it is not okay to be proud to be an Australian; that patriotism and duty to our country is hateful, and evil.  I am not claiming that there are no black marks or unfortunate events in our history.  But my grandfathers did not fight on the shores of Gallipoli for today's coddled, spoon-fed patricians to yammer on about what awful racists they were.  We must draw a line in the sand and say that we are proud to be Australian, and that there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.  Can Labor honestly say the same?

That some among us don't respect our history is only a symptom, not a cause, of a fundamental lack of respect for the people Labor once claimed to champion.  How can you say that you're on the side of the struggling middle when one of the first acts of your government is to break your promise on boat people?  Labor said that they would continue our successful policy:  Turn the boats back!  We saw how long that lasted.  It is unconscionable that at least 45,000 illegal migrants have been let into this country while so many Australians are out of work and hospitals and schools face budget cuts.  How is that standing up for the little guy?  The policy is simple and straightforward; asylum seekers must apply through the legal process, they must be in legitimate danger of persecution in their home countries, and they must pledge to respect our laws and our culture, including the rights of women and sexual minorities and our rights to free expression, free elections, and freedom of religion.  One strike, you're out.

And this is not Labor's only broken promise.  Labor's carbon tax, a tax they promised up and down they would not impose, will squeeze Australian families to the tune of $500 a year.  It is an unconscionable imposition on working Australians when electricity costs have gone up 90% over the course of this government.  Utilities:  Up 77%.  Water and sewerage:  Up 64%.  Natural gas – which is in more abundant supply than ever before – up 60%.  No wonder our mining, coal, and energy industries are already shedding thousands of jobs.  No wonder Ford says they're leaving despite the hundreds of millions Labor wasted on bribing them to stay.  With the carbon tax, they lose thousands on every car they make.  Labor says that it picks and chooses businesses and people and then spends billions on “compensating” them for the tax.  What, then, is the purpose of the tax in the first place?  Besides the fact that it allows them to create a bureaucracy to take the money and then send it back out again, it lets them pick and choose which politically-connected fat cats get a yearly payday from the government.  Every big business simply lobbies for more “compensation,” while small businesses and struggling families are left behind.  Giving out billions to politically-connected cronies while cutting education by $2.3 billion and hospitals by $1.6 billion makes not a whiff of sense.

Why is all this?  It is not even to co-opt big business, although that is a contributing factor.  It is because Labor has decided that the lives and the livelihood of those they supposedly stand for; our miners, our factory workers, are less important to them than meaningless gestures to the latest elite fad.  The ability of working families to put food on their tables and have the dignity and security of stable employment is less important than giving fuzzy feelings to fuzzy-headed yuppie fusses.  Even if we were to suppose that everything that the shrieking warmist crowd is true – and I believe Sydney was supposed to be underwater by now – the insane policies of this government still make no sense.  The emissions of Australia are absolutely dwarfed by countries with no emissions controls, like the United States, China, India, and Russia.  Even if we could flip a magic switch and not emit another ounce of carbon in this country, it would not matter one iota in the grand scheme of things.  This is what adds insult to industry – it is purely a feel-good policy for the most comfortable among us, and one that has real consequences for real Australian families.

This is why I am asking for your support to be leader of the Liberal-Nationals.  There are those who say that we don't have to change our tune - “oppose, oppose” is good enough.  They are wrong.  There are those who would say that we ought simply to agree with everything Labor puts forward, and propose that it be done somewhat differently, or more moderately.  They, too, are wrong.  What plays in the ivory tower does not have much appeal to us earthlings.  I pledge that as Leader I will put forward a positive agenda for our party that appeals to working Australians and small businesses.  I wholeheartedly and without reservation agree with the majority of Australians and far and away the vast majority of our party that Labor's anti-worker policies of the carbon tax and boat people invasion ought to be reversed – and will be.  These are the policies that Australians feel contrast us the most strongly, and in the most positive light, with Labor.  I call on anyone else who would seek the leadership of our party to also pledge to reverse those policies.

Thank you, and God bless you all.

[tpfkaw]

Rank the following candidates for the leadership of the Liberal National Party by preference.
[1] Martin Oakleigh (Curtin-WA)
[2] Maxine Bartlett (Bowman-QLD)

[tpfkaw]

With a majority of votes from our caucus, I am claiming victory in the leadership election.  Thank you to all my supporters for their aid in taking Australia in a new, better direction.  Thank you also to Ms. Bartlett for running a spirited campaign of her own.  Ms. Bartlett is a wonderful champion of our values and both a worthy adversary and comrade-at-arms.

If you are interested in a front-bench appointment, please now say so.  Do note:  A member of the front bench is expected to resign prior to voting against the party on certain whipped votes.

The whip system is as follows:

Unwhipped/"conscience" votes:  MPs may vote as they please.  This is for issues that the party has no official position on.  Alternatively, a majority of L-N MPs may request a conscience vote on any issue by PMing me.

1-line whip:  MPs are expected to vote and informed of the party position.  This is typically for minor issues.

2-line whip:  MPs are expected to vote for the party position.  Members of the front bench are expected to resign prior to voting against the party.  This is typically for more significant issues, i.e. manifesto promises.

3-line whip:  MPs are required to vote for the party position.  Members of the front bench are expected to resign prior to voting against the party.  MPs may be expelled from the parliamentary caucus for voting against the party.  This is for the most significant issues only, typically motions of confidence and supply while in government, or the yearly budget.

...

I am offering the position of Deputy Leader to Ms. Bartlett.  If she declines, I will hold an election amongst our members for the position of Deputy Leader.

[tpfkaw]

Just a reminder: Please do either indicate your interest in a front-bench appointment or state for the record that you do not wish to have one.  I'll make my appointments tonight.

[tpfkaw]

Last call...

This means you, Anton Kreitzler and Republican95...

[tpfkaw]

Shadow Treasurer:  Edward Lloyd
Shadow Foreign, Defense, and Trade Minister:  Donald Richards (sorry Sanchez, giving this one to our one actual Australian)
Shadow Attorney General:  Maxine Bartlett (the one lawyer character so far)
Shadow Health and Community Services Minister:  Matthew Collins
Shadow Infrastructure Minister:  Francis Jordan
Shadow Environment and Climate Change Minister:  Ian Alexander Harlow (sorry Napoleon, can't have someone who'll be contradicting me in their official capacity)

Speaker-designate:  Roger Erenford

[tpfkaw]

Sounds good, let's do that.  Write policies for your ministry, although I reserve the right to change them somewhat if they're too off-message or extremist.

[tpfkaw]

I'd prefer if you PMed them to me.

[tpfkaw]

I have received manifesto planks from only two people!  Come on guys!

[tpfkaw]

So are we all set to go for the general election?

Yes, I have everyone's platform planks.