What is your political persuasion?

[mantis]

Thankyou. Yet, now I recieve abuse from a forum such as this for stating common sense!

You receive abuse because you are a racist redneck.

 

[Mr Crow!]

Why?

Because I am not political correct, don't support the welfare state, and am against immigration for groups that don't assimilate? Sorry, others would call that patriotism.

You would probably sell out Australia for a corn-beef sandwhich.

 

[bunsen burner]

I can't be bothered arguing the relative merits of those three claims, but I'll just point out that they are not facts. They are opinions.

Keating's greatness is a subjective quality, and thus cannot be factual.

So if I claimed that Gerard Neesham was great, you wouldn't think I'm wrong?

The respect of Howard from the Liberal Party is a subjective quality, and thus cannot be factual.

There's no way a guy can unite one of Australia's leading political parties for 10 years without it. Sure there'd be people who don't like him, disagree with him, and don't want him as leader, but the fact they haven't spoken out shows the respect.

As for the last one - that hinges on whether Howard was a racist redneck bigot with racist redneck policies before Pauline showed up... or if they appeared as a result of her success. Again, subjective.

Have a look at Pauline's policies and then have a look at Howard's. They're clearly different. Feel free to go drag them out and show me more than a few that are the same.

ps Not interested in having this waanky debate around this grey area of what constitutes a fact and what doesn't. If you disagree with any of the three points, feel free to show that they're wrong.

 

[CharlieG]

ps Not interested in having this waanky debate around this grey area of what constitutes a fact and what doesn't. If you disagree with any of the three points, feel free to show that they're wrong.

I actually agree with the first two, and I'm not really bothered by the third. Howard is a racist redneck bigot. Whether he was born that way or caught it off Pauline doesn't change much.

I'm more just interested in pointing out, once again, the lack of intellectual integrity in your posts. If you would only once conduct an argument without trying to bludgeon your opponent, you would go upwards in my esteem.

 

[DaveW]

John Howard made some fiercely anti-Asian immigration remarks as Opposition Leader in 1988.

He was a Hansonite long before term Hansonite existed.

 

[bunsen burner]

Howard is a racist redneck bigot. Whether he was born that way or caught it off Pauline doesn't change much.

He's old school. Considering his comment from twenty years ago that was along the lines of white Australia policy, it's clear that he's a bit of a redneck from long back. But to his credit, he hasn't let racism or religion creep overtly into his policies. He spruiks multiculturalism and tolerance to all religions as he likely knows it will a) score him political points, and b) it's the way theings are and way things are heading.

I'm more just interested in pointing out, once again, the lack of intellectual integrity in your posts.

Such as? You want to nitpick over the definition of "great"? Stop wasting my time.

If you would only once conduct an argument without trying to bludgeon your opponent,

People who continuously make statements such as Howard stealing Pauline's policies when they have explicitly been show that they're not true (ie we compared policies and it was clear that nearly every single one was different), deserve to have the heat turned up.

Why would you keep believing and spruiking something you knew wasn't true?

you would go upwards in my esteem.

No disrespect, but getting your respect doesn't eve register on my priority list.

 

[- PC -]

Such as? You want to nitpick over the definition of "great"? Stop wasting my time.

Actually I see it , and possibly others, as your nitpicking of the definition of great. There was no comment until you felt the need to question AFCs opinion of Keating as the greatest. So its a bit rich you claiming the high moral ground on this one.

 

[CharlieG]

He's old school. Considering his comment from twenty years ago that was along the lines of white Australia policy, it's clear that he's a bit of a redneck from long back.

Of course.

Such as? You want to nitpick over the definition of "great"? Stop wasting my time.

Not at all. Thanks for proving my point, and good night.

No disrespect, but getting your respect doesn't eve register on my priority list.

Of course not. Why should it?

 

[bunsen burner]

Actually I see it , and possibly others, as your nitpicking of the definition of great. There was no comment until you felt the need to question AFCs opinion of Keating as the greatest. So its a bit rich you claiming the high moral ground on this one.

I repeat: Keating is not great.

If you think he is, feel free to provide a case. And don't give me none of that opinion crap. If you don't personally think he's great, provide a reason why others would be correct in saying he is great.

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

He's old school. Considering his comment from twenty years ago that was along the lines of white Australia policy, it's clear that he's a bit of a redneck from long back. But to his credit, he hasn't let racism or religion creep overtly into his policies. He spruiks multiculturalism and tolerance to all religions as he likely knows it will a) score him political points, and b) it's the way theings are and way things are heading.

People who continuously make statements such as Howard stealing Pauline's policies when they have explicitly been show that they're not true (ie we compared policies and it was clear that nearly every single one was different), deserve to have the heat turned up.

 

[Dr AlfAndrews]

So if I claimed that Gerard Neesham was great, you wouldn't think I'm wrong?

There's no way a guy can unite one of Australia's leading political parties for 10 years without it. Sure there'd be people who don't like him, disagree with him, and don't want him as leader, but the fact they haven't spoken out shows the respect.

Have a look at Pauline's policies and then have a look at Howard's. They're clearly different. Feel free to go drag them out and show me more than a few that are the same.

ps Not interested in having this waanky debate around this grey area of what constitutes a fact and what doesn't. If you disagree with any of the three points, feel free to show that they're wrong.

Another litany of assertions and value judgements.

As Big Footy's Master of Linear Reasoning, would you care to back up this load of drivel ... or do we just have to accept it as gospel?

 

[bunsen burner]

Are you suggesting Howard has racist policies? Feel free to show us one.

 

[bunsen burner]

As Big Footy's Master of Linear Reasoning, would you care to back up this load of drivel ... or do we just have to accept it as gospel?

Another thread has been done listing Pauline's policies and Howard's policies side by side. Unsurprisingly, very few (if any) of them match up.

Don't care what you do with it but everytime you or anyone else spout such crap I'll be here to keep you in check.

 

[Dr AlfAndrews]

Another thread has been done listing Pauline's policies and Howard's policies side by side. Unsurprisingly, very few (if any) of them match up.

Don't care what you do with it but everytime you or anyone else spout such crap I'll be here to keep you in check.

As Big Footy's Master of Linear Reasoning, would you care to back up this load of drivel ... or do we just have to accept it as gospel?

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

Are you suggesting Howard has racist policies? Feel free to show us one.

The 'Ten Point Plan' and the 1998 Native Title Act Amendments

The Howard Government's response to the 1996 High Court Wik judgment was alarmist and discriminatory, predicated on winding back native title rights previously recognised by this judgment. The Government's response was formulated in Howard's '10-Point Plan' which set out 10 principles for amending the Native Title Act 1993.

In contrast to the 1993 act, the 10-Point Plan and the resulting Native Title Act Amendment Bill were drawn up without the consent of, or consultation with, Indigenous people. The eventual passage of the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (NTAA) was facilitated by a deal between the Howard Government and independent Senator Brian Harradine, also without Indigenous involvement or consent.

The NTAA resulted in the winding back of Indigenous rights and the outright extinguishment of native title in some instances. At the same time, non-indigenous land interests secured windfall gains.

The most concerning elements of the NTAA relate to:

'right to negotiate' provisions;
validation provisions;
'confirmation' of extinguishment provisions;
primary production upgrade provisions.


Right to negotiate provisions

One of the significant rights for Indigenous people negotiated as part of the original Native Title Act 1993 was the 'right to negotiate'; a procedural right which gives native title holders the opportunity to negotiate on proposed developments ('future acts') affecting native title land. The NTAA winds back the right to negotiate in a number of respects.

s.43A state schemes

The NTAA allow State and Territory governments to wipe out the right to negotiate by setting up alternative regimes ('s.43A' schemes) with minimum standards far below those prescribed in the NTA. Such alternative schemes must be ratified by both houses of the Federal Parliament.

So far alternative regimes have been drawn up or are in the process of being drawn up for the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland. The Northern Territory legislation is the only one to have gone before the Federal Parliament for ratification, but was rejected by the Senate on the combined vote of the Labor Party and the Democrats. One of the reasons given for its rejection was the lack of any review by the Federal Parliament of subsequent amendments to an alternative scheme. Under the amended NTA, a hostile State or Territory Government could with impunity amend their own scheme to the detriment of Indigenous rights. To date all s.43A schemes have been opposed by Indigenous representative bodies in the respective states and territories.

The NTAA also removes the right to negotiate where land is acquired: within town boundaries; for all infrastructure and utilities; and for the purpose of converting leases to perpetual leases.

A further way in which the NTAA restricts the right to negotiate is in relation to the registration test (pdf 414k) for native title claimants. The NTAA introduced onerous and unreasonable conditions on the registration test, which effectively mean that many native title claimants are denied registration and are thus unable to access the right to negotiate and various other provisions of the NTA.

Validation provisions

The NTAA also provided for the validation of potentially invalid 'intermediate period acts' done by the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments by way of granting interests in land on which there may have been native title interests. 'Intermediate' here refers to the period between the commencement of the original NTA (1 January 1994) and the date of the Wik decision (23 December 1996). Such acts should have been subject to the 'future act' provisions of the original NTA, including the right to negotiate, but many Commonwealth, State and Territory Government grants of land interests, particularly on leasehold lands, deliberately ignored the rights of native title holders under the NTA. Such behaviour of Governments resulted in the illegal and discriminatory impairment or extinguishment of native title rights without Indigenous negotiation or consent. The validation of such acts under the NTAA, similarly without Indigenous negotiation or consent, endorses and reproduces deliberately discriminatory treatment of Indigenous rights and interests.

'Confirmation of extinguishment' provisions

A further discriminatory aspect of the NTAA is the 'confirmation of extinguishment' provisions which provide that a previous Commonwealth grant deemed to confer 'exclusive possession', will extinguish native title permanently. The amendments introduced a 'Schedule of extinguishing leases' into the NTA. The NTAA also empowered the States and Territories to similarly legislate with respect to grants made by them. Most States and Territories have now done so.

However, in doing so, the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments have pre-empted determination of the issue of extinguishment on such tenures by the courts and have simply imposed blanket statutory extinguishment.

The Government admits that the confirmation of extinguishment provisions apply to approximately 21% of Australia, 7.7% of which are scheduled interests. In other words, native title holders of this land have had their native title rights extinguished without consent and without the opportunity to have such rights confirmed by the court.

Primary production upgrade provisions

Biggest winners from the NTAA were pastoralists and farmers, whose leases benefited from a windfall 'upgrading' for all kinds of new intensive agricultural, horticultural and even farm-stay tourism uses that are included under the Tax Act definition of 'primary production'. These new activities may impair or suppress native title rights, but Indigenous people will have no right to negotiate to protect their interests.

In summary, the NTAA effect the discriminatory treatment of Indigenous rights and interests in land while those of non-indigenous title holders have been comprehensively protected and even enhanced. In each instance the protection and enhancement of non-Indigenous interests has occurred at the expense of Indigenous interests.

The discriminatory nature of the NTAA have attracted widespread criticism, not least from the United Nations CERD Committee, which has found that the amended NTA breaches Australia's international human rights obligations.

Further Information:

ANTaR submission to CERD, 1999

HREOC Native Title Report 1999

http://antar.org.au/1998amend.html

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

Are you suggesting Howard has racist policies? Feel free to show us one.

Dear PM,

I have always believed in assimilation of people from other countries into our own country.
I symbolise this by mixing rice bubbles and cocopops in my breakfast bowl, and the cocopops get lighter as the rice bubbles get browner. It's a small gesture, but an important one, I think. The milk goes brown, too (this represents miscegenation, or mixing of the races), and they all end up one happy bowl of cereal which has elements of the cocopops and the rice bubbles.
My wife thinks this is stupid and pointless, and says if I really believed in the concept I should pour chocolate milk on the cereal as well as plain milk.

What do you think?

Mr Crispy

Dear Mr Crispy,

I reckon you've answered your own question there. See, you pour in the white milk, but it turns brown! The brown takes over! The Coco Pops either take all the jobs from the Rice Bubbles, or they just float around all day sponging off the economy. And then what happens? All the other cereals presume that it's open season in Mr Crispy's breakfast cereal and before you know it, the whole bowl's been taken over by Corn Pops, Sustain, Nutri-Grain, Sultana Bran, Fruit Loops, Crispix, All-Bran and God knows what else.

You've got to take a stand now, Mr Crispy. Rice Bubbles, White Milk and White toast. Multiculturalism has no place in a balanced breakfast.

http://askjohn.blogspot.com/

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

Are you suggesting Howard has racist policies? Feel free to show us one.

John,

Why are you so mean to native australians?

Pete

Dear Pete,

The thing about Aboriginals, is that they want to take over the country. I mean, that's what native title is all about: Aboriginals stealing all our land.

They've got to understand that they can't just come in here and take land that doesn't belong to them.

I'm not being mean, just acting in the best interests of Australia. Imagine if they ran this country: We'd all have to wear loin clothes or run around naked, Ernie Dingo would host every single TV show, and we'd have to eat kangaroos.

So the question really shouldn't be 'Why am I being so mean to them?', but rather 'Why aren't you?'

http://askjohn.blogspot.com/

 

[- PC -]

The 'Ten Point Plan' and the 1998 Native Title Act Amendments

http://antar.org.au/1998amend.html

Nice pic did you get permission from the traditional owners to represent that on BF?

Oh and shame JJ shame ..that wasnt a stolen Hanson Policy..I am certain BB wanted proof of stolen Hanson policies. Please dont post racist policy which shows Howard to be racist as BB quite categorically states he isnt..so he cant be as BB only posts facts.

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

Oh and shame JJ shame ..that wasnt a stolen Hanson Policy..I am certain BB wanted proof of stolen Hanson policies. Please dont post racist policy which shows Howard to be racist as BB quite categorically states he isnt..so he cant be as BB only posts facts.

Dear John,

Here in Japan I meet many people who think the Prime Minister of Australia is Pauline Hanson and that the White Australia Policy is still in force. I tell them that Ms. Hanson and yourself are two different people and Australia is being led my a fearless and courageous man. But can you kindly advise me what I should say or how to counter this misinformation?

Paul

PS: When are you next visiting the Land of the Falling Yen?

Dear Paul,

Ciao! (That's Japanese for G'day.)

Obviously there are many differences between Pauline and me, for instance she has red hair, whereas I have no hair. But I reckon people get a bit muddled up cause we've basically taken on many of the One Nation Party's policies.

The difference, though, is that they hate everyone who isn't white, whereas we only hate most people who aren't white. For instance, we like the Chinese. A lot. We also like you Japanese, provided you don't try to invade us again. Cause that wasn't very cool. I can't say I have too many issues with Inuits either, as long as they stay out of our way. But apart from that, we're not big fans of people who aren't like us.

One of the biggest mistake people make about Pauline is that she's racist. She's not, she hates everybody. Expecially me. I went to her shop once, and I asked for chicken salt on my chips, but she didn't put any on! I know this may not seem that bad to you, but seriously, in Australia, most people consider that worse than robbing a bank. My Chiko Roll wasn't cooked properly either.

And that's why I don't like being mistaken for Pauline: because I don't believe in ripping people off when it comes to chicken salt. I fact, when I go to the Fish 'n Chip shop, I expect them to at least chuck in a few free dim sims, too.

So I suggest you make a t-shirt that says something like: "John Howard supports Chicken Salt!" On it. I personally have a cardigan with, "Deep Fry My Scallops!" Knitted into it. Things like this catch people's eye, and in no time, I reckon you'll find that word has spread around Asia that not only am I the leader of this country, but also that when I ask for a Fisherman's Lunchtime Snack-Pack, I expect it to come properly cooked, and well coated with chicken salt.

As for going to Japan, I'm not sure when I'll get over there next, but do you guys want to buy some gas?

http://askjohn.blogspot.com/

 

[- PC -]

. My Chiko Roll wasn't cooked properly either.

Sure do hate that frozen spot inside the Chiko Roll

 

[bunsen burner]

The 'Ten Point Plan' and the 1998 Native Title Act Amendments

The Howard Government's response to the 1996 High Court Wik judgment was alarmist and discriminatory, predicated on winding back native title rights previously recognised by this judgment. The Government's response was formulated in Howard's '10-Point Plan' which set out 10 principles for amending the Native Title Act 1993.

In contrast to the 1993 act, the 10-Point Plan and the resulting Native Title Act Amendment Bill were drawn up without the consent of, or consultation with, Indigenous people. The eventual passage of the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (NTAA) was facilitated by a deal between the Howard Government and independent Senator Brian Harradine, also without Indigenous involvement or consent.

The NTAA resulted in the winding back of Indigenous rights and the outright extinguishment of native title in some instances. At the same time, non-indigenous land interests secured windfall gains.

The most concerning elements of the NTAA relate to:

'right to negotiate' provisions;
validation provisions;
'confirmation' of extinguishment provisions;
primary production upgrade provisions.


Right to negotiate provisions

One of the significant rights for Indigenous people negotiated as part of the original Native Title Act 1993 was the 'right to negotiate'; a procedural right which gives native title holders the opportunity to negotiate on proposed developments ('future acts') affecting native title land. The NTAA winds back the right to negotiate in a number of respects.

s.43A state schemes

The NTAA allow State and Territory governments to wipe out the right to negotiate by setting up alternative regimes ('s.43A' schemes) with minimum standards far below those prescribed in the NTA. Such alternative schemes must be ratified by both houses of the Federal Parliament.

So far alternative regimes have been drawn up or are in the process of being drawn up for the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland. The Northern Territory legislation is the only one to have gone before the Federal Parliament for ratification, but was rejected by the Senate on the combined vote of the Labor Party and the Democrats. One of the reasons given for its rejection was the lack of any review by the Federal Parliament of subsequent amendments to an alternative scheme. Under the amended NTA, a hostile State or Territory Government could with impunity amend their own scheme to the detriment of Indigenous rights. To date all s.43A schemes have been opposed by Indigenous representative bodies in the respective states and territories.

The NTAA also removes the right to negotiate where land is acquired: within town boundaries; for all infrastructure and utilities; and for the purpose of converting leases to perpetual leases.

A further way in which the NTAA restricts the right to negotiate is in relation to the registration test (pdf 414k) for native title claimants. The NTAA introduced onerous and unreasonable conditions on the registration test, which effectively mean that many native title claimants are denied registration and are thus unable to access the right to negotiate and various other provisions of the NTA.

Validation provisions

The NTAA also provided for the validation of potentially invalid 'intermediate period acts' done by the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments by way of granting interests in land on which there may have been native title interests. 'Intermediate' here refers to the period between the commencement of the original NTA (1 January 1994) and the date of the Wik decision (23 December 1996). Such acts should have been subject to the 'future act' provisions of the original NTA, including the right to negotiate, but many Commonwealth, State and Territory Government grants of land interests, particularly on leasehold lands, deliberately ignored the rights of native title holders under the NTA. Such behaviour of Governments resulted in the illegal and discriminatory impairment or extinguishment of native title rights without Indigenous negotiation or consent. The validation of such acts under the NTAA, similarly without Indigenous negotiation or consent, endorses and reproduces deliberately discriminatory treatment of Indigenous rights and interests.

'Confirmation of extinguishment' provisions

A further discriminatory aspect of the NTAA is the 'confirmation of extinguishment' provisions which provide that a previous Commonwealth grant deemed to confer 'exclusive possession', will extinguish native title permanently. The amendments introduced a 'Schedule of extinguishing leases' into the NTA. The NTAA also empowered the States and Territories to similarly legislate with respect to grants made by them. Most States and Territories have now done so.

However, in doing so, the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments have pre-empted determination of the issue of extinguishment on such tenures by the courts and have simply imposed blanket statutory extinguishment.

The Government admits that the confirmation of extinguishment provisions apply to approximately 21% of Australia, 7.7% of which are scheduled interests. In other words, native title holders of this land have had their native title rights extinguished without consent and without the opportunity to have such rights confirmed by the court.

Primary production upgrade provisions

Biggest winners from the NTAA were pastoralists and farmers, whose leases benefited from a windfall 'upgrading' for all kinds of new intensive agricultural, horticultural and even farm-stay tourism uses that are included under the Tax Act definition of 'primary production'. These new activities may impair or suppress native title rights, but Indigenous people will have no right to negotiate to protect their interests.

In summary, the NTAA effect the discriminatory treatment of Indigenous rights and interests in land while those of non-indigenous title holders have been comprehensively protected and even enhanced. In each instance the protection and enhancement of non-Indigenous interests has occurred at the expense of Indigenous interests.

The discriminatory nature of the NTAA have attracted widespread criticism, not least from the United Nations CERD Committee, which has found that the amended NTA breaches Australia's international human rights obligations.

Further Information:

ANTaR submission to CERD, 1999

HREOC Native Title Report 1999

http://antar.org.au/1998amend.html

Anything else? Or is that it?

 

[bunsen burner]

Dear PM,

I have always believed in assimilation of people from other countries into our own country.
I symbolise this by mixing rice bubbles and cocopops in my breakfast bowl, and the cocopops get lighter as the rice bubbles get browner. It's a small gesture, but an important one, I think. The milk goes brown, too (this represents miscegenation, or mixing of the races), and they all end up one happy bowl of cereal which has elements of the cocopops and the rice bubbles.
My wife thinks this is stupid and pointless, and says if I really believed in the concept I should pour chocolate milk on the cereal as well as plain milk.

What do you think?

Mr Crispy

Dear Mr Crispy,

I reckon you've answered your own question there. See, you pour in the white milk, but it turns brown! The brown takes over! The Coco Pops either take all the jobs from the Rice Bubbles, or they just float around all day sponging off the economy. And then what happens? All the other cereals presume that it's open season in Mr Crispy's breakfast cereal and before you know it, the whole bowl's been taken over by Corn Pops, Sustain, Nutri-Grain, Sultana Bran, Fruit Loops, Crispix, All-Bran and God knows what else.

You've got to take a stand now, Mr Crispy. Rice Bubbles, White Milk and White toast. Multiculturalism has no place in a balanced breakfast.

http://askjohn.blogspot.com/

Any chance of you posting anything with some truth in it? Or is this the best you can do?

 

[bunsen burner]

Dear John,

Here in Japan I meet many people who think the Prime Minister of Australia is Pauline Hanson and that the White Australia Policy is still in force. I tell them that Ms. Hanson and yourself are two different people and Australia is being led my a fearless and courageous man. But can you kindly advise me what I should say or how to counter this misinformation?

Paul

PS: When are you next visiting the Land of the Falling Yen?

Dear Paul,

Ciao! (That's Japanese for G'day.)

Obviously there are many differences between Pauline and me, for instance she has red hair, whereas I have no hair. But I reckon people get a bit muddled up cause we've basically taken on many of the One Nation Party's policies.

The difference, though, is that they hate everyone who isn't white, whereas we only hate most people who aren't white. For instance, we like the Chinese. A lot. We also like you Japanese, provided you don't try to invade us again. Cause that wasn't very cool. I can't say I have too many issues with Inuits either, as long as they stay out of our way. But apart from that, we're not big fans of people who aren't like us.

One of the biggest mistake people make about Pauline is that she's racist. She's not, she hates everybody. Expecially me. I went to her shop once, and I asked for chicken salt on my chips, but she didn't put any on! I know this may not seem that bad to you, but seriously, in Australia, most people consider that worse than robbing a bank. My Chiko Roll wasn't cooked properly either.

And that's why I don't like being mistaken for Pauline: because I don't believe in ripping people off when it comes to chicken salt. I fact, when I go to the Fish 'n Chip shop, I expect them to at least chuck in a few free dim sims, too.

So I suggest you make a t-shirt that says something like: "John Howard supports Chicken Salt!" On it. I personally have a cardigan with, "Deep Fry My Scallops!" Knitted into it. Things like this catch people's eye, and in no time, I reckon you'll find that word has spread around Asia that not only am I the leader of this country, but also that when I ask for a Fisherman's Lunchtime Snack-Pack, I expect it to come properly cooked, and well coated with chicken salt.

As for going to Japan, I'm not sure when I'll get over there next, but do you guys want to buy some gas?

http://askjohn.blogspot.com/

Prefer to waank over pornography myself.

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

Are you suggesting Howard has racist policies? Feel free to show us one.

Anything else? Or is that it?
Any chance of you posting anything with some truth in it? Or is this the best you can do?
Prefer to waank over pornography myself.

GM award winner....once again BB is totally flummoxed.

 

[afc9798]

Well done. One of the few that challenge the indoctrination of their upbringing and become themselves rather than a mouthpiece of their mentors.

Do you classify yourself as one of these people Frodo? Are you a poor boy from a Labor voting family, who has crawled his way to the top and now realises that the scummy communists are simply trying to ruin it for all the successful people? Or are you simply a mouthpiece of your mentors?