An interview with a counseller who got fired for failing to toe the feminist line



Rob Tiller was fired from Relationships Australia WA for posting Bettina Arndt's domestic violence article on Facebook.

Rob Tiller is an experienced, well-respected counsellor who worked for this government-funded counselling organisation for the past eight years. He was respected by his colleagues and much in demand as the only male counsellor working in Perth, running workshops in addition to seeing his clients.

He was fired for posting on his personal Facebook page an article: "Always Beating Up on Men", published in Weekend Australian and reproduced here (Scroll down), which gave the latest official statistics and research on domestic violence, providing evidence that most family violence is two-way, involving women as well as men. RAWA promotes a “feminist framework” which denies women’s role in family violence.

Bettina says: "We need a huge email campaign to protest RAWA’s action. You will see on my website I have put together full details of what has happened, with all the relevant links, the addresses of the Relationship Australia Board members and other key people for you to write to plus a draft protest letter.

I’m hoping we can use this to show there are lots of people who really care about the undue influence of extreme feminist views in this country. I’ve spent the whole week organising media coverage of The Dismissal, only to discover Relationships Australia has been busy trying to stop newspapers and radio programmes from giving it any coverage. They have sadly succeeded in getting some of my media stories cancelled – if you have good contacts at the West Australian please politely encourage them to cover the story next week. 

Rob has taken RAWA to the Fair Work Commission claiming unfair dismissal. A crowd-funder is Here to help Rob with his legal fees and costs of establishing full-time private counselling and workshops.






Federal budget 2018: Labor sets new rich line at $95,000

Obama set it at $250,000

Labor has set a new benchmark for the definition of “rich” after Bill Shorten’s budget reply speech revealed a plan to make all workers earning more than $95,450 worse off by 2022 when compared with the government’s seven-year strategy to slash taxes.

The Opposition Leader’s ­income tax proposal, centred on a new refund worth up to $928, ­includes barely any change to the decade-old ­income tax thresholds faced by middle and higher-­income earners.

The Labor plan would leave ­almost three million taxpayers up to $5490 a year worse off compared with the Coalition plan.

Analysis by The Weekend Australian shows the benefits of Mr Shorten’s $928 proposed offset, withdrawn at a rate of about 2.6c for every dollar earned above $90,000, would be overtaken by the government’s rival plan once an individual’s income exceeded $95,450, making that the pivot point for undecided voters making a choice based on the competing tax policies.

John Humphreys, an economist at the University of Queensland, yesterday warned of a “political class war in the making” following Mr Shorten’s budget reply speech. He singled out the stark difference in Labor’s proposed tax treatment of workers earning between $90,000 and $200,000 a year.

Battlelines for the next election are being drawn around the contrasting tax policies, with Malcolm Turnbull and Mr Shorten locked in a political stand-off that leaves immediate relief for low to middle-income earners in limbo.

The Prime Minister yesterday branded the Opposition Leader “unbelieva-Bill Shorten” for promising in the budget reply ­address to deliver the policy trifecta of deeper tax relief, greater health and education spending, and a healthier budget bottom line.

“What you saw from the Labor Party was unfunded, uncosted, and unbelieva-Bill Shorten,” Mr Turnbull said. “You can’t believe a word he says … This is the guy who said he gave a gold-plated guarantee that his members of parliament were eligible to sit in the parliament.”

Labor argues the government is holding low-income earners hostage by using legislation to link immediate tax relief for those earning up to $90,000 to a proposed flattening of the tax system from 2024.

Mr Shorten said yesterday the five pending by-elections — four of them triggered by Wednesday’s High Court decision that forced Labor MPs to resign for being dual citizens — would double as a ­referendum on the competing budget visions. “If you want to see 10 million working Australians get better tax cuts — $928 per year for many of those Australians — if you want to get a better deal for working and middle-class Australians, vote for us,” Mr Shorten said.

The government legislation proposes three stages of tax reform. Labor supports the first phase, which would introduce an annual tax offset worth up to $530 and lift the ceiling on the 32.5 per cent tax bracket from $87,000 to $90,000. Both measures are due to take effect in July.

In his budget reply address, Mr Shorten proposed expanding the government’s tax offset but launched an in-principle assault on phase three of the government’s tax package, which ­includes a flat 32.5 per cent rate for those on incomes between $41,000 and $200,000 by 2024.

Phase two of the government’s package would take effect in July 2022 and lift the ceiling on the 32.5 per cent tax bracket from $90,000 to $120,000. By 2024, under Labor’s plan, workers earning between $120,000 and $200,000 would be between $36 and $106 a week worse off compared with the government’s plan.

Labor Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen yesterday suggested the government should split its tax package into separate bills to ensure phase one of the tax package could take effect in July and ­deliver tax relief for low to middle-income earners.

“Is Scott Morrison seriously saying he won’t give low and ­middle-income earners a tax cut from July 1, 2018, if the parliament doesn’t sign off on massive tax cuts for high-income earners in 2024?”

The government has repeatedly dismissed claims its seven-year tax plan, worth $140 billion over a decade, is tilted towards the rich, pointing out the share of taxpayers in the top tax bracket would increase from 4 per cent in 2016 to 6 per cent by 2024, an increase of almost 400,000 workers.

Former Labor treasurer Wayne Swan in 2011 announced a freeze in indexation of family tax benefits for families earning above $150,000, prompting a debate about who was “rich”.

Under Mr Shorten’s current plan, a tax rate of 49 per cent would apply to those earning more than $180,000. The ­Coalition’s top rate of 47 per cent, including the Medicare levy, would eventually apply to those earning more than $200,000. “Those on the top rate are now paying 30 per cent of all personal income tax,” Mr Morrison said. “Under our plan, their share will actually rise to 36 per cent, so there is no danger of our system losing its progressivity here.”

Mr Bowen said Labor would reserve its support for the later stages of the government’s plan until a Senate committee report, due next month. “$127bn of the $140bn income tax package occurs outside the forward estimates,” he said. “There’s a major ramp in cost over the medium term, especially after 2024-25 when high-income earners get further tax relief.”

Ben Phillips, at the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, said Labor’s plan addressed bracket creep to a “limited extent and certainly much less so than the tax plan of the Coalition”.

The top two income tax thresholds, set at $80,000 and $180,000 in 2008, would have needed to ­increase to $98,400 and $221,400 had they been indexed to the consumer price index since then.

KPMG chief economist Brendan Rynne said yesterday: “It’s worthwhile recognising that taxable income of $200,000 from July 2024 is equivalent to $162,600 in today’s dollars if average wages growth is 3 per cent per annum ­between now and then.”

The number of taxpayers earning more than $95,000 will ­increase from two million this year to 2.96 million by 2022, according the Parliamentary Budget Office.

John Wanna, professor of public administration at the Australian National University, questioned yesterday whether either party’s proposals were genuine tax cuts.

“Offsets, rebates, low-income supplements, concessionary measures, call them what you will … they are also a form of welfare payment,” he told The Weekend Australian.

“The only difference between these repayments and normal welfare is that most welfare recipients are dependent upon welfare benefits, whereas these are for people earning some income and then being made slightly wealthier by government,” he said.

Labor’s offset would lift the effective marginal tax rate to 41.6 per cent for incomes between $90,000 and $125,400.

The combination of the 2 per cent Medicare Levy and Labor’s offset, which would be withdrawn at the rate of 2.6c for every dollar of income between $90,000 and $125,400, complicates the effective tax schedule.

“The government wants to charge workers earning between $90k and $200k a 34.5 per cent marginal tax rate, while Labor has proposed marginal rates of 41.6 per cent, 39 per cent, and 47 per cent (not including the deficit levy) for the same cohort,” Dr Humphreys said.

“Under Labor, the confusion and complexity of the Low to Middle Income Earner Tax Offset would be permanent, resulting in 10 tax brackets and three moments of regressive tax ... compared to the government’s final proposal of eight tax brackets and two moments of regressive tax,” Dr Humphreys said.

“Sadly, neither side of politics shows the slightest awareness that these regressive moments even exist.”

SOURCE 






There’s little point in debate when the Left is always right

Like Jim Carrey in The Truman Show we seem to live in blissful ignorance of the absurd confections around us. After the annual six-hour sugar hit of lollies and political spin inside the budget lockup, journalists, politicians and lobbyists re-emerge into a national ­debate every bit as unrealistic and insulated.

(Note to self: Pitch a reality TV show next year that takes a dozen mainstream Australians into the budget lockup to show their reaction to the process and the budget contrasted against what passes for national political debate.)

The jaundice of the debate is often easy to demonstrate by flipping sides. Imagine if it were clear six months ago that four Coalition MPs were dual citizens at the time of the last election but were refusing to resign or refer themselves to the High Court. The media pressure on Malcolm Turnbull and the MPs would have been intense and would have forced action.

Despite the clarity of Labor’s situation, laid bare by the literal interpretations of the Constitution in the Barnaby Joyce and Fiona Nash cases, Bill Shorten pretended his MPs were OK and his party’s verification processes were thorough. Some of us disputed this back in November but the Opposition Leader was never made to feel the heat. It took the High Court to expose him.

Now we can expect many of the so-called objective ­observers who took Labor at its word to blame the Constitution and push for a referendum on section 44. Different standards often apply across the political divide.

By the way, changing the Constitution is a very bad idea. Federal politicians must have undivided loyalties: do proponents suggest we have a prime minister or foreign minister enter negotiations with say, Britain or China while being dual citizens of those nations? No thanks.

The predisposition of most political journalists holds the Labor line as the reality against which all arguments must be tested. The Coalition case is presumed false until proven correct. Hence Labor escapes much scrutiny.

(This sometimes has a downside for Labor; for instance, the party would have been better served if its dual citizens had quit last year in the middle of Coalition dramas rather than this week, damaging Shorten’s credibility at budget time.)

You will recall how the media believed Labor in government when it blamed “push” factors for the people-smuggling trade. The gallery also was convinced it would be impossible to turn boats back. Both arguments were demonstrably absurd and some of us said so at the time, but it was like whistling in the wind.

Labor also was taken at its word when Kevin Rudd pledged economic conservatism. This acceptance of shallow or false claims from the left is so strongly reinforced through the media, academe and wider national debate that the Coalition often lacks the political courage or intellectual integrity to contest it.

This is why expensive and inefficient expansions of government such as the Gonski education funding, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the National Broadband Network and the ­renewable energy target were not opposed or rescinded by the Coalition. Instead they have added more than $100 billion in costs on the nation (though not all on the budget) during a period of economic hardship and fiscal crisis.

These are examples of how divorced our national debate has become from reality. Sadly, the places we look for answers often present the same artifice.

Think of the public broadcaster’s self-interested hypocrisy on fiscal matters. ABC journalists campaign for additional spending on unemployment benefits, foreign aid and environmental projects yet squeal like stuck pigs over a pause in the growth of their own $1bn budget.

This is a taxpayer-funded ­organisation that pays Media Watch host Paul Barry about $200,000 a year to present a 15-minute television program produced with eight other full-time staff — indulgence almost beyond belief. If they animated the program, shooting 25 modelled still frames for every second of airtime, they still would have a slow working week with time to slip off for a long lunch or May Day march.

Yet in response to this funding pause ABC news director Gaven Morris claimed there is “no more fat to cut at the ABC” as he overstated the cuts by $43 million.

Then, rather than threaten to trim the sort of love handles we see at Media Watch or curtail expansions into niche digital markets, Morris threatened local news outposts at Parramatta, Geelong, Ipswich and ­Gosford. Former ABC stalwart Quentin Dempster tweeted the broadcaster was “in despair” at the “reprisal” cuts that would now be a “major” election issue.

Instead of trimming costs the ABC compounds its sins by using our money to agitate on our broadcaster for more of our taxes. Aunty’s pretence at impartiality was destroyed on Thursday night when the Labor and union-­dominated crowd at Parliament House for Shorten’s budget reply speech erupted in sustained cheers for more ABC funding. The left made it clear it is their ABC.

With friends like that, Michelle Guthrie doesn’t need to work out who her enemies should be.

With such a tendentious, publicly funded behemoth dominating national media it is little wonder our political debate is so far removed from reality.

And then there are the Senate crossbenchers who will decide the fate of the government’s budget centrepiece tax-cut plan. Pauline Hanson’s primary criticism of the budget was that it didn’t cut immigration. Seriously.

Also pivotal is Tim Storer, a nerdish former Labor lawyer who ran at the last election as a member of the Nick Xenophon Team — which is no longer a team and no longer counts Xenophon among its members — but from which he quit before the High Court ruled he was the legal inheritor of the Senate spot. Along the way Storer attracted 189 first-preference votes in his own right. Yet this week he deigns to sit in judgment on the tax package, pontificating on which aspects of the plan he will approve and which he will reject.

Whoever is controlling this narrative creates quite a drama but it has little to do with democracy. It truly is more like reality TV, with the players periodically stepping into the Tardis of the Sky News bureau to communicate their incoherent messages to the nation.

Shorten’s terrible budget reply doubled down on class-warfare rhetoric, promising higher taxes for business and high-­income earners. He also recommitted to his reckless 50 per cent RET and higher emissions reductions. Labor’s plan is to increase costs on business and households yet spend more on schools, health and the ABC (without saying what any of the extra spending will achieve).

The choice at the election will be comically simple and stark.

The Coalition is arguing for the private economy, aspiration and economic growth. Labor is campaigning against business and aspir­ational voters, and promising additional costs and regulation that can only inhibit growth.

This is where reality stretches credulity. The vast media/political apparatus campaigning against the interests of business, taxpayers and aspirational voters is funded by ­taxpayers.

The obvious pillar is the $1.5bn annual funding for the ABC and SBS but universities are powerful via contributions by academics and influence on students — sadly, campuses are hotbeds of ­political correctness and ideological homogenisation. Leftist “think tanks” such as the Australia Institute and McKell Institute push for higher taxes but survive on tax-deductible donations.

Myriad environmental groups also rely on tax- deductibility status and often receive grants. Unions don’t pay tax either. So this swath of publicly funded or subsidised organisations campaigns — strangely enough — for others to pay more tax. A government battles to implement tax cuts against a vast anti-private enterprise alliance funded mainly by taxpayers.

We accept the reality with which we are presented. And we wonder why we don’t forge ahead.

SOURCE 






Election combat starts here, as Turnbull and Shorten clash over tax cuts

Rarely have the election battlelines been drawn so early: the dominant feature is Bill Shorten’s rewriting of our political norms by pledging the once untenable ­trifecta of bigger middle-class tax cuts, far greater government spending and a better budget bottom line.

Shorten is betting the house on equity, hostility to banks and surgical action “to bring the fair go back into the heart of the nation”. Labor is running a tax agenda with a majority of winners and a minority of serious losers while the Turnbull government’s medium-term tax package has modest all-round winners and virtually no losers.

While Labor has offered a clever and bigger tax package in the short term through a larger tax refund, meaning four million people will be better off by $398 a year compared with the budget, only the government so far offers a meaningful medium-term reform that goes to rates and thresholds.

To prevail, Malcolm Turnbull must destroy Shorten’s credibility with a fierce negative campaign, the type his government is usually incapable of mustering. Shorten’s trifecta looms as an election-winning package. Lab­or’s confidence is undisguised. It seeks to win the election by raising a $200 billion-plus war chest by tax increases on companies, investors and retirees, and distributing the benefits to a majority of taxpayers.

This is high risk but it’s working so far. The pivotal question is whether Shorten’s trifecta is too good to be believable. Labor is confident on its numbers. But it will face intense pressure to release more financial details.

The Prime Minister drew the link between Shorten’s demonstrated deception of the country on the citizenship issue and his tax and budget claims, which Turnbull branded as “unfunded, uncontested and unbelieva-Bill Shorten”.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann says “there was no detail, no costings, no plan” and that Shorten should release his full financial details before the upcoming by-elections. This makes sense, since Shorten declares the by-elections should be a “referendum” on the competing packages.

In his budget reply, Shorten presented himself in three tax postures: as a bigger upfront income tax cutter for working people, saying 10 million people would pay less tax under Labor; as an endless opponent of company tax cuts and the argument that Australia’s uncompetitive rates would hurt the economy; and as an opponent of the final stage of Scott Morrison’s tax design, the attack on bracket creep by having 94 per cent of taxpayers on a 32.5 per cent rate, which Shorten repudiated on fairness grounds. The differences over tax policy and tax values are only widening.

A test of political wills against the by-election backdrop now looms over the government’s $140bn, seven-year tax cut package in three stages. If passed in its entirety, this would constitute an immense victory for Turnbull, giving him a powerful election platform.

What is Labor’s position? If the bill is split, Labor will give passage to stage one, reflecting the government’s $530 refund for middle-income earners from 2018-19. As Shorten has signalled, Labor is extremely unlikely to ever vote for stage three, the real heart of the package. This still leaves a degree of negotiating room. It also means Labor will be under pressure to spell out its own tax policy beyond the forward estimates.

But if the government holds firm and treats the tax cuts as one entire package — and that package is defeated — that would constitute an unforgiving stain on this parliament and political system already deeply discredited over the citizenship fiasco. It would unleash a competing blame game of nasty and unpredictable consequences.

Every policy Shorten an­nounces and nearly every doorstop he gives is designed to show Turnbull “out of touch”, the prime exhibit being the company taxes cuts that Shorten brands as a handout to big business and big banks. He calls the government agenda a “disgrace” and “immoral”. His pitch is that Turnbull could be giving working people bigger tax cuts and spending more on health and education but chooses to prioritise his mates in big business and banks.

The reality is different. Despite the endless rhetoric, there is no connection between Shorten’s tax cuts costing $5.8bn across the four years of forward estimates from 2018-19 and Turnbull’s proposed $36bn big business tax cuts that begin to trigger for banks only in 2023-24, five years away. The latter foregone revenue could not be used to finance the former concessions. Moreover, by the time the banks get the full benefit from the company tax cuts in 2026-27, they will have paid out $16bn from the bank levy.

The reality is also different in relation to the government’s attack on bracket creep. Shorten’s claims here are populist and deceptive. “How on earth can it be fair for a nurse on $40,000 to pay the same tax rate as a doctor on $200,000?” he asks. “For a cleaner to pay the same tax rate as a CEO?” It is a ruthlessly effective line but false.

By 2024-25, under the Morrison scheme, a person on $41,000 will pay $4767 in tax, which means an average tax rate of about 11.6 per cent while a person on $200,000 will pay $60,007 in tax, an average tax rate of more than 30 per cent. That is, the person on $200,000, earning five times as much, pays 12.6 times more tax.

Far from the government’s model being a problem because of lack of progressivity, the opposite argument is more relevant and more of a problem. Under the 2015-16 scales, there are 420,000 taxpayers in the top bracket; under the new system, that number will expand to 820,000 taxpayers. The proportion of tax­payers in the top bracket ­expands from 5 per cent to 6 per cent.

More telling, however, is that under the 2015-16 scales, the proportion of tax paid by taxpayers in the top bracket was 30 per cent, while under the new model the 6 per cent of taxpayers in the top bracket will contribute 36 per cent of the tax. That is, the better-off are paying a far bigger share of tax. Those on $41,000 or less, totalling 2,730,000 taxpayers, will be contributing just 2 per cent of the tax.

This real question to be asked is this: how tenable is it for such a small proportion of taxpayers to be contributing so much of the revenue while more than four out of 10 households in this country pay no net tax but have all their benefits financed by others?

Elimination of tax brackets inevitably creates equity issues. But even the Grattan Institute in its critical analysis of the government’s package grudgingly admits the new design, when fully implemented, doesn’t “much” change the progressivity of the system.

The centrepiece of the budget, Morrison’s $140bn personal income tax cut package over a decade and defined in three stages, faces a struggle to pass the Senate. This is an insight into our politics where spending and tax increases are frequently projected over a decade. The issue, however, remains in the early days of negotiation.

A Senate committee will assess the package and will report back by June 18. It would be a mistake to dismiss any hopes for the government since the package involves, at varying stages, tax cuts for everyone. The pressure on the Senate crossbenchers to vote for the package will be significant. What exactly is the benefit for crossbench senators in sinking the package? Pauline Hanson, who will be pivotal, has accepted stages one and two: not a bad starting point for the government.

The government and Labor are now positioning for this coming test of wills. But with the tax package costing $13.4bn across the four years of forward estimates and $140bn across the decade, it is ­obvious the big gains are rear-end loaded. Labor, naturally, wants to explore via the Senate committee the year-on-year costs and the fully distributive impact.

Opposition Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen told The Australian: “The fact is $127bn of the $140bn income tax package occurs outside the forward estimates.

“There’s a major ramp in cost over the medium term, especially after 2024-25, when high-income earners get further tax relief. Labor will use the Senate inquiry to ask Treasury for the answers to basic questions that the Prime Minister and Treasurer refused to answer this week, before taking a final view on the balance of the ­package.”

Passage of the entire package based on crossbench support would give the government its greatest political momentum this term and would represent the implementation of its budget strategy. This rests on splitting the revenues in coming years between restoration of the budget surplus and returning benefits to taxpayers. This balance is the essence of the budget.

It mirrors two calculations. First, the political calculation that the government must take to the next election a more broadbased tax reform agenda, beyond the company tax cuts. That means shifting the debate in part to people and away from companies. It also represents the surely correct view that going to the election with just a bigger surplus and corporate tax cuts would be far too thin a platform after two terms of office.

Second, it involves the values-based and ideological proposition that a Liberal government must impose a taxation ceiling on how the nation returns to surplus, hence the tax to GDP benchmark of 23.9 per cent. This guarantees a major difference between the parties with Labor seeking its return to surplus on a much higher taxation and spending regime overall.

Fundamental to this strategy is Turnbull’s pitch on investment, growth and jobs. He campaigns as a superior economic manager with an impressive record of job creation and an economy-wide strategy to boost investment over the medium term. Labor seeks to puncture this by pledging a better and more responsible surplus, thereby denying Turnbull the attack he mounted on Labor in the 2016 election over its bigger deficit across the forward estimates.

The risk for the government is the nation may be more focused these days on equity rather than growth. If this is true, then Shorten is master of the zeitgeist and he becomes PM. Turnbull’s job is to persuade the nation that growth and investment strategies for the private sector — witness the corporate tax cuts — are vital for the 85 per cent of Australians employed in private enterprise.

Shorten also seeks a more broadbased election strategy: witness what he calls his “winning trifecta” given its strongest expression so far in his budget reply. He explained what this meant: “a genuine tax cut for middle and working-class Australians; proper funding for hospitals, schools and the safety net; and paying back more of Australia’s national debt faster”.

What makes the trifecta possible, however, is tax redistribution, creating a $200bn-plus war chest via higher corporate taxes; a higher tax rate at 49 per cent for the top personal income tax bracket; and a crackdown on negative gearing, capital gains, trusts and franking credits refunds. This will have serious costs for companies, the aspirational class, the better off, investors and many retirees. Whether Turnbull, Morrison and Cormann can turn this equation against Shorten remains to be seen.

The sheer numbers behind Shorten’s tax pitch must gain some traction: across the forward estimates, Labor offers a yearly refund of $928 in the income range $50,000 to $90,000, phasing down such that, as Shorten says, “everyone earning less than $125,000 a year will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor compared to the Liberals”.

Labor’s cut-off point is calculated to ensure a majority of taxpayers are winners. It seeks political ownership of the “tax cuts for working families” mantle in the election. This compares with the Morrison budget, where step one of the tax package provides a refund for 10 million taxpayers including 4.4 million getting the full $530 to be paid as a lump sum on assessment of 2018-19 tax returns.

Meanwhile, this week showed no respite from the government’s tactical ineptitude. It was revealed in a startling style on Wednesday, the day after the budget, when the High Court found against Labor senator Katy Gallagher and four MPs including three Labor MPs, who were forced to announce their resignations at lunchtime. It was a humiliation for Shorten.

This was the final demonstration that all Shorten’s assurance for eight months that Labor had no case to answer on dual citizenship, that its vetting processes were tight and that he could “guarantee” no Labor MP was involved were exposed as false. It is extremely rare that a political leader is left so naked and exposed. The issue went to Shorten’s credibility. The government did not ask a single question on the issue at question time that day.

It confused form for substance. It thought that running on the budget was better. It misunderstood that highlighting Shorten’s proved lack of credibility on the constitutional imperative of citizenship would undermine his related credibility on the budget.

So far, this is one of the most disreputable episodes in the ­national parliament in recent decades. MPs who were dual citizens were sitting in the parliament, drawing their salaries, insisting they had no case to answer and living by a false legal notion exposed in earlier High Court judgments and repeated again in the Gallagher judgment.

You can forget any referendum to change the Constitution to allow MPs to be dual citizens. The idea is laughable. Senior ministers have no interest. They know any such priority would be misplaced.

Given the shoddy performance of the parliament, can you imagine what the public would say to a referendum designed to solve the problem by making dual citizenship permissible so those MPs who have been so reluctant to honour their obligations under the Constitution won’t have to worry any more?

SOURCE 

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here