Post by Just me on Jan 21, 2022 11:26:18 GMT 8
I have just watched the video posted by Struth, of Clive Palmer formally announcing the UAP intentions in the upcoming federal election. Some interesting points people may have missed, or not been aware of.
Prior to today's release, the only candidate personally named by Palmer was Peter Campion, in North QLD. Peter is the father in law of Barnaby Joyce, Leader of the federal National Party, and Deputy PM of Australia. Barnaby Joyce as Deputy PM and the Nationals have been fully supportive of every single mandated measure regarding Covid vaxxines that Palmer claims he and the UAP are supposedly opposed to. Peter is the grandfather of Barnaby's two children with Vicki, Peter's daughter.
In his speech and answering questions Palmer bagged Liberal - Labor - Greens four times, Liberal - Labor eight times, Liberals four times, Labor twice, Greens once, Coalition once, and the LNP once. Palmer did not mention the Nationals by name even once, despite the fact that they make up over a third of the coalition government. The UAP website is the same. Clive Palmer was made a life time member of the National Party in 1992, for services rendered.
Palmer spoke of the possibility of Australia moving towards a social credit system, such as exists in China and elsewhere. He neglected to mention that the legislation for such a move has already been passed by the House of Representatives (HoR) in 2019 [Currency (Restrictions on the use of cash) Bill 2019], and only requires a final vote in the Senate to become law. He also neglected to mention that Craig Kelly, now Parliamentary Leader of the UAP, supported that bill in the HoR when he was a Liberal Party representative. Perhaps Palmer should have also mentioned the fact that Kelly also supported banking regulation amendments in 2017 and 2018, that changed the legal standing of savings bank account depositors to "unsecured creditors", whose assets can be seized (bail in) any time the bank needs the funds.
In 2016 a movement was started to number the sitting member last in state and federal elections, regardless of party, if they represented the Liberal, Labor, or National parties. That idea finally took off last year at the anti-vax rallies, under the banner of "sack them all". Both Palmer and Kelly were quick to jump on the "sack them all" bandwagon, and both have subsequently used the phrase in speeches. However, both Kelly and Palmer in later addresses, and Palmer in his conference today, backtracked on that strategy, claiming there were members of the coalition "worthy of supporting". He also made clear the UAP's intention of doing preference deals with various parties, presumably favouring said "worthy of supporting" coalition members.
So what does all this mean and where is it leading to? I honestly do not know. I was an early joiner of the UAP, and I remain so for the moment. However, just how I vote in the upcoming election will very much depend on what transpires regarding preference and vote-swap deals Palmer does with the major parties, especially in the Senate. For now it is very much a wait and see situation.
If you see merit in this warning please repost it wherever you can, reworded however you want. Accreditation not required.
Peter Sawyer -21/01/2022