AVI YEMINI’s guest Alexandra critiques the Liberal Party’s ideological collapse, blaming Susan Lay’s weak conservative stance and factional drift for its election losses while Labour consolidates power via left-wing indoctrination—student debt cancellation, net zero energy, and demonizing wealth like Gina Rinehart’s. She warns Australia’s $1T debt risks trapping a generation in poverty, arguing compulsory voting paired with first-past-the-post could stabilize politics by cutting minor party fragmentation. Meanwhile, Hamas-linked activists face backlash over Sydney abuse claims, Greens senators resign amid bullying scandals, and Roman Royd Rager’s support flip highlights shifting radical alliances. The debate hinges on whether Australia’s system fosters stability or entrenchment, with Yemini proposing FPTP as a potential conservative revival tool. [Automatically generated summary]
You're tuned into the free audio version of this episode, which is solid, but it's just a taste of the full experience.
Over at yuminireport.com, the full video edition is ready for you and it takes things to the next level.
Why not head there now and join Rebel News Plus?
Because for just $8 a month, you get access to the video version of this show plus every Rebel program and documentary.
We're not backed by corporate sponsors or government cash.
We're backed by you.
So if you believe in independent journalism, go to your minireport.com, sign up for Rebel News Plus and be a part of the fight for truth.
Welcome back to the Yaminia Report.
And I guess it's been a wild journey over the last couple of months, but I think more recently in the fallout to the election and the fallout keeps dropping lower and lower.
Just finding out who's going to be leading the Liberal Party and who better to unpack it all with us this week, our good friend Alexandra, welcome to the show.
Thank you very much for having me.
So where do we start?
What has happened from your perspective?
Well, basically, the Liberal Party and indeed the coalition have decided they do not want to survive, that Conservative politics is not for them, and they have sided with the left-wing, wet, moderate, sort of dampish factions who are going to keep chasing Labour further and further to the socialist left.
And Conservatives are now wandering around looking for somewhere else to go.
And they are deciding which minor party is going to be the Farage Reform Movement of Australia.
Well, there's a lot that you've just said there, and I agree with pretty much all of it.
And one of the things I've noticed just watching the mainstream media, and we've been talking about it on this show on the opposition podcast, that there was immediately this push from the mainstream media, especially ABC, basically advising the Liberal Party, the irony that anyone would, the idea that anyone in the Liberal Party would be listening to the ABC, but I knew they would.
The idea that the reason why the Liberal Party lost so badly is because they're too Trumpish, they're too far right, they've gone to, and they need to come back to what they call the centre, which is obvious nonsense.
I personally believe that they really lost because they stand for nothing and their base are, you know, the true conservatives have found new homes and are finding new homes.
But, you know, people just think if I'm going to buy a product, why would I buy half the product?
I might as well get the full thing, the real deal.
So if I'm going to vote Labor, if you're going to be Labour-like, I might as well go Labour all the way.
And that's what I've seen happening.
However, ABC has led this March, and it seems like the Liberal Party, as predicted, is following their lead.
Into the election, they followed Labor's lead.
Now they're following ABC's lead into complete self-destruction.
Now, what do you know about the current, the leader that they've brought up and who she was running against?
Angus Taylor, what was the difference between them politically when it comes to what they believe in?
Well, first of all, Matt Canavan had a very good piece of advice, and that is don't listen to people who want you to lose or something to that effect.
And for the last 20 or so years, the Liberal Party and the coalition have been listening to the voices on the left and the Labour Party and the ABC and the Guardian and all those sort of academics who want them to be destroyed and extinct as an ideology because they like the idea of public money flowing into their little socialist utopian dream for as long as possible.
And so that is the first problem is that they're listening to the wrong advice.
As far as Trumpian politics, I'm sorry, but Peter Dutton couldn't be further from Trump if he was Joe Biden.
There is nothing Trumpian about Dutton or the campaign in general.
If there had been, they would have won in a landslide because let's remember you have a video of Jacinta Price wearing make Australia great again.
It's Trump.
That was their evidence.
Yeah, but Donald Trump is the person in conservative politics who won everything, the House, the popular vote, the presidency.
He won so convincingly that there's not even a Democrat movement anymore.
They're talking about going dark work to restore themselves because they're completely obliterated.
Farage went Trump in and he's just cleaned up both the Labour Party and the Tories.
There's nothing left of them over there.
But as far as what we're talking about today in domestic politics and what's happened in the leadership battle, there's a lot of talk in the headlines about, oh, the first woman who's been elected leader of the Conservatives.
I'm sorry, but what's Jacinta Price?
They could have picked her if they wanted a woman.
They only like playing this gender quota card because it's going to fit with their new moderate modern party.
And that's what all the talk is about Susan Lay.
I've heard her and Holly Hughes and others who are supporters of this movement saying, we've got to get in touch with modern Australia and what modern audiences want and how great it is that she's a woman.
And what do they go and do?
They've selected Ted O'Brien as a deputy who has no social media presence at all in an era where social media is where the conversation of modern politics is happening.
They have learned nothing, Arvi.
What they've done is made themselves feel better because their faction has won a leadership battle while their faction lost a federal election.
Yes, it does feel like they've learned nothing.
But is there so I've heard people arguing, well, it doesn't, nobody really wants the role now because this is the losing period.
By the time you get to an election, she ain't going to be the leader.
Is that true?
I'm sure they think it's true.
And this sort of politics where we hang on to our ideas until the last possible moment to keep them, keep the touchpowder ready for the next election, that might have worked when you had the luxury of a lot of seats at your disposal and a pretty general, passive and calm ideological framework going on.
But right now, they are facing extinction-level politics.
But if they don't convince their followers and the Conservative movement in general that they can survive, Labor is going to push this narrative so far beyond view and promise so many things that entire generations are going to be more entrenched in socialist politics than they are now.
And there will not be an argument to win ideologically because economically, Australian voters will be trapped.
And this is a big problem.
So right now, the Liberals and the Coalition in general have to forget about what's going to win them an election that they think in some three years' time.
They have to put the best and strongest ideas forward to start rebuilding their party movement.
And what they've done today is prove that they have no interest in conservatism as an idea, as a culture, as the future direction of Australia.
They are more worried about their own election chances than they are about saving the Australian people.
And I'm sure that's why people like Matt Canavan threw their hat into the ring because they wanted to say, look, we'll try and save you.
But the Liberals and the Coalition, the Nats, they weren't listening.
You're not giving Susan Lay a chance at all.
Do you think that this is the death of the Liberal Party?
Susan Lay had her chance.
It's not a matter of giving her a chance now.
I mean, was she not deputy? for all this time?
Did she not run into the past election as the deputy behind Peter Dutton?
What has she done or said that would earn her the opportunity to convince conservative voters?
All I've seen so far from her in comments is that she is going to continue to drag the party towards things like gender quotas and more work politics.
I doubt she's going to stand up and take the fight against net zero.
Is she really going to challenge the narrative that we've all been ripped off for decades and a massive wealth transfer?
I don't think so.
I don't think she's going to sit there and say, we need to get some nuclear power plants built.
We need to get some coal-fire power plants built, or we're going to be the poor cousin in Asia.
She's not going to do that.
I've not seen anything from her.
So if she wants a chance, then she had her chance to come out and say something strong today.
She didn't.
She could have said it at the end of the week last week when this was all going to happen.
She didn't.
She has not made any indication that we should give her the benefit of the doubt.
So why should we, Arby?
And so I guess what's your prediction now?
So the Liberal Party's gone.
It's not going to be rebuilding.
Nobody's re-signing up to it.
If anything, they're going to lose more support as they stand for less.
What do you see the future?
Because I don't see a Nigel Faragi.
I don't see a Donald Trump here.
There's no one coming to save us.
What's the future of politics in Australia?
Well, it's rather depressing.
And one of the reasons we don't have a Farage and we don't have a Trump is because Australians have this weird behaviour in our political system where it's very difficult for a charismatic strong voice to come up through a party because the party structure itself doesn't want somebody strong enough to reform the party because then the factions behind the party lose control.
So everything in our major parties is designed to make sure the leaders are puppets and not people.
And that is a problem that we cannot fix as voters.
We have, it doesn't matter how many people join the party, the structure of the party will never allow a strong person to come through that could threaten the faces behind the scenes.
And so basically we are on a path to destruction in which the whole thing is either going to be torn apart and rebuilt out of sheer necessity because there's nobody left, or maybe one of our major parties on the right will get their act together and start getting significant numbers, not to become a major party, but to form a proper alliance with somebody like the Nationals.
So I could see a One Nation Nationals partnership, which forces the Liberals to start listening to reason if they ever want to see power again.
And that would probably be the most likely situation.
Maybe there's a deal where a One Nation member is assured some place in cabinet in response for, I don't know, rescuing the Conservative cause for the Liberals.
That's a possibility.
As far as being left to their own devices, Arby, the biggest problem is this.
We all want to save the Conservative movement.
We do.
Their members do as well.
But they don't believe they need to be saved.
The people in charge of this party think that they are saving the party from the far right or whatever.
And so you cannot force a rescue of a party that doesn't want to be rescued.
We can't force that.
They will have to learn this the hard way, just as all those socialist kids who voted for Labor to cancel all their debts will learn that at the end of the day, they are the ones who are going to pay for this.
Yeah, that's a good point.
That was an argument that I was hearing from a lot of young kids that they're glad that their debts are going to be wiped.
And it's like, you're missing, you're lacking some basic understanding.
Riddle me this.
What's the difference between Albanese saying, I'm going to pay for your student debts, and if Dutton had proposed to pay for people's mortgages?
What's the difference?
Well, yes, I dare say, actually, the only point of difference that I would see in that is that those that think that they're getting away with their debts now, their uni debts, they're going to be around to pay for the debt in their taxes later on.
Whereas those at the mortgages are paid for by taxpayer, they may not be around to really have to cover those costs later down the track, but it's neither here.
You have a whole bookshelf, Arvi, of what's going to happen to this country under socialism if Albanese gets us there.
A whole bookshelf.
I feel like we're getting there.
I just can't see a way out.
And I feel like everything is so predictable at the moment.
As soon as I saw the narrative in the mainstream media, it was clear that the Liberals were going to go further to the left.
We're being gaslit to think that to believe that the Conservative was too right-wing into this election and that's why they lost.
It's just laughable.
The Conservatives haven't seen the center of politics for about 30 years.
They wouldn't even know what the right wing looks like.
This is the Conservative Party that argues against freedom of speech.
Yeah, what a silly one.
Well, Susan Lay was one of the ones that pushed for the e-safety commissioner to over Elon Musk with regards to that stabbing video of the bishop in Sydney.
Like, you're talking about somebody that is insanely in support of censorship, even when it makes zero sense, even when the victim of the attack himself is coming out and saying, no, I want the world to see what happened.
Now, more broadly on the election, I think there is clearly one winner.
It was the Labour Party, because they've wiped the Liberal Party and not only wiped the Liberal Party, they turned what was left into more of the Labour Party.
There is no opposition now in Australia.
Then on top of that, they did wipe, at least in the lower house, they wiped the Greens.
And you're seeing even just now, what's left of Greens in the another senator is quitting the Greens party.
That's just broken.
Another Green senator is quitting over allegations of bullying.
I just find it so funny because how many people have now left?
How many senators you had?
Lydia Thorpe, there's a bunch of them that all left citing bullying in the party of tolerance.
But looking at the landscape, you've got no Greens, you've got no Liberal Party.
It is really the future in Australia is red.
Well, the problem is, Arvi, we have maybe three generations of kids who have spent from the time they're about four or five until they get to about 23, 24, at least, inside an education system that tells them that socialism is great, that it's an entitlement and they're doing a good thing by taking handouts from the state because by doing that, they are punishing evil mining giants like Gina Reinhardt.
Hopeful United Front00:10:51
They think they're taking money, they're taking it from her and not from their fellow peers and Australians.
And you are trying to talk to this generation whose reasoning for voting things like green, by the way, when they interviewed them, is trees and stuff.
That's about as far as this narrative goes.
So you're trying to have intellectual discussions about the security and future economic and cultural idea that is Australia with people who have never been challenged beyond a headline on their beliefs.
And Labor is perfectly happy with that because they were never going to share power with the Greens.
They were never going to share power with the Teals, especially when Adam Bant ran his hold Labour to Account campaign line, which I'm sure Albanese was not a fan of.
So they have now moved to consolidate all the breakaway groups.
So the breakaway Conservatives have voted for the Teals are now being folded into the Labour Party, even though they've never traditionally do that in one step.
And the Greens are now being pulled back into the Labour Party, giving them a majority, as you say.
But the reason they have the majority is either they've been raised that way through an education system, which the Liberal Party completely ignored.
And that is their own fault.
When they had the power to do so, they did nothing.
And also poverty.
When people are poor, they start losing touch with their values and their principles and they start taking the handouts.
If someone's saying to you, hey, I'm kind of evil, but here's $400 for your rent.
Well, they're probably going to vote for that if they get poor enough to do so.
And that's the trap of socialist politics as people become dependent on the state and they cannot break free because they've lost their personal finances and their ability to act as independent citizens.
And that is a Labor dream to have an entire country that is tied to the Labour Party voters, almost as if they've become unionised by their poverty.
And it's a tragedy.
And we are so close to that line.
And electing Susan Lay is basically surrendering.
I do like your idea of, and I didn't think about it, I've never thought of it, is basically breaking up the coalition and One Nation and the Nationals forming their own kind of it would be an alliance almost something along the lines of what the Greens was to the Labour Party, where they were forcing the agenda to go more left.
I feel like that's what we at least need in our system.
We need, you know, I was hoping in this election it would be One Nation.
I was hoping delusionally, but I did recognise that I didn't think that they were going to win.
But I was hoping for a minority Liberal government where One Nation holds enough for a balance of power to pull Dutton to the right on many issues where he's probably more comfortable.
Just he just wouldn't have been, he would have been too gutless to stand there like they always are when they get into that position.
But I guess a coalition between One Nation and the Nationals, if they really do, you know, they agree on a lot more than they disagree, and then pushing the Liberal Party into actually back into a conservative space.
Do you see that being a possibility that that's where it's really going to go?
There's so much animosity right now between the Liberals and the Nationals that it does kind of make sense, that idea that you presented.
Oh, well, just to be clear, I was proposing a three-way and not splitting the coalition, but for the Nationals to invite One Nation onto it.
Okay, yeah.
Yeah, so that even if it wasn't particularly massively official, but there would be an agreement there that One Nation would help to secure the regions.
Because let's not forget, of all the parties in this election that did well on the right, One Nation is still holding the bulk of the breakaway vote.
And I do think that if parties like Gerard Rennick were to break away and die off, which they probably will, One Nation is going to absorb that.
And those are pretty big numbers.
Those are numbers that are not.
But in actually every election, there's a Gerard Rennick.
Let's say the Liberals got serious, right?
If the Liberals and Nationals get serious about it, then voters who are on the Conservative right are going to be less inclined to follow single-person parties and more inclined to say, well, look, this one is attached to the Nationals.
There's a real chance that they can make a difference.
That will only boost figures.
I also think it will help the Liberals to bring back some of those people, even in city seats, who think, oh, well, at least they've got them inside their party.
There might be a chance.
It'd be a good way to start, stop that leak of votes out to the side, but also give the Liberals a bit of a heart and soul, which they are sorely lacking at the moment in this wet landscape.
And besides, one nation could say the things that Liberals won't say and they can still benefit from them.
So it's a mutually beneficial arrangement for the Conservatives.
So yes.
I'd say that is the most likely way they could start crawling back into power, obviously first from the regions.
And as the anger towards things like renewable energy grows, and believe me, it is going to grow as some of these projects start to fall apart and reach the end of their life cycle, that anger will swell in the regions first and there will be a movement back against all of this wonderful moderate green stuff.
And that will hurt Labor and it will hurt the Greens and there will be votes there to be won over.
And I don't think the Liberals have the nerve to say, sorry, we lied to you trying to win inner city seats.
Our bad.
We helped create the Labour majority.
Just kidding.
Can you come and vote for us?
They're going to need someone who was honest from the start to help them bring those voters back.
And so that would be my path back to sanity.
That's achievable.
But only if the Liberals can bury the hatch and say, we made a mistake and we're going to let this happen so that we can, you know, overcome Albanese's socialist utopia.
There's a lot of hopeful, a lot of things have to happen that I just can't see happening, including the Liberal Party actually recognising the real problem.
But on top of that, I think one of the issues that now I've seen in every single election cycle, there is a Gerard Rennick.
There is a group, and in the lead up to the election, they seem almost more hell-bent on destroying what they see as their rival for that particular Senate spots usually.
And so they, instead of really going after the Greens or the Labour Party, they tend to spend a big chunk of their campaigning against the other right-wing minor party.
And then their preferences are always really funny because they're more focused, again, on punishing.
So in that case, Gerard Rennick and One Nation, it was like they were just trying to punish them.
And so it ends up punishing everyone because at the end of the day, when you look at the numbers, no one ends up with a seat when really the Conservative bloc should have ended up with a seat in every single.
I agree.
I agree.
I also agree that there were people in that election on the minor party who were there for their own personal reasons to chase a vendetta.
And they went for the easiest pickings, which is votes that parties who have been there for a long time and have been devoted to their people for a long time.
They thought, oh, we could just steal those votes.
They're easy to get from.
We will go after them.
I thought that behavior was pretty disgusting, to be honest.
But my point is that you have to have people to fall to your party to vote for you.
And so if you've got a minor Conservative party on the right who is officially in a coalition with the major parties and has a chance of actually impacting policy in a positive way, then voters are far more likely to say, you know what, I'm going to go for the guys who actually have a shot.
No, I say that.
I absolutely.
And I think that will help to moderate your problem.
Whereas those other parties have far less of an opportunity to divide votes and vote split if there's a genuine belief that the ones that are running are in a position to make a difference.
So I think that will help.
I hope you're right.
One point there.
You are right about there being difficulties to overcome, but there are some things we know are going to happen that will have an impact on these decisions.
And one of those is the backlash in the regions.
And that is going to happen because that is a function of the destruction of renewable energy.
They are going to go looking for people.
So the Liberals will have to deal with that one way or another.
Yeah.
Look, yeah, I'm hoping you're right about that.
Because I do.
I remember, if you remember, Frasier Anning, that was his name.
That was in the last one, but he was like the Gerard.
He was like the Gerard Rennick that time.
And then you have, and then this time, obviously, you have Gerard Rennick and you just see it splitting the vote of a group that essentially has been around for that long and has been consistently growing every single election.
And I feel like that's the message that needs to be sent to the conservative voters, to the right-wing voters that are looking for something.
You don't have to agree with everything One Nation has done, but they've been consistent for, you know, what is that, 25 years?
And they've consistently been gradually growing and they've turned into like something that a force to actually be reckoned with.
And instead of going after these United Trumpiets or whatever they United Trumpiets, I don't know.
I'm mixing all their names now.
Trumpets and Patriots, United.
Yeah, United Patriots, whatever it's called.
Like each time there is another group that it seems just to destroy the one group that is getting somewhere, that is making a move.
And it's incredibly frustrating when I'm actually happy if one of them win.
I'm even happy if these trumpets are whatever won.
But it was so clear that they weren't going to.
And when their whole preferences came out, it was so clear that they were designed as a vendetta rather than an actual real political party trying to get somewhere outside of Clive Palmer's personal gain.
And then with Gerard Rennick, it also became super clear to me that it's, you know, a lot of it was down to this infighting instead of progressing for something for policy, for an idea.
And it's something that the left has managed to really do.
If you look at, you know, the Greens to the socialists, all these little groups, they all sit there and prop each other up, even though they're running in the same seats.
And you know, I miss Arvi.
I miss the days when you used to have a panel of your prospective candidates, including the major parties, and you made them sit there and debate their ideology properly.
Preference Deals and Vendettas00:14:23
Like reporters actually said, hang on, you can't just give the line.
What are you actually going to do if this happens?
Because the public are not being given an opportunity to assess whether these people even know what they're talking about.
And so our politics has become performative.
It's no longer about ideas.
You talk beautifully about ideas, Arvi, but I don't think our politicians care about ideas.
I don't think they care about policies unless it's come out of a focus group.
They think that people will vote for something.
That's why we've descended into this vote buying exercise because there are no great ideas anymore in our culture.
We have lost that.
And that is a tragedy.
And we are going to have to learn this the hard way.
And I feel very sorry for young generations because they're going to be the ones that do the worst possible amount of learning in this case, where they're going to be the broke ones at the end of the day because the money is about to run out.
If not, what are we almost a trillion dollars in debt?
It's run out.
And someone's going to have to pay for it.
You know, I thought last time we were learning that hard lesson in the last election.
I thought, oh, look at the wipeout.
Remember that we were crying about the labor wipeout in, what was it, 2022, was it?
Yeah.
Was it?
Dark Ages, I believe.
Yeah.
It was right after COVID and we thought, gosh.
And it was a wipeout then and it was nothing compared to what we are, what we're facing now.
And yeah, it feels like today's news is we're digging ourselves out, digging our way out of it.
The Liberal Party is going to try and dig their way out of this one and there's no light at the end of this tunnel.
Can't we have a Nigel Farage?
Can't we find somebody that like technically it could work here?
You could find somebody that even though we have a completely different system.
In fact, I would have thought that our system is easier than the British system in doing that because they don't have a preferential system.
So it relies.
100% on your primary vote and it gets split.
That's why in the UK, it's so the idea that Nigel Farage was able to get up there and just a week and a half ago, win a seat against the Labour Party.
The Conservatives weren't even considered a player in that fight.
And Nigel Farage won it.
But when you vote, you're voting, it's your primary vote.
That's all that counts.
So like if you have two Conservative parties, the Conservative, they're called the Tories.
I think that's England.
The Tories and then Nigel Farage's Reform Party, they're fighting.
They're like Gerard Rennick and One Nation here.
But at least here, there's a preferential system.
So at least they can preference each other.
So if you really care about ideology and you want to stop Labor and the Greens getting in, you just preference each other second and the best man wins.
But there, it's literally your vote.
So the two conservative groups.
It's a misconception that preference voting makes it easier for minor parties.
First past the post, which is how our system was originally designed, was designed that way because it's actually easier in a single election cycle to get a new voice up on a one-run horse race with the primary vote than it is to sit there and do all this factional games with other parties where a coalition of left-wing parties can keep a single powerful right-wing voice out.
That's why the left was so excited to vote for preference or voting.
They knew it would secure power for a long time.
It also entrenches major parties who do deals to suffocate the minor parties.
But in the, well, you can see in the UK, they are able to stage a revolution with a new third party, as was the design of our system originally, because they kept their system intact.
And we are seeing right now with Farage exactly how our system is supposed to work.
If the Conservatives betray their ideas, a new party rises to replace them.
And that is what reform is.
Reform is an adjustment to a broken system.
I feel like now I need to bring you back with Toferfield and debate this one out.
Yeah, I also, Ryan, I can also tell you that if compulsory voting keeps the vote in the center away from radical parties, and I've always disagreed with the libertarians on this one, because in practice, every country that brings in voluntary voting starts shifting to the left because the only people motivated to vote are the young left-wing activists.
And you start ending up with radical politics out.
The people who designed our system, Arby, were very smart.
They knew what they were doing.
And a lot of people think they know better.
And they have started to ruin our system of politics.
And look how hard it is now for us to fix our broken politics.
We were talking earlier today.
What are we going to do?
How do we fix it?
We've made it very hard for ourselves thanks to the changes we made to the Westminster system.
And that's on our politicians for doing that.
They were chasing power.
And guess what?
They've given power to the left and now they can't get it back.
You've given me a lot to think about there because I hear what you're saying.
And up until this conversation, I've been an avid supporter of the preferential system.
So just so I understand you support compulsory voting because you think as soon as it's voluntary, then it will shift to the left.
Is that right?
It is a fact, a statistical fact of countries and nations' history.
But how do you explain, look at America Trent?
But just wait, compulsory voting.
There's always a few people who don't know what they're voting for.
And that's the case whether it's compulsory or not.
So you can't use a few outliers.
When the mums and dads and people who aren't really politically engaged get to the polling booth, are they going to vote for the psycho-radical socialist with communism as our side with green hair and whatever else?
Or are they going to vote for the party that looks sort of mostly normal?
They're going to vote for the mostly normal party.
And so what happens is you end up with a bulk of people in the center who hold the weight of politics toward normality and reason.
And you have a few little voices of the air to pull and change our culture just a little bit.
But it's manageable.
And that was always the point of having compulsory voting is it keeps politics moving slowly and not radically, because what you don't want is radical, swift politics because, like a car going too fast, it veers off into oblivion, like we see with dictatorships, where there's one person in charge who can change things in a moment.
But that's not good for the future and longevity of a country, which is why we had compulsory voting.
But you have to pair it with first passes the post if you want the system to work properly.
We broke one bar of that system and now we're suffering.
If we want to do something good Arvi, we should restore our political system to what it was designed, because it was designed very well and we broke it.
Maybe that's what we can do.
I'm excited to organize this debate because I I I you you, you do make a super compelling argument.
That makes me question my own view on this, which is good.
That's the point of conversations and uh, i've always been somebody that thought no, preferential voting is good because it allows minor parties to get in there and have a go, because they can um, you know, they can form uh, some sort of preference dealing that gives them a chance against the major parties.
But you you, your points are super valid there and I think uh, the proof that works for you your argument is the whole Farage thing.
I thought it would work against him, but it kind of seems complicated though, because the fact that Farage can do it means he needs to get that many more, because it's it's it's the Tories and and Farage fighting over essentially the same um side of politics, the same voters, although although Farage is also appealing to like late working class as well, so he's get, he's pulling a few that would vote labor.
But is it?
Is it compulsory?
Let me explain it this way, rv it.
What we've done is turned our politics into a war of attrition, which is not just one election cycle but it's almost a sequence of elections, where all these preference deals are are put in place and you know people got vendettas from previous elections and this and that.
So the the total vote of all the preferences is that it's not fresh every election.
It's this thing that keeps rolling and rolling and rolling.
What the system was originally and what Farage has now, is it's fresh clean, safe.
Is it compulsory in the Uk?
Uh no, but uh, it used to be, I think, and uh, they're seriously considering.
Maybe It should be because they've got the same problem that I was talking about, which is, all the new people are radicalized to vote and they're having trouble getting all the normal people to go and vote at the polls.
So, same deal.
It's the problem I'm talking about.
They were talking about themselves.
But with the preferencing, which is what I want to talk about, Nigel Farage has to tell that one seat, if you vote for us this time around, we can make a change.
He doesn't have to say the last five elections or whatever else or the deals.
He doesn't have to overcome all the parties.
He only has to come primary vote.
So he doesn't have to beat everyone's second and third and fourth preferences.
He just has to get the total majority once.
And so it's easier for a party like Farage to win the popular vote than it is to win against the preferences of all the other parties.
So like if the Tories and Labor collude, how is a minor party ever going to get up if the two major parties start colluding?
But they can't do that.
That's true.
If the Tories and I get what you're saying in that situation, this was the first election that One Nation was actually before Labor for the Liberals, I believe.
So in the case over there, if so, unless the Tories and Labor colluded to put reform last, so then their two votes will count above.
He wouldn't be able to do it.
He wouldn't be able to do it.
Sure.
That's assuming that they would collude.
So right now he's saying, I'm the best party, and everyone's going, okay, well, we're going to give you a shot.
And they can give these new parties a shot.
And so every election is fresh.
Every election is a one-off.
Can you make the popular vote?
And Farage is like, yep, did it.
I feel like I need somebody, I need a maths expert to help me unpack that because there's also the question of whether Farage and the Tories then, because they would naturally preference each other unless the Tories go, no, hold on.
For us, it's better to keep it a two-party system.
So we'll talk to Labor.
We'll say to them, let's just both keep out the reform and then make it into a two-party race by both preferencing him later.
But it could go either way.
The Tories and reform could join.
I think the point is for Arvi, do you want, if you're running a horse race, do you want the winner of the horse race to actually win, the person who crosses the line?
Or do you want the winner to be declared of all the people behind the horse?
No, I do agree with that.
But so what's the counter argument?
The counter argument that I've talked about this with TOFA, which again, I'm organizing this debate because I'm truly fascinated by it.
Is the argument is that, let's say you have, you know, so you have three people running, which they say is like in the UK where it's Farage, the Conservatives and Labour Party.
And the thing is, you don't want to lose.
So if you have, so really people are split, like they share more values.
Like the people that are voting for the Conservatives share more values with Farage, but they want to give Farage a chance.
But if Farage fails, their ideals mostly align or more align with the Conservatives over Labour.
So they would want their vote realistically should flow on to their next best option because that's where they would sit if there wasn't this party.
And that's what happens in Australia.
So the proof, Arvi, and is actually, we actually have, we've got the great benefit of having two systems which show us what the result is.
So the result of the philosophy is, if you do what you've just said there, which is, oh, I want my vote to mostly align to what I kind of think, is that you get the entrenching of two major parties.
Politics starts to split into two sites with nothing in the middle, with no minor parties because they can't overcome these major parties.
And so, in the end, those two major parties no longer have to worry about minor parties raising it up and winning a couple of seats like Farage is doing.
They don't have to worry about that because they're unlikely to do so.
And if they do so, the two major parties collude and get rid of them, right?
So, what's happening is Australian politics is the end form of this system where we've got two parties which are almost identical.
They're too frightened to debate each other on real core issues because they're frightened of losing elections.
And there's no real minor party support because they can't beat the collusion of preference voting.
And politics is spiraling into this nasty, almost pseudo-dictatorship because of that.
Preferencing is giving a least worst option as a default.
It's almost saying with the primary race doesn't matter anymore.
We're looking for the least worst with our fourth or fifth preference.
That is not a good way to produce healthy politics.
The best way is to scare the heck out of the major parties every time and say, Look, it's clean slate.
Anyone can win every seat every time.
And sometimes you get surprises.
Like, if there's a really good candidate in a local seat, like we saw with Farage, will they get elected because they like them?
And then they don't have to worry about preference deals.
They were the most popular person, and suddenly they're standing there as the winner.
Now, you have like that is how you get them in.
And it took Farage two goes, don't forget.
It was two real election goes before people went, Yeah, you know what?
We're joining the movement.
Now he's becoming unstoppable.
We may never get to that point because our preferencing is sending minor parties into this, as you described earlier, sort of vanity projects and destructive forces and whatever, because they know they're never going to get elected.
Surprising Electoral Outcomes00:03:54
We know that.
You know that.
Well, I mean, what are the Libertarians going to do it?
1%.
Nothing.
They know they can't win a seat.
And so that's going to die out eventually.
We don't want that.
What we want is a Farage who can win a seat because he's got a great candidate first go.
Yeah, you, I love it.
I love this conversation.
I feel like I'm not equipped to actually, and I don't actually have a position.
I've always thought I had a position until this conversation.
And you make some super valid point.
Would you be up for a debate with our friend Topher Field on this issue?
I will organize it.
I want a reformation and a restoration of conservative politics.
And I think that's the beauty of this is that you both want the same outcome.
I think that's the model that works, right?
If something's working, then you have to ask serious questions about why is that working?
And it's not just Farage, because it's happened in Australia before we changed our system.
The Menzies Party is a great example that it was possible here before we made changes.
And the only change we made was preferencing.
Look, I'm going to organize this and we're going to have it.
And because I want some more clarity from two people that have completely opposing views on this issue, but both share pretty similar wishes for the outcome.
So it'll be interesting to hear that play out.
And both of you know a lot more about what you're talking about than I do.
So I'm not going to execute the arguments.
I love it.
I'm sure I get shattered at the comments, Arvie, but I don't know.
I don't necessarily, I don't agree.
I think you might actually, I don't know how it would play out.
The thing is, I don't know why.
This is the first time I've had a conversation where these arguments from somebody I respect have made them from somebody that wants the outcome want it to fall the same way I do, but Make me think that making me question my view of it all in how I've always perceived it and the way that I look at it and thought that it was that it actually is a good system.
But now I do question it.
Let's do it, Arvie.
Let's let's yeah, I don't think the comments say I don't think people feel that strongly about it.
So that's why I say Tofer Field.
He's somebody that does advocate it.
And that's the only reason why I even know anything about it because I've talked to him about it and he's done his marble thing and he's, you know, that that was kind of his shtick and I and I interviewed him about it and he educated me on it and I never really questioned it because I don't think I've ever I don't disagree with Tofer Field's marble.
Topher Field has explained how to work the system properly that we have.
No, no, no.
But he also made in that same interview that I had with him, he argues that it's a great system.
It's actually better.
It's the best system is I'm pretty sure what he says.
And for the for the reasons that I kind of probably stuffed up when I when I gave presented him now, he's a lot more across it.
So he he articulated it in a way that was very compelling.
I've never really heard the counter to it.
And I don't think that this is an issue that, let's say, my viewers feel particularly strong about.
We never really thought about it.
We knew this was our system.
I've spoken to people like Topha who advocate for the system, explain how to use the system to get to the outcome that we are trying to achieve.
But then there is you who also wants to achieve that same outcome.
But you're saying, hold on, I think our system's stuffed.
We need to go back to what our system used to be.
I think I've summarized that properly.
Debate and Dismantle00:03:19
And I am going to organize some random extra, we'll do a live feed debate on it, which I don't even know if people will want to tune in because is it that dry that people don't care?
I'm fascinated.
I want to hear you both putting your position forward and then letting each other, you know, dismantle it or make the stronger argument for it.
It'll be fascinating.
But now, this has been a great conversation.
Before I let you go, I just want to hear what you've been up to.
What are you doing these days and where people can find you?
Besides for the debate that's coming up.
Of course, of course.
As always, I am the online editor of The Spectator.
So I write Spectator pretty much every single morning.
You can always find me on my Twitter, which is just LEMLE.
And what I'm doing is I'm going to start getting back into interviewing.
I really, really miss having great conversations like these with people like you, Arvi.
So in a few weeks, I think I'm going to set back up.
And if you guys have got any people you'd like to hear me interview or talk to, I'm just going to do it quietly on my own.
So no, no big overarching corporation or anything, just me with a camera.
And I'd like to have some chats with interesting people and topics exactly like this, which are not discussed enough in the press.
And I think we could all have a good time and learn something.
So that's just keep following me online, really.
So because you just sparked a thought in my head when you said you're, what are you, the editor for Spectator?
I'm the online editor for The Spectator as well.
Online editor for The Spectator.
You've got the editor-in-chief of The Spectator is Roland Dean.
Correct?
That's correct.
Yes.
Who one hour ago tweeted or posted, whatever you call it these days.
Congratulations to Susan for an outstanding victory in today's Liberal Party ballot.
A lot of extra letters in it.
How am I meant to read that?
I think you can read the extra letters as a humorous comment on Susan Lay's, what is it?
Is it numerology that she's into?
I'm sure you should be reading that one with a slight grin and a raised eyebrow.
Alexandra, thanks so much for your time.
Did you tell people, I know I was looking up for the tweet.
Did you tell everyone where to find you?
Yes, I did.
My Twitter account's the best place to go.
It's just at Ellie Melly.
Till next time, till the debate.
Thanks for joining us.
Thank you very much.
So we're at that part of the show where I get to read your comments from throughout the week because yes, as a Rebel News Plus subscriber, I encourage you to go on the website to all my reports throughout the week and get involved in the conversation.
Leave a comment.
And every Wednesday night at the end of the show, this part of the show, I will go through the comments.
So let's start here.
This was a story about the unhinged Hamas activists abusing the pastor and his daughter in Sydney.
Brent says they don't care about Palestine.
They want communism.
Palestine is just the alibi.
Cannabis Decriminalization Debate00:03:49
That is very, very true.
And whether it's communism or just general Jew hatred, Palestine is always just their alibi.
Well said.
Bruce, thanks for coming back and commenting.
How pathetic that woman is.
So many people work themselves into insanity because they can't stand any difference of opinion.
It's hard, but we must pity such pathetic people to a degree.
My sympathy goes so far, but these people can be dangerous as well.
But thanks for the comment, Bruce.
This story was regarding the election, the election fallout.
This was the live that we did, and we're going to be doing a lot more lives.
So if you haven't already hit the notification buttons on my YouTube, do it.
I'm starting to do a lot of lives.
That's why we pushed this show to Wednesday night.
Cosas says, in being satisfied because the leader of the Greens has lost his seat, you are not only taking into account his contribution legalizing vapes in Australia, which are now sold in pharmacies without a prescription,
and you are also not taking into account his and his party's support for cannabis legalization and decriminalization, which is vital in Australia for smoking to remain legitimate and legal in widest possible range and reinforces this important cause existing in Australia.
Maybe you should look at all aspects of the same fact to determine your opinion about in the about it in terms of your interests.
I guess what you're saying is that you're from reading that, I'm assuming you think he did good work in legalizing cannabis and decriminalization or not.
You're taking parties.
There's a lot of conflation there.
I don't know.
I'm certainly not.
The fact that Adam Bat lost his seat, he's done a lot in that period.
Some of this, I don't know if you're saying that this is good stuff or bad stuff.
I'd argue that much of the legalization and decriminalization is not good.
Coming from somebody that had experience with, I think we've got to separate cannabis and decriminalization of harder drugs.
I have less of a problem with cannabis.
That's something we should definitely debate in the country and come to a national agreement on policy nation.
Why shouldn't have different states?
It's crazy in America how they do that as well.
But decriminalization of harder drugs, as somebody that has a long history of drug use in my teen into young adult life, I don't know if decriminalizing, if you look around the world, anywhere they decriminalize is not a good idea.
So if you think that that's a good thing he's done, I'd argue maybe not.
I wouldn't give him credit for that.
But if you're saying that I'm not taking into account how he has negatively affected and impacted Australia, I'm not taking that away from him.
The Greens have done a lot of horrible things.
We were just celebrating for a day that he actually lost his seat.
But I appreciate your comments, whether I agree with it or not.
Maybe next comment, clarify what you thought, Consus Costas, and thank you for your message.
On Abby Chatfield crashing out.
We did a lot of Abby lately in her post-election meltdown.
Obviously, she was running the Greens campaign.
Bruce, thanks for coming back.
Abby's Post-Election Meltdown00:03:11
Bruce says, people like that show how petty and mean they are just by writing or speaking.
Socialists are the ones who are isolated and miserable.
And they are the oppressors of women by wanting trans males to play against women and to invade their washrooms and changing rooms.
They sure do project a lot.
And I wish their projection bulb would burn out.
In fact, Bruce, that was early on.
We did a lot more about Abby since then.
We did a whole live feed that was about her crashing out.
And it goes more to your point, in fact.
And I don't know if you're from me, but if you know Abby, everything about her is hypocritical and a lot of it is projection.
If you watch our last live feed, you may have, you'd see that.
With the vegan activists declaring bankruptcy, these are two of the most menacing vegans in Australia.
John said someone wanted attention.
Well, now she has it.
So true, John.
Everything was about attention for her.
And finally, she's received a bit of a taste of her own medicine.
They've been menacing and they've targeted innocent people over nothing.
You know, if you want to be a vegan, a vegetarian, whatever, you do you.
But the way they attack people eating dinners or private businesses was horrible.
And I'm glad to hear that they threw the book at him.
Bruce, back again.
What a wacko.
Humans are radically different from animals.
This self-righteous woman and her followers think they have the right to pull stunts.
Exactly what I was talking about.
All that does is anger ordinary and sane folks.
And for the stupid people, I don't agree with animal cruelty.
Neither do I agree that animals are people.
I have to explain this for those who are hard of thinking.
So true.
I'm with you.
I have a dog wax.
Right now we're also dog sitting another dog.
I love animals.
I used to have a cat who unfortunately died about a year ago, but love animals.
I cried when my cat died.
But so there's a difference between animal cruelty and eating.
And you know what?
And trying to encourage people to be vegan, whether it's for health reasons or whatever.
I'd say that's up for debate.
But even if it's for moral reasons, there's a way to go about it.
And the way that these two carry on, I'm glad, again, that they've thrown the book at him.
My good friend Roman, the Royd Rager, who backpedaled on his Hamas defense after about 25 minutes in discussion.
We saw the true Roman come out, even though I thought he had changed his ways.
And I'm not going to read these two, but thank you guys for your comments because I can see they're both about something that I didn't even realize when watching it back because I wasn't looking at Roman's hand or his genitals, but it seems like Roman was playing with himself almost the whole debate or a good portion of the debate, which is weird now that I think of it.
Tolerant Party's Secret00:00:48
But thank you for the comment, guys.
And last but not least, another Greens senator has quit.
I think this is the third or fourth due to bullying.
So the tolerant party isn't as tolerant as they'd like you to think.
But imagine my shock.
And John says, the sociopaths always float to the top.
Exactly.
Guys, thanks for tuning in tonight.
Make sure to tune in to the opposition podcast now Tuesdays and Thursdays from 7 p.m.
You can go either on the website as a Rebel News Plus subscriber.
You'll get right in.
So at theopposition.show, or go to YouTube if you've got a YouTube channel and go to Aviumini on YouTube and hit that notification bell so that you get the updates when it comes out.