David Leyonhjelm does well in Penrith.

With the results in it now appears that the ORP candidate, David Leyonhjelm has secured nearly 2% of the vote in the Penrith by-election.

David states:

“That largely reflects the appeal of the party name. I ran three ads in a couple of local papers and the local media ran profiles of candidates, but I haven’t been to the electorate and didn’t do anything today.  Apart from a handful of shooters there, nobody knows anything about me personally.

If the result was replicated state wide, it would be almost enough to ensure election to the Legislative Council. A vote of 2.5% would be enough. ….

Gents, I think we are on the verge of breaking through.”

If we can get a slight improvement on this result in the Federal campaign it should, with preferences give our Senate candidate a great chance of getting there. This in turn would bring us the main thing we lack at the moment; press coverage. 30 years ago we were able to achieve this through the local papers however since then most of them seem to be relying less on local input as far as politics go. Local Editors no longer seem to have the independence of earlier years.

It is important to note the fact that the result seen here is from a relatively low profile campaign against well funded and well organised opponents who have large numbers to call on. With all hands on deck in the Federal election, and looking forward to the state one due in March we can be, as David said, “on the verge of breaking through.”

Congratulations, David.

16 thoughts on “David Leyonhjelm does well in Penrith.

  1. David Leyonhjelm is a very solid libertarian and I think it would be great to see him in the NSW legislative council.

  2. What was the previous percentage? We can extrapolate from that, and go on to bigger and better things! Even if it does take us ages, slow and steady growth might be preferably to speedy, short-lived growth.

  3. I rather like the idea of speedy growth Nuke. Lets say, balance of power in both houses this time, NSW next year, Federal government next election, tomorrow the … then consolidate.

    We don’t need to grow after that, unless you want an empire.

  4. I know that it was jest but regardless. To win the balance of power in both houses would require more than a good campaign. It would require whole sale reform of the mindset of the Australia people. And if that can be achieved I don’t think the current major parties will remain unchanged.

  5. Terje; I seem to remember a socialist candidate who stood in the US for President on many occasions. He never achieved anything for himself, but his whole agenda has been adopted.

    I can’t remember who it was and I’m feeling a bit lazy just now.

  6. whats David’s policy on saving the planet? I mean how is he proposing to replace coal and petrochem fuels? Obviously it ain’t with cellulosic ethanol cause he seems to be pretty polarised against the only pragmatic way of saving the planet….

  7. Saving the planet from what? Nuclear holocaust? Aliens? Rogue asteroids? The second coming of Christ?

    There’s a lot of apocalyptic doomsday predictions floating around so I’m not sure which one you’re referring to.

  8. Perhaps he is asking how will David save the world from excessive government. 😉

  9. ever since the USA and USSR exploded nuclear weapons in the ozone layer (early 1960’s) and ripped a hole in it…..I have been feeling doomsdayish….apparently a UFO shut down a chinese airport the other day?? lets keep it simple and start with saving the planet from destructive dumbass Australians who are digging up/drilling for sequestered carbon and flushing into the atmosphere…….and yes, it has been confirmed by the US that even a small nuclear conflict would rip a bigger hole in the ozone

  10. ???

    Nuclear reactor and medicine waste can’t be reprocessed for weapons. Nuclear waste is actually fuel for the new fast breeder reactors.

    Actually taking up nuclear will see no proliferation of weapons and no waste as new reactors come online.

  11. interesting to see David’s position on nuclear fission and to be honest nuclear fusion experimentation…fission is probably a small part of Australia’s equation although am sure there are good reasons that France is reducing the number of its nuclear facilities…I beleive David’s background is agricultural and to be honest I am confused to see him strongly dennounce cellulosic ethanol commercialisation which is currently under way. Oil and coal lobby groups are not shy in their attempts to create cognitive dissonance in the community, encourage the “do nothing option” and promote emotional tension on fuel alternatives like cellulosic ethanol…. the question is….has david been whipped by coal/oil lobby groups and will they continue to throw up nuclear fission as a “cock block” cause they know the emotional tension it creates in the community. 2 seperate issue really…cellulosic ethanol and nuclear fusion are only parts of the solution in the short term….another part is the new australian hybrid toyota camry which looks like failing before it starts…..so what is David’s policy on saving the planet? what can he offer that will reduce sequestered carbon in the atmosphere?

  12. The idea that the fossil fuel industry is engaged in a campaign to promote nuclear energy is a very odd one. Perhaps Pepsi is behind all the Coca Cola advertising we see around the place.

  13. swinging voter,

    Before you launch into a tirade, please look at the evidence.


    BTW I am not David L or Barry Brook, and personally, I see geothermal, nuclear, wind (using hydrocarbon generation for storage and baseload power) and various waste sources waste (biomass, nuclear) will be the best way forward.

  14. The original article was about David…. My intention was to draw attention to David’s views against ethanol and biofuels whilst he promotes his credentials in agriculture. My intention was to draw attention to the phililospohy “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”….will David be a road block (ie obstruct ethanol) or has he got a better positive vision to contribute (perhaps not ethanol)….what david often conventiently forgets is that petrochemical fuels is a major government revenue raise and my understanding is that the tariff is more than the cost of the fuel.

    the lunatic Qld premier (pete beattie) kept promoting coal cause it “create jobs” so that the state can grow, mostly through migration. Public outcry on carbon emissions made qld govrnment put together an audit of carbon reducing fuel sources in qld. without doing anything, biofuels contributed to more than 80% of qld’s alternative energy sources……

    With the intention of clarifying the above discussion….there are plenty of options on the table for reducing carbon emissions and as an observation, think we are at the point of “pascal’s wager” where we need to “bet” small amounts on alternate solutions (including nuclear) becasue there is a high chance that one will “pay off”……creating a nuclear industry is important cause nuclear fusion is eventually where its all heading in a few decades…..

    p.s. we dont need an emissions trading scheme (ETS) to stop building coal fired power stations…and power has already gone up by how much??….30% maybe….

Comments are closed.