The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Dawn of a new political era > Comments

Dawn of a new political era : Comments

By Mark Bahnisch, published 24/8/2010

This election is a logical consequence of a political shift which predated Kevin07.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Australians have a long history of putting their faith in minor parties up until the moment that the minor party actually gets some power, and demonstrates that it can handle it no better than Labor or Liberals. DLP, Democrats and One Nation have all had their chance at tipping the balance of power, and all demonstrated their feet of clay. Those who think the Greens will be different are in for a bitter disappointment.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 12:51:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The title of this article is; ‘Dawn of a new political era’.

Well…..I can’t see it.

What’s new about it? The same old dominant social and political paradigm is still entrenched.

If the Greens and independents were significantly different and more progressive than the liblabs, then yes we could be in for a significant change which could possibly be called a new political era.

But what’s the chance of this? Not great I would think, despite the urgent need for it.

The new political era that we desperately need would be one based on genuine sustainability, with a stable population and much lower level of immigration and an urgent addressal of our addiction to oil at its core.

While these are exactly the sort of priority issues that I’d expect the Greens, and independents that are free of party pressures and big-business vested-interest alliances, to deal with, I’ll believe it when I see it.

I just hope to goodness that the Green get their act together. Their time is now.

The population/immigration issue has been primed in the minds of ordinary Australians to be tackled strongly and directly.

The oil-addiction issue for some unknown reason has dropped off the radar, but can easily be brought back.

If the Greens fail to put in a strong showing, they’ll be lucky to get a second chance and could fade away as with other minor parties before them, as Jon J says.

The key to a new political era really does now rest with the Greens.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 2:47:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wouldn't it be great if all this gibberish meant something, unfortunately it means nothing more than some smarties sold an article or two.

Labor/libs are finished. Greens are taking over. It's all going to be different. What twaddle.

Nothing has changed, we simply had an election in the middle of a swing in voter sentiment.

Many wanted rid of a failed labor lot, that everyone had high hopes for, they voted Lib. Many were not ready to give up on that lot, just yet. They voted labor. More than a few had no idea what to think. They voted Green. More than a few knew what they wanted. They voted all over the place, & we got some independents.

Nothing new about independents, we have had them before, but not when the numbers were so even, due to the mid swing election.

All will be back to normal next time.

Don't get too worried about a new election any time soon, brought on by this mix up in members. None of them want to loose their seats. They will be careful not to precipitate a new election any time soon.

The good thing is, they have all had a scare, or are frightened of one, so stability is possible.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 4:06:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr M.Iemma said Labour rightwing faction leaders like Mr Bitar and his mentor Senator Mark Arbib had helped to undermine four NSW Labour governments in the past three years.
"They have debased the political process in NSW, they have taken their disease and infected federal labour".

Add into this mix the likes of Shorten and his union lieutenants and we have Labour that implodes on itself. The present Labour tactics, behaviour and crassness appear to be foreign to our traditional Labourites. There is no wisdom left in Labour. We, as members of the public and Labour voters, are SICK of this crass, thuggish and treacherous behaviour of the men behind Labour.

K Rudd had no time for these clowns. He had fine manners, an evolved mind and was a gentleman of better breeding. Besides, he had his own personal wealth and had no need to suck up to these crass men. So, under the false pretext of “public opinion” these stand-over men decided to politically assassinate Rudd, the people's PM, thus bringing Labour to such public ridicule. The multitude of decent Labour voters who have deserted Labour is unsurpassed in our recent living memory.

The instability within Labour is the cancer that will surely infect the very soul of Labour. The only hope is to cut out the malignant tumor (including the treacherous Gillard- Swann team) to save and resurrect Labour. But with so much damage already done, I doubt there is any hope for Labour. Only death and a subsequent re-birth appear to be the only way. What a shame, a party that once had the talent and brains of this nation; a party that was focused on big picture issues; a party that brought about many great reforms to Australia; the party that significantly uplifted the lives of many and minimised the gulf between the 'haves' and 'have-nots'; a party that was in many ways credited for our current almost 'egalitarian' society; has to die at the hands of self-seeking, half-witted men like Arbib, Bitar, Shorten and their cronies
Posted by Jolly, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 5:39:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, you are right. This article is gibberish. To attempt to draw far-reaching conclusions from this farcical election are silly.

But what the election did show is that most people shouldn't be allowed to vote. The election of a 20 year old proves it.

The voting age should be lifted to 21. No candidate for office should be under 30. Every potential voter should have to sit an examination which shows a reasonable level of intelligence, a reasonable level of education, a reasonable level of maturity, plus an broad awareness of the political process which allows the voter to tell the difference between State and Federal issues, to see through spin, etc.

More importantly, the voter should demonstrate a clear wish to put the national interest before self-interest.

If these changes could be made, then democracy might finally come to have some real meaning.
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 6:00:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What about Kelly Vincent, the young woman recently elected in South Australia, was that a mistake too?

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/youngest-parliamentarian-elected-in-sa-20100408-ru9p.html

What are the crucial differences between Kelly and Wyatt that makes the election of one a cause for celebration whereas the other is reason enough for castigation of voters and a ban so they can't do it ever again? What is it about young white men that makes them so unsuitable for elevation to a responsible job even if they win in open competition?

The other pertinent issue is that in neither case (Kelly or Wyatt) did the electorate decide the pre-selections for candidacy, so blaming the voters is not really on. While not reflecting on either of the two members mentioned, what prevents the mature, better candidates you hope for coming forward? Because that is the issue, not bans or fooling with eligibility.

At any time a fellow Wyatt's age or younger could be required to support a family, go to war or be thrown into an adult prison (a consequence of not killing or being killed when directed to do so by the State). Why shouldn't young white men of Wyatt Roy's age seek office or serve in other responsible capacities? Specifically, why would they be a bad choice for a parliament that should reflect the electorate it serves? There are still a few of them around, right?
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 7:51:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy