Same pathetic view of illegal arrivals – there aren’t many of them, and we can always send them back! Increase quotas from ‘transit’ countries, and pretend that they are immigrants or people we have actually chosen ourselves to come here. “…the asylum-seeker issue is a beat-up.”

Sucking up to immature teenagers who are politically illiterate and don’t want to know.

Confusing refugees with immigrants.

Thinking that you can send immigrants to parts of the country they might not want to live in.

Black armband view of history with aboriginals.

OK with sexual perversion.

Globalisation.

Using our troops to fight the wars of other countries too useless to look after themselves.

Just a few of the same old same old points listed in the website of this would-be political party. These and most of the others are just what we have now with what we’ve got, thanks.

This ‘new’ party also agrees with Greg Barns on asylum seekers. They have given themselves the kiss of death with that one, alone!

The lack of interest in Australia being a republic hasn’t got through to them, either.

“Dog-whistling”, for heavens sake, gets a mention! There is certainly nothing new or needed from this lot.

Apart from the fact that Peter Pyke is a sometime ALP politician, with all the baggage that entails, if we do have need of another political party, we should be look for a genuine conservative one to take the battle to the so-called ‘democrats’ who have lowered or completely abolished Australian standards in everything.

Take a hike, Mr. Pyke. You are just another politician with nothing to offer.

Started good. I like the 'race to the bottom' analogy. I agree that a centre party is needed so that Australians to not have to be radical left or radical right in their election choices. I would also like a party that told the truth, but that might be going a bit too far.
I agree also on asylum seekers. Surely the focus needs to be on quick processing to avoid prolonged uncertainty. Shipping refugees backwards and forwards only prolongs the process and adds to the uncerainty and fear. It also cost heaps of money for negative outcomes.
But you lost me making the republican issue a centre piece. The beauty of the present system of a powerless head of state is that the Monarch withholds power from others. The army and police pledge allegiance to the Monarch, not the Prime Minister or President. Whilst this arrangement remains we cannot end up with Herr Howard of Comrade Keating.
The choice of a Reublic or not is a rediculus choice at this stage. What republic do you want? You want to remove the Queen as our head of State, but what is going to replace a Constitutional Monarchy?
If the new party is going to descend into dogma about republicanism it will be no different to the existing parties. Don't tell me we can sort out the details later.
Tell me the truth about what you propose to have as an alternative system and I will consider it. Only one vote is at stake here but in an election every vote counts.

“We both felt the parties we had belonged to had degenerated into organisations focused on doing whatever it takes to win government…”

The reason democracies work this way is because parties who don’t ‘do whatever it takes to win government’ get voted out. Those who rise to the top are precisely the habitual immoralists who recognise no social principle but expedience in self-aggrandisement, and no restraint based on anyone else’s right to self-ownership or property ownership. No political party can avoid this selection process, because popular election is the basis of our form of government. That’s why Chipp’s democrats, who started out intending to keep the bastards honest, in time just morphed into another pack of bastards. What makes the Republic Democrats think they are immune to the same inexorable process of selection? And what makes anyone think they are different?

As for the republic, not even its own advocates claim that it would make any difference *in practice*. They contend that it would make a *symbolic* difference.

But the Australian Constitution is contained entirely within an ordinary Act of the British Parliament, which derives its legal and moral origin and authority from, among other things, the Crown. You can’t create a ‘republic’ by simply crossing out the word “Queen” where it appears, and inserting the world “President”. For symbolic purposes, you would need to express sovereignty as coming directly from the people, which would require a Declaration and a New Constitution. Is that going to be the Republic Democrats policy? No? Don’t tell me, lemme guess: not expedient, right?

Separating church and state is a great idea, but the most divisive religious belief corrupting the state these days, is the irrational belief that the state is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. By positioning themselves between the phony non-alternatives of ‘left’ and ‘right’, who both share this fundamental belief, how are the Republican Democrats going to be any better?

This new party could be what is badly needed here as an alternative to the poor choices Australia is faced with in the next few months.

On the one hand you have a scheming Gillard, a captive of the Zionists in Melbourne who helped her into her new role and who sold out her long held left wing ideals. She has now conformed to right wing demands and therefore has become a puppet for Arbib and his cabal, a 360 degree turn. Blind ambition, Jewish prompting and support (as they have a her in their clutches now) and the long term commitment to Arbib and his rightwing stooges to promote 'friendly' ministerial appointments after the next election, should they win. Now this will be determined by timing, as the longer she is there in full view the easier for the voters to see her for what she has become.
On the other hand we have the feckless Abbott, a mistaken appointment, voted in by one vote on one subject only, but now there as leader by default. A joke among his own party who, in the main, have very little talent but are a bunch of Catholic zealots anxious to gain office to fund all Catholic education activities across the country, their primary objective.
A Democratic party with Republican ideals would be a winning combination and to add gloss to those two qualities we have a secular objective as well.

Too late for this election but ideally placed for the next which will by then be against Malcolm Turnbull and some other rightwing candidate from Labor.

Real patriotic Australians would welcome such a move. Perhaps we may even expect a realistic foreign policy on matters of importance such as Palestine by avoiding totally the insidious influences of the Melbourne Jewish Lobby which, along with rightwing Labor influences in politics in this country are self-serving and corrupting.

Part of their website's script on climate:
"Whether climate change is real, and if so, is it the result of human activity or caused by natural cycles and events, are questions many Australians have difficulty deciding."
I didn't think anyone was capable of questioning natural climate change, unless of course they were trying to confuse the issue. Apparently we have another party willing to talk nonsense. Ah, but it's all for a worthy cause, because they are going to act in a 'precautionary manner'. This makes them a carbon copy of all the major parties, no doubt with an accompanying carbon tax, ETS or other wasteful programs wholly or partly based on IPCC pseudo science.
It's funny their website makes no mention of an ETS or carbon tax when these are prominent issues related to climate. I guess that is a 'precautionary measure' to hide their agenda.

"The opportunity beckons for Australia to have a head of state who can appoint competent federal ministers who aren’t MPs, instead of factional political mates or cronies selected on the basis of their support for a party leader or by faceless party bosses behind the scenes. With respect to our chief law officer and defence minister, for example, the benefits should be clear."

Good grief. You may not likel "factional political mates" but they are actually ELECTED by the electorate and this is how a democracy works. Your model is that of a genuine rolled gold dictator with his/her appointed non–elected ministers. BTW you neglected to say how this omnipotent GG is to be appointed/ elected/ chosen by God. The Third Reich should be a model with appeal.