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 > A new political party for new times > Comments

A new political party for new times : Comments

By Peter Pyke, published 16/7/2010

The advent of the Republican Democrats means there could be a third mainstream political force in Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
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.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 16 July 2010 10:55:50 AM
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
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.
Posted by Daviy, Friday, 16 July 2010 11:02:52 AM
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
“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?
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 16 July 2010 11:27:18 AM
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
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.
Posted by rexw, Friday, 16 July 2010 11:34:30 AM
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
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.
Posted by CO2, Friday, 16 July 2010 11:42:07 AM
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 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.
Posted by Gorufus, Friday, 16 July 2010 12:27:12 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
Is this the same Mr. Pyke that was once in the Greens, and caused havoc there?

And did this Higgins have something to do with labour hire firms in Qld? Or the wool mob?

The Right always claim to be 'Centre' it's part of their born-to-rule ideals.

This is another shade of 'One Notion' and will attract the same simpletons.

With luck it will fade from view with less impact than ON ever had.

If not, the initiators will soon enough fall out with each other, candidates, and the public.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Friday, 16 July 2010 12:42:21 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
What is the party's view on a 'Big Australia' and in relation to solving problems connected with growing the population such as infrastructure and decentralisation even if means encouraging business to the regions. How will water be managed?

"...intending immigrants to formally accept our system of law, the separation of church and state, and equality between women and men.

While Republican Democrats support these new ideas, getting them into our present Constitution would be a nightmarish, likely impossible task."

Hang on I thought these rights were enshrined constitutionally. Isn't separation of church and state, adherence to the law and equality a given in our legal and constitutional obligations?

PTB would probably know.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 16 July 2010 12:52:51 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
Just checked their web site.

Sounds like a private company, just like One Notion.

No explanation of how branches work.

They are taking 'expressions of interest' to become members!

Surely, just a 'membership application' would be all that is needed?

So, Sgt. Pyke, how much does it cost, is it a political party or a private company, do you have branches with elected branch officers, were you elected, by whom, where, when, how?

I look forward to a swift rsvp.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Friday, 16 July 2010 1:06:22 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
"Is this the same Mr. Pyke that was once in the Greens, and caused havoc there?"
If so, is it possible that a former Green has changed his colour? Such colour change is unbelievable.
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 16 July 2010 1:09:19 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
Peter Pyke:

>> As Republican Democrats we say that the Greens are not a real alternative - its members sit to the left of Labor. <<

Left of Labor? 21st Century Labor? Then that's still right of centre.

But thanks for clarifying your party's world view.
Posted by Severin, Friday, 16 July 2010 1:09:26 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
TBC: << Is this the same Mr. Pyke that was once in the Greens, and caused havoc there? >>

Yup. I used to refer to him as Peter Puke. He's little more than an ego with legs who feels some sense of entitlement to a seat in Parliament.

I suspect the main reason that he's formed his own party is that none of the existing parties will have a bar of him.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 16 July 2010 1:27:49 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
I am googling him now CJM.

How's this?

Taken from here:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/electioncentral/2009/03/03/the-candidates/

Darryl Rosin
Posted Wednesday, March 4, 2009 at 11:22 am | Permalink

Peter Pyke was very briefly associated with the Qld Greens (through Andrew Carroll) before having a truly disastrous falling out with them prior to the 2004 state election. I recall he believed the greens could have won numerous seats (10? 15?). He featured prominently in a couple of large pieces in the Australian in late 2003 accusing Drew Hutton of being a “labor party stooge” and Drew’s close relationship with the ALP was “diabolically damaging to the Greens”.

Last time I saw him, he was working with a couple of people whose names escape me arguing that the way preferences are counted were wrong because they were counting ballot papers not votes and Qld elections since the introduction of OPV were invalid. Ah, I wish I could remember that guy’s name. They gave me a little demo with hand-drawn ballot papers and I never managed to pin down the intellectual slight-of-hand that was going on.

Mark Bahnisch
Posted Wednesday, March 4, 2009 at 11:48 am | Permalink

Drew’s close relationship with the ALP? That’s a bit *odd*…

Peter Pyke, if memory serves, was one of a few “accidental” MPs elected in 89. There were some flakey candidates no one expected to win who got in and proved a bit of a thorn in the side of the Goss government.

Now, this does not mean that a new political party might not be a good idea, but given how cynical we (I don't think it's only me) are when it comes to pollies, and what motivates them, then to be starting off a new party with a miss-matched bunch of old stagers in something that looks/sounds very like One Notion is to add weight to the saddlebags before getting to the track.

However, there is no crime involved in being a party member, not liking it, and leaving to join another... thank goodness some people do that.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Friday, 16 July 2010 1:41:15 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
Aha, the one true miracle in life is surely Google?

How's this?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035945/

'Give me the moon'
A group of layabouts who refuse to do any work get an opportunity to lord it up when Peter Pyke (Peter Graves), the son of a hotel magnate, joins their group.

This film has a great idea about a group who call themselves "White Elephants" and who refuse to do anything useful for society, especially work.

It has the potential to be a commendable blueprint for life, but unfortunately, it is played out by a weak cast who are all ultimately irritating characters.

From Margaret Lockwood's "Nina" with her irritating fake Russian accent to Jean Simmons' unconvincing streetwise "Heidi", through to Peter Graves' arrogantly slimy "Peter Pyke", they are all unfunny.

The dialogue is delivered at a quick pace as if to impress the viewer with it's cleverness. It is indeed funny in parts but it is not consistent."

Hmm, I wonder what's in store with the RepDems. Are they going to be 'white elephants', I wonder
Posted by The Blue Cross, Friday, 16 July 2010 1:53:16 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
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10690#176928

Leigh, spot on buddy, 70% of the population want immigration of all kinds stopped immediately.

I would love to see a new "mainstream" political party emerge to wipe "The Major Mistakes" off the face of the Earth, but these numb skulls go on to espouse the same old rubbish the Red/green/getup/labour Communist Coalition have been rabbiting on about for 5 decades now.

I detect what is merely the latest effort in dog whistling or renaming the rhetoric. Just like they did with the, "NDP, Nuclear Disarmament Party" followed by the Red/greens after that.

You establish a fake "new party" as a false shop front who can fool Disgruntled Ex Labour & swinging voters into voting for the new party, then having their preferences redirected back to the Red/green/getup/labour Communist Coalition.

The Communists have been doing this with fake independents & "minor" parties ever since the "1984" election to bring about their "Orwellian" UN, NWO "Big Sista" 4th Reich.

Furthermore every genuine attempt by disappointed voters to "change the system" results in them starting, yet another new party from scratch. There are now dozens of them popping up, all over the place, to go nowhere other than splitting the Anti Major Mistake Vote.

What Australia desperately needs is for some of these new & old minor parties to merge together to form something stronger & more capable of saving us from the Communists.

As much as i distrust the Liberal, National Conservative Coalition, they are nowhere near as evil as the Communists & must be preferenced ahead of the Red/green/getup/labour republican democrat Communist Coalition.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10690#176932

Daviy, Agree with you on the Republic issue. Hardly anybody really wants it.

But an even larger majority 70%, at least want zero immigration of any type, sealed borders. A far more humane way to deal with the boat people is to send them back immediately, to their country of origin. No regime anywhere in the world is executing people just for fun.

If they genuinely are in danger back home, its because they are a trouble maker & probably deserve it.
Posted by Formersnag, Friday, 16 July 2010 1:56:30 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
Sorry Peter, but I’m not impressed.

<< Both major parties’ talk about sustainable population growth is more dog-whistle politics… >>

Fascinating. You mention sustainable population, but only in passing, without elaborating on this ALL-IMPORTANT issue!

A sustainable society, where population growth is curtailed, where we can have a healthy economy that is not based on continuous growth, where we have a renewable energy regime and can actually live in balance with our resource base and environment… THIS is the stuff that really matters.

THIS is what we DESPERATELY need from a new political party – a party that would be glaringly different from Labor or Liberal, both of which are hooked into the grossly unsustainable and future-destroying continuous-expansion-forever mindset.

If improvements to our system of governance were to be brought about by way of Australia becoming a republic, then I’d support it all the way. It certainly could be an excellent opportunity to fix up our glaring faults with government, but we would need to have the right motivation in place first.

Quite frankly, if there is not a strong sustainability ethic to start with, then there’d be scant little point in changing our system of governance. A new system, with all sorts of apparent improvements, but with our grossly overconsumeristic and massive growth habits entrenched, would just be meaningless!

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 16 July 2010 2:15:47 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
As for asylum seekers, you’ve lost me there too Peter. The crux of the issue should be too considerably increase our national input into international aid and refugee issues and to bring a larger number of the most needy to this country, via our formal refugee programs… and to STOP onshore asylum seeking forthwith!

Your idea of onshore processing suggests that you are happy for people to continue to make the perilous journey by boat to our shores, forever, and no doubt in considerably higher numbers than at present.

PLEASE, drop this silly notion. If you really are a humanitarian, start lobbying the government for an increase in international aid to at least the UN recommended 0.7% of GDP that developed countries should be outlaying and perhaps a big increase in the permanent resettlement of refugees in Australia via our formal immigration program.

My philosophy is all about doing the best thing for our own future in this country AND doing as much as we reasonably can on the world stage for refugees and other needy people.

What is yours really about Peter?
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 16 July 2010 2:17:40 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
Sounds like Americanisation to me...and that is just the name!
Posted by Phil Matimein, Friday, 16 July 2010 3:32:50 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
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10690#176935

Peter Hume, excellent comment, i agree with almost all of it, except your critique of the, http://www.democrats.org.au/ i was an active member, once upon a time, long ago & far away.

Their demise was caused by policy mistakes, namely falling for the same "PC Thought Police" Rubbish that infected both of the Major Mistakes & the Dirty Tricks campaign that they inflict on every 3rd force that comes along. Look no further than what they did to Pauline Hanson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0bqQetlgJ4

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

What Australia needs right now is a protest organisation like the American "Tea Party" Movement to lobby existing politicians on our behalf, instead of them only listening to "Big Business" or who is paying the biggest bribes.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10690#176938

rexw, your correct about the labour right being corrupt, but the Lunatic fringe left are even worse.

I have been talking extensively to disgruntled EX labour voters & traditional, swinging voters for years now & they most emphatically do not want a republic or anything else the Communists have been Dogmatically promoting.

99% of the population do not want any of the PC Thought Police Poison being inflicted on us by the Red/green/getup/labour/repdem Communist Coalition (when you explain to them, what the spin/rhetoric/propaganda/dogma/mantras, REALLY mean).

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10690#176939

CO2, spot on. Everybody who's in favour, talks about AGW with a "Big Stick" approach without even trying a carrot first.
Posted by Formersnag, Friday, 16 July 2010 4:51:48 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
Although I would consider myself both a republican and a democrat, this new party holds little appeal.
How's this for a really groovy idea; a party of representatives who ask the people what THEY want, instead of telling them what they should want.
Considering the exponential increase in information sharing in just the last few decades, why are we still stuck with a model produced in 1901?
By using this new fangled world wide web thingy, we could be telling our representatives how we want him/her to vote on every issue, instead of picking a 'least worst' contender, and then having to wait three years to kick him/her out, if they prove incompetent/corrupt/selfserving/bloody stupid.
We don't need a new party, so much as a new political paradigm.
Posted by Grim, Friday, 16 July 2010 9:09:14 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
Grim

>>> We don't need a new party, so much as a new political paradigm. <<<

I hear you, we need the pollies to listen.
Posted by Severin, Saturday, 17 July 2010 7:09:22 AM
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
Sorry new party...you just lost the Eastern Suburbs of Melbourne with....*this*

//REPUBLICAN DEMOCRATS accept that responsibility for liberty and justice cannot be confined by national boundaries.

We are committed to fighting poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur and to promoting the free movement between nations of ideas, people, goods and services.//

In SHORT..you are globalist internationalists and if you had half a chance you would TIE US UP and bind us with trash and rubbish from the U.N. and then harp on about our 'human rights obligations' which are in fact nothing other than a bunch of wishes on a list which results from the lobbying of vested interest groups, especially including those from the Islamic and gay groups.

If I were you mob...I'd give up before expending so much futile energy with a re-cycled 'Democrats' approach to things, and if you want to be CENTRIST..then it might be better to actually have CENtrist policies rather than the usual predictable permutation of the Left Wing socialist agenda.

Consider this a bite on the rear end, from which (like with a bite from a Gila monster or a Kumodo dragon).. you are unlikely to survive.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Saturday, 17 July 2010 1:44:53 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
There IS actually a new party with the RIGHT policies...

The Stable Population Party of Australia

http://www.populationparty.com/Home/About-Us
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 17 July 2010 1:51:55 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
Ludwig

>> Stable Population Party Objectives

The key objectives of Stable Population Party are as follows:

*
To stabilise Australia's population at around 23 million to 2050.
*
To provide leadership and support to other countries experiencing rapid population growth, so as to help them stabilise their populations, and thus help stabilise global population.

Policies

In order to achieve our objectives, the key policies of Stable Population Party are as follows:

* Adopt a formal national 'population policy' to stabilise Australia's population at around 23 million until 2050.
* Adopt a balanced and sustainable migration program, with annual immigration at around *50-80,000, being equivalent to total annual emigration.
* Reject any selection of immigrants based on race.
* Maintain Australia's current annual refugee intake of 13,750, within the broader immigration quota.
* Phase out the Baby Bonus and re-direct funds to genuinely needy families with children, as well as education and training for our workforce.
* Tie foreign aid wherever possible to the improvement of governance and economic and environmental sustainability, with a particular focus on women's rights and education and on opportunities for couples to access family planning services.

*Note, the proposed immigration level is around the average per capita rate for major Western countries. <<

Worth putting in as a below the line preference - after checking the bona fides of candidates in my region. Will still be voting first for Greens. And I really like Julia Gillard, it is the rest of the party I am concerned about.

As for the representatives for the Libs in general and around OLO in particular - well they sure as hell won't be getting a look-in as they appear to be incapable of polite discussion, where people might just disagree with what they have written.
Posted by Severin, Saturday, 17 July 2010 4:57:28 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
Likewise Severin.

In one mad moment I thought I might actually vote 1 for Julia but like you I do harbour some doubts about Labor Party politics, internal ideological differences and preoccupation with media/spin. The SPP sounds good and brings with it a fair immigration policy.
I would like to hear more from the Greens about their targets for SP, maybe that is to come.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 17 July 2010 5:36:12 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
Severin and Pelican

Do consider an early vote on the Senate ballot paper for the Sex Party also.

I realise it sounds like a bad joke, a political Sex Party, and I am not a watcher/devotee of porn films, even mild ones, in fact, I have only ever seen one in a workcamp situation back in the 1970s, so imagine how tame that would have been, but they do assist in sending a clear message to the major parties.

They do not support the tax free status of religion in its 'as of right' position as now, they are clear about censorship not being a blanket matter (no pun intended there), and they do not support that dolt with the barbed-wire undies, the ALPs Opus Dei rep, Conroy, who so happily did/does the bidding of the ACL.

Of course, they will not ever make it to the Senate, the name assures that, but Hell, Family First got there with ALP preferences, so who knows?

Anyway, all votes that go ahead of the majors are votes that send clear messages.

I'd be very cautious about thinking Gillard was any good though. She is a worm of the worst variety, believing in nothing firm and changing in the breeze, even a light one.

She will be as bad as Rudd was in creating good policies, and her track record so far already shows she is a cheap populist ready to sell us short for her advanced position in the polls.

I hardly 'hope' for her to win beyond the fear that shudders through my body when I consider Abbott and his team of goons getting up.

We are all ill-served by the body politic here these days, at state/territory levels and with the feds, and I can see no sign of it getting better.

And this threads 'new' show is a prime example of the dullness of political thinking we have.

I despair...
Posted by The Blue Cross, Saturday, 17 July 2010 6:29:53 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
Republican Democrats?
Now there's a reason for Americans to have a laugh at us.

Just the ame .the prospects of a Republic will always get me interested. Can someone post me information about the party or has it been only a leg-pull?

socratease
Posted by socratease, Saturday, 17 July 2010 7:53:11 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
Severin, it is good that you have checked out the SPP and considered them worthy of at least a high position in your order of preferences.

So, if you agree with their objectives, which sit in such stark contrast to the Labor and LNP continuous growth mantra, and even that of the Greens, how can you even consider voting for Gillard??

The philosophies that really matter are just so extremely opposite!

Oh uh, there is a big problem here – we can’t meaningfully vote for a minor party such as the SPP, as we have to declare all preferences, and our vote will end up counting for one of the two biggest candidates, whichever we put highest on our ballot paper, even if we put the two biggest ones last and second last!

The DISGUSTING compulsory preferential voting system is the problem. It means that for many voters their vote will actually where they specifically don’t want it to!!

Those who would vote for the SPP would presumably specifically be voting against the two big dinosaur growth parties, but their vote….in just about every seat….will end up counting for one or the other of these rancid antisustainability parties.

Oh…uhhhh…. There is an even bigger problem: The only party that was worth voting for has…..missed out on it’s registration!! !! !!

So I have just learnt this evening, the SPP cannot run in this election.

Hwaaaaaawwww. Might be time to go slash my wrists I think!!
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 17 July 2010 8:18:28 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
Ludwig.. good to see your new party has learned from the use of the word 'tolerant' :) it means different things to differentn people.

Of course to some here you will be 'intolerant racists' simply because you don't want to open up our borders with 'compassion' to all who are in 'genuine need'......

So.. damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's a no win situation, so, why bother :) Just have your policies.. run with them and see what the result is.

My version of 'tolerance' is the acceptance and tolerance of the Australian identity seeking to maintain itself though selective immigration and definitely incorporating scrutiny of 'creed' in the process.

People with creeds like "The only way to beat capitalism is through revolution" would not even rate a consideration.

Of course that's just one of a number of unnacceptable creeds which would not be welcome.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Sunday, 18 July 2010 9:24:45 AM
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
Ludwig, TBC

I will be giving thought also to the Sex Party - I thought they were as silly as the right-to-own-a-gun party, however if they have anything of worth I will be placing them ahead of the major parties.

I disagree with you about Julia, Ludwig, How long do you think she'd last as a non-elected PM, mere weeks before the federal election and she went ahead changed everything? I'm still blown away about her speech about her non-belief in the supernatural. That kind of honesty goes a long way - however, I predicted (to myself mostly) that her true beliefs would then be an impediment to other much needed changes - can't frighten the skittish neo-cons can she? Besides it is much to early to jump to conclusions.
Posted by Severin, Sunday, 18 July 2010 10:02:14 AM
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
Ludwig
Is that true the SPP won't be running candidates. It does not say as such on their home page and the news realease in late June refers to their registration application to the AEC.

If so what a shame for the Australian people who don't currently feel represented on a Big Australia. While Julia Gillard and Tony Burke have coined the phrase sustainable population I have yet to see any evidence of a plan or target.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 18 July 2010 11:25:08 AM
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
Wunderbar! Yet another centrist, stand for nothing political party. In case you hadn't checked, we've already got two: Labor and Liberal. Your mob don't provide a real alternative any more than the Greens do; you're just a half-arsed attempt to resurrect the Democrats. Folk who won't learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.

I hate to rain on your parade, but nobody cares that much about the Republic. Anyone with an ounce of sense realises that the difference betwixt a Governor General and a President is a change of frock and leterhead, and instead focus their attention on stuff that actually matters.

Like the separation of church and state - which will be dropped from the Republican Democrat platform if/when they gain any sort of popular support. After all, by their reckoning, Labor are left, and therefore are theoretically even keener on the separation of church and state than centre and right parties. Funnily enough, I've yet to see the Rudd/Gillard government taking significant steps to render unto Christ what is Christ's and unto Caesar what is Caesar's. So it's a bit of a stretch to imagine the more right-wing RD's doing so.

I'm sure y'all will forgive me if I remain cynical about the mutant bastard spawn of an elephant and a jackass achieving meaningful reform in the Australian political system. It just doesn't strike me as a likely outcome.
Posted by Riz, Monday, 19 July 2010 3:40:20 AM
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
Hey Ludwig, while I pretty much agree with the principles of your SPP (with the exception of maintaining current refugee levels) I find your attitude on preferential voting rather strange.
It appears the majority of voters on this post don't find any party to be perfect. Even arch conservatives aren't entirely happy with the Libs. This supports my contention that Ozzies don't vote for parties, so much as against them.
In the absence of preferential voting in any election that has more than 2 runners, the majority of the population would end up with a candidate they very specifically didn't want, if the winner failed to get more than 50% of the vote.
Another way to get true representation for the majority would be to have a series of elections, like a tennis tournament, where least popular candidates are eliminated in the first round, etc.,
This I think, highlights my earlier point. Why must we accept a 'least worst' candidate at all?
With modern communication methods, we have the ability to tell our representatives exactly which way we want them to vote, on any issue. The Rep., becomes like a barrister; committed to argue his clients' case, regardless of his/her own policy beliefs.
While voting for representatives would remain compulsory, polling on issues would be voluntary. 'Pollers' would be registered voters, who are interested enough to explore the issues and express their opinions.
Just like here.
Posted by Grim, Monday, 19 July 2010 7:48:00 AM
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
More political parties are certainly urgently needed to break the two party tyranny in this country. But they won't stand a chance if the electoral system continues to grossly favour the two look-alike major parties. I had a look at the extensive range of policies of the Republican Democrats but could not find a reference to the need for proportional representation. Minor parties have come and gone in Australia because the electoral system does not provide opportunity for them to get a foothold.

It also puzzles me why the party claims to be a "centre party". The major parties are already centre parties and the room between them is very limited indeed. Actually, this was one reason why the Australians Democrats failed in the end. We need a Republican party that insists on electoral reform, constitutional reform and the Republic. I think the new party fails thus far on the first two policy areas. Have a look at http//:www.republicnow.org for further ideas Messrs. Pyke and Higgins.

Klaas Woldring
Republic Now!
Posted by klaas, Monday, 19 July 2010 1:00:23 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
Oh dear, the blasted 'republic' debate again.

But what form should it take for its titular head?

A sportstar/celebrity millionaire elected by the cringing fawning people?

A 'respected person' (of the elites) appointed by the PM?

Which is it to be?

How about having no president at all?

Someone mentioned the electoral system of representation, indeed, why not a single house, with multi-member electorates, based on a Tasmanian system to ensure a much wider spread of ideas in parliament, with no forced passing on of preferences, as in Qld?

The danger is that this reduces to a defacto first-past-the-post as the majors insist on a 'vote 1 only' policy.

Does NSW run better than Qld with its unicameral ssytem?

They are both knackered as far as I can see.

Is Tasmanian politics better than Qld politics, or are both incestuous pits of corruption, as bad as each other?

We kid ourselves with the models we defend/argue against.

In the end, we have politicians running the show, with business corrupting it through lobbying.

This new party offers nothing new at all.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Monday, 19 July 2010 1:44:53 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
Hi all,

A direct election Republic Now!

There are several contributors to this thread who claim that there is little interest in the Republic. These people are seriously misguided. PM Julia Gillard is also quite wrong about there not being a community consensus on the Republic. It is a cop out and this need to be exposed now in the election campaign. Research by Sydney based UMR company (Principal Bruce Dier) CONSISTENTLY (over two years) shows that over 80% of respondents want a Republic with a directly elected President. The real reason why the ALP Government is not interested in testing the waters with a comprehensive plebiscite is that they want to avoid having to deal with a Head of State who is directly elected by the people. This disappointing, cowardly attitude came first to light at the Australia 2020 Summit when a very large number of delegates wanted to talk about the Republic but it wasn't even put on the Agenda by the Rudd Government. If Gillard wants to be a consultative PM she should produce a plebiscite at election time that probes what kind of Republic the people want.

The reason why we don't hear much about the Republic is lack of government resolve to put it on the public agenda.

For that reason alone it is encouraging that a new party has been formed with that objective.

Klaas Woldring,
Convenor Republic Now
Posted by klaas, Monday, 19 July 2010 2:08:28 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
Hi to Everyone

Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting).

Request for Candidates and/or Volunteers.

The forthcoming Federal Election will be held on Saturday, 21 August 2010. The Election is one of the few avenues where we can show the major political parties that family law issues are important.

Would you consider either?

1. Providing a donation to the Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)’s election fund (donations are tax deductible up to $1,500.00).

2. Running as a candidate for the Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)? A candidate’s election costs are tax deductible. (You only need to be an Australian citizen. However you cannot be an employee of the Commonwealth Government at the time of the Election).
or
3. Giving out “how-to-vote” cards on the day of the Election. Our target is to run, at least, two (2) candidates for the Senate in the each of the six (6) States and the two (2) Territories. We also aim to run candidates for the House of Representatives.

If you wish to run as a candidate, we would have to ask you to pay your own deposit ($1,000.00 for the Senate and $500.00 for the House of Representatives). We may be able to help out with printing costs.

Please note that the closing date for nomination of candidates is 12 Noon Thursday, 29 July 2010 (Note: routine AEC paperwork has to be also signed by either the Party Secretary or Deputy Registered Officer beforehand.)

The key elction dates are:

Announcement: Saturday, 17 July 2010.

Issue of writ: Monday, 19 July 2010.

Close of nominations: 12 noon Thursday, 29 July 2010.

Declaration of nominations: 12 noon Friday, 30 July 2010.

Election day: Saturday, 21 August 2010.

Your assistance and support would be appreciated.

John Flanagan,
Deputy Registered Officer
Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting),
PO Box 57,
THIRROUL. NSW. 2515.
Mobile no. 0415 899 574
ncpp@xisle.info
19 July 2010.
Posted by John E Flanagan, Monday, 19 July 2010 2:41:15 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
Not remotely impressed at all with this very rubbish party indeed.
The policy page is naught but a shallow promo page on many policies, going towards some outright moronic concepts that show they considerably miss the point of many an issue- it spends more time sloganeering and barely ANY time actually outlining proposals.
In short- Agree with everyone here.

For me, this party symbolizes everything I would have avoided the late Democrats party over- but minus anything good. Not to mention dodgy.
Thanks, but I'll stick with the Greens and Independents that correspond to myself (and I imagine, a lot more people than this pathetic mob would, on a policy and mentality basis).
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 19 July 2010 3:19:56 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
I read the article.

I looked through the web site.

I remain convinced that this is a joke.

A hoax.

From the party's name onwards, it smells like last week's fish supper.

Republican Democrats, indeed. Hah!

Then there is the cheesy "meeting in a taxi". The amazing "shared common ground on many issues". The specious overseas reference - "the recent electoral success of the Liberal Democrats in the UK - where they won the balance of power"

Hello, cluestick: the Lib/Dems lost seats, for goodness' sake. The fact that they hold the balance of power is a total accident.

An accident. As in "Senator Fielding".

There are also the policies, with their hand--knitted slogans, and all the substance - and sickly-sweet taste - of fairy floss.

If it is in fact a serious attempt at launching a new political party, it makes a laughing-stock of our country's pretensions to intellectual and political maturity.

C'mon, admit that you're having us on.

Life's too short.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 19 July 2010 5:05:19 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
On another note Klaas of the label 'centrist' these parties keep using.

What exactly IS a 'centrist'?
It's a definition that seems to change between person to person- and accordingly, such claims made by political parties are naught but lazy attempts to pretend they're suitable for everyone.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 19 July 2010 11:03:12 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
Re: Centrist

The term centrist almost always refers to being somewhere in the middle of the capitalist to collectivist (or private enterprise vs public enterprise) continuum. It has therefore usually an economic connotation only. With the rise of the middle class and the gentrification of the ALP both major parties have become "centrist", at least there is an enormous overlap. For a new party to state that they are "centrist" is therefore rather meaningless if they want to set themselves apart from the major parties. There are certainly ways to set themselves apart from the major parties and that would have to be in the areas of governance systems, electoral, constitutional, replacing federation and the Republic. But to talk about a Minimalist Republic (only change the Head of State), as most Republicans do, I find find equally meaningless. There is much to be improved in Australia that the major parties just don't want to touch. Surely that what a new party has to concentrate on if it wants to make an impact.
Posted by klaas, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 8:34:18 AM
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
Indeed I agree Klaas; though I would personally rank the two major parties as far-right on both the economic scale (with a high record of privatization and avoidance of any proposal that involves public ownership), and social/legal stratification of political rights. Their 'centrist' stance is rather ironic as the only clear things that set them apart from far-right neocons in the US are mostly already-existing egalitarian medical and workplace standards which they simply did not risk touching (or got voted out before they did try to touch it).

And spot on about the new party doing a bad job of setting itself apart with the 'centrist' point. Also agree with your points about the republic (both of which highlight an unusual paradox of trying to sell minuscule change in the hopes that people who actually do want change and the people that don't will both, somehow, be happy about a proposal that goes against both their wishes. It just rubs off as lazy marketing by people who don't really care to investigate what people actually want and why.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 10:46:48 AM
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
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10690#177217

KH, but the greens stand for open borders, zero limits on immigration, especially the poorest, sickest, craziest possibble that we can find to bankrupt our already struggling health care system?

Poor Aussies are living on the street already, both Black, First Australians & White Second Australians. The immigrants are ahead of eveybody for Welfare, Public Housing, Public Hospitals, everything.

What have these Aussies done to you?

Why do you hate them so much?
Posted by Formersnag, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 12:20:49 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
Spare me the rubbish, Formersnag.
I don't like the Greens asylum policy either (which, in reality is based off the Canadian policy- not some magical open-border policy that some idiots think it is).

However, there are MORE important issues- such as privatization, political corruption and corporate lobbying, individual rights, consumer rights, Australian assets being sold off to corrupt companies jacking up prices, inferior consumer rights to Americans, bigger monopolies lobbying the government to prevent competition from other companies and products, Lane Cove Tunnel, Telstra, our backwards broadband technology, Conroy's net-filter.

Also, Liberal and Labor government have hardly put much effort into stopping Islamic extremists- Labor recently allowed members of Hizb ut Tahir into Australia to give a hate-speech pro-Sharia convention, and neither party ever bothered to ban them (although they kept promising they might). Let's not forget Paul Keating's deal with Hilali. Or Frazer being the reason he was in the country to begin with. And lets not forget how John Howard eventually caved into lobbyists demanding David Hicks be returned.
Yes, these are definitely people who care about our security.

There's One Nation- but their policies on social conduct, problem with Asians and Indigenous affairs turns me off.

So, either you vote ON/AF if immigration is of greater concern than domestic public/private and rights issues, Greens if the reverse, or you can vote for the majors (or this new RepDem party) and get neither.
Of course, there are plenty of independents you should check out too- thought I cannot comment because I don't know whose in your electorate.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 1:38:12 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
I have only one question... How does one have a chance meeting in a taxi?
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 22 July 2010 10:17:29 AM
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
one drives, one passengers, both talk, hey presto!
Posted by The Blue Cross, Thursday, 22 July 2010 10:44:12 AM
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
So, who was working as a taxi driver? Peter or Graham? Or did they both happen to get in a taxi at the same time?
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 22 July 2010 11:23:14 AM
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
I'd hazard a guess and say Peter driving, the Tory sitting in the rear seat and whingeing about the fare.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Thursday, 22 July 2010 11:27:56 AM
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
I reckon it went like this.

"I'm not really a cab driver, I'm actually a Senior Recruitment Professional"

http://au.linkedin.com/pub/graham-higgins/9/963/b45
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 22 July 2010 12:01:03 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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