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.

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

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.

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

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?

Sounds like Americanisation to me...and that is just the name!