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 > Is a negotiated peace between the Greens and the Christians possible? > Comments

Is a negotiated peace between the Greens and the Christians possible? : Comments

By Tim Wallace, published 20/8/2010

The latest exchange of fire between Cardinal Pell and Greens leader, Bob Brown, is a skirmish in a war without any foreseeable end.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
TBC Keneally is my local member here in Heffron, ALP workers on Saturday were saying they expect at least a 15% to 20% swing. Garrett achieved a -8% swing only 44.4% of the vote in a 'safe' Labor seat, needed Green preferences to get back.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 23 August 2010 6:25:48 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
Shame Garrett got back really, a total dud.

Keneally deserves to be dumped out of the house, never mind government.

Good luck in your mision.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Monday, 23 August 2010 6:42:34 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
Many (ALP rank and file) didn't think Keneally was a good choice for local member when the party machine parachuted her in over Grusovin in 2003. The bloke who should have got the job years ago was Ron Hoenig now the long serving mayor of Botany.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 23 August 2010 7:11:41 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
.

Well, it looks like ...

.

a majority of Australians does not want either Gillard or Abbot.

Not many want the Greens either.

As for the Christians, they simply are not on option and, from a secular standpoint, they never should be an option.

Both the current prime minister and the leader of the opposition are internal appointments of their respective political parties.

Nobody asked us if we agreed they should hold their current positions, or govern the country and represent our interests.

Having finally faced the electorate, it now appears that neither of them is willing to accept that most Australians rejected them.

Both have chosen to ignore the result of the popular vote and are seeking to "purchase" votes which designated other candidates, again, without consulting the Australians who designated those candidates.

In my view, candidates at an election do not "own" votes and have no mandate from the electors who designated them to "sell" the designations to the highest bidder.

As Churchill rightly observed, there is no perfect democracy but it would be a definite improvement if we were to adopt a constitutional republic, instead of our current constitutional monarchy, and elect an Australian citizen as president, by universal suffrage, in order to put a cap on the eternal and, apparently, inevitable, power struggle associated with party politics.

There is no "vote market" in a presidential election. Each elector's vote stays where he or she puts it and does not get sold over his or her head to somebody he or she does not want ... at any price!

The political power in the presidential suite would certainly straighten out the ideas of all those aspiring tap and toe dancers in the political parties that infest the basement of our democracy, with their incessant intriques and conspiracies which may suit them but are completely contrary to our vote.
.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 23 August 2010 11:36:05 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
.

Continued ...

.

Need I add that in a democracy such as Australia, any political alliance established with the objective of forming a national government to rule the country, should clearly announce its formation and political platform to the electorate before the elections take place, not after the elections are over and the results published.

It is a basic principle of democracy thet the electorate should know exactly who and what it is voting for. Its votes should not be misappropriated and used to elect somebody who was not specifically designated on the ballot forms.

Each ballot is the personal expression of the democratic choice of each elector. It is not a simple commodity that can be traded among political parties long after it has been cast.

"A priori" alliances are democratic. "A posteriori" alliances are not democratic. They are autocratic.

If the political parties are not satisfied with their scores and want to come back for a "double dip" or a "second helping" after the party is over, they should ask the electorate if it does not mind if they help themselves to whatever scraps are left over in the voters' plates that nobody else wants.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 5:15:50 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
"Many (ALP rank and file) didn't think Keneally was a good choice for local member . ..""
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 23 August 2010 7:11:41 PM

My understanding is her husband was keen to enter politics, but the changes to ALP rules to get more women involved made it easier for Kristina to get a leg-in, especially as hubby was mates with Tripodious and Obeid.

Garrett preaches more about non-climate change issues, from what I hear.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 9:41:51 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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