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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

Cornflower, what has 'white' got to do with young men? Young men are young men, what ever their colour, talent, ideology! Are you one of the old Howard's gang that is so obsessed with the colour of people's skin? Sick! I am reminded of my grandmother with her 'white' obsession and xenophobic views. Let’s refer to Australian young men. I agree with you on all other points.

Never met Roy, but seen him on TV. I think he is a rare political talent. Voters are not stupid. If they think a 20 year old can do the job, there is a good chance he can. And if they are wrong, they'll change their minds next election. No harm done.

Graham, you say that voters are not stupid. This is a rather sweeping generalization, isn't it? I would guesstimate that less than 40% of voters know what they are doing or realize its implications.

And Graham, surely an M.P. should be mature and have the wisdom and the life experience to help them to govern. A twenty year old is not mature. Besides, if this silly trend continues, soon we'll have eighteen year olds still in school uniforms lining up for election.

This election was a farce and the result is an indictment of our democracy.

The result, still unknown, proves it.

"surely an M.P. should be mature and have the wisdom and the life experience to help them to govern. "

When that actually happens, could someone let me know?

I don't see why a talented 20 year old is any less capable than the current crop of pollies, whose ages do not reflect much in the way of wisdom or competence - in either the Libs (climate change is crap) or Labor (East Timor Solution).

Ludwig

Jesus Ludwig. Today I think you have “lost it”. You still look for answers in political parties. And the Greens; You have gotta be joking!

When what we really need is a new age “Sigmund Feud” to psychoanalyse that strange band of clowns, here you are resting on the green hope of Bob Browns new recruits, fresh from the decks of HMAS mardi-gras. (Sorry)

<< Today I think you have “lost it”. >>

Ooow Dan, that’s nice….coz it presumably means that you think I had it together yesterday! ( :>)

Personally, I think I lost it a looooong time ago!

Hey, I understand your abject cynicism with the Greens and with political parties in general. But what are we to do? What would you suggest is the way forward?

For all the criticism I’ve had for Bob Brown and the Groans, er Greens, over the years, I can at least see the potential for them coming good…. and that if they do, it could have a huge positive impact on our political system and future. Major aspects of this potential are now in place, as I expressed in my previous post.

I can’t see much potential anywhere else. So as dismal as it may seem to you, I think the Brown’s Greens are our best bet.

While the chances of them coming good might be slim, it is certainly worth pushing very hard for.

The hung parliament can be a good for the country. Because not one party will have more power then eveyone will want it, but the backlash in QLD was because Labor did not do a good job in that state.

This hijacking by political parties must stop! It is an election not as to who governs but who represent us in the parliament! This as to enable legislation to be passed to suit the general c9ommunity! That is what the constitution is about! It amazes me that with my crummy English, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, I seem to be the only person who really understand/comprehend what is constitutionally appropriate, see my blog at http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati for a set out of the relevant constitutional matters regarding this issue of commissioning a person to form a government. Who will form the next government has nothing to do with the majority in the Parliament as it is a prerogative power exercised by the Governor-General and so WITHOUT the advise of the Prime Minister!
Neither Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott or for that anyone else elected for the House of Representatives are Members of Parliament until after the return of the writs when they take up a seat! And, back in 1901 E. Barton was commissioned to form a government without any Parliament existing and was subsequently elected. Don’t confuse the role of a government with that of the Parliament, and I for one having campaigned for long for electors to vote for INDEPENDENTS to bring about a lesson to the major political parties am satisfied they are getting their message.
On 19 July 2006 I defeated comprehensively the Commonwealth that compulsory voting is unconstitutional and while I do not oppose voting I oppose any form of compulsory voting and the Court upheld my cases! This my blog also displays. Voting is our constitutional rights but in the way we desire and not hijacked by politicians dictating how we should vote! See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com. As for the Greens as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view that some of their alleged issues are a constitutional nonsense. Do I need to say more?