You gotta hand it to Matt Page, there is no doubt whatsoever as to what Matt is for and agin'.

Matt is AGAINST Tony Abbott, democracy, ordinary "xenophobic" Australians, the free press, Gina Rhinehardt, mining, and global warming,

Matt is FOR Julia Gillard, and he is FOR the idea that Australia should end world poverty by allowing the entire third world to immediately set sail for Australia and let the Aussie taxpayer finance their upkeep.

Now, one might assume that Matt's fringe group ideas are not what most Australians want, and that is soon to be reflected in Australia hurling out his beloved Labor government in the next election. So Matt has the answer to that. Hang democracy, let's have government by riot.

If the electorate is just a bunch of xenophobic conservatives who will never accept Matt's peculiar worldview, then "Australians" (presumably, the non xenophobic kind) should just man the barricades and force the elected government to do what Matt wants Australia to do.

Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

Lastly comes from Matt the usual chant of the loony left about how "ashamed" they are to be Australians. Look Matt, if you are ashamed to be an Australian, then wherever you are in the world (I'll bet it is the Anglosphere) please renounce your citizenship and stay there. We don't want you back. And please invite Lexi, Marilyn Sheppard and David S to stay with you permanently.

Could I say something here, Matt? It is this ill disguised contempt for your own people which is the primary reason why the attitudes of people like yourself are so on the nose to the electorate. The more that people like yourself claim to be the font of all human virtue, and the more you sneer at your own people, the more inclined we are to give you, and people that think like you, two fingers full of righteous indignation in return.

Matthew, what a wonderful, insightful article. Well done.
You have written down exactly how most intelligent Australians feel.

Don't be discouraged by the sarcastic comments of Lego and his ilk, because they wouldn't know a reasonable, balanced view on the current political situation in Australia if it jumped up and bit them on the gluteus maximus!

Many people I know have abandoned the two main political parties of this country for the exact reasons you have outlined.

They are sick of the petty boat people paranoia amongst the racists in our society, they are sick of the petty infighting, and they are sick of not being able to read about the real issues and policies that should be dominating politics.

Suseonline, "the real issues and policies that should be dominating politics"

That would be the six years of political scandals (and protecting the offenders!), high taxes and wastage of taxpayers' money.

Rudd does his travelling spectacle while the union heavies who frustrate democratic processes and hijack policy are untouched and free to do the same again. What about the thousands of low wage earners who are obliged to pay union subscriptions they can ill afford, only to find the money lost to corruption at the top?

The elephant in the room is the corruption that Labor would prefer the public to forget and by doing so, ensure its continuance should they continue in government.

[Deleted for abuse.]

1st To quote you "the total number of asylum seekers that have arrived on our shores since 1975 is just over 31,000."

Here are the real figures.
Asylum seekers arriving by boat, 1 July 1975 to to 31.12.2012.
48,856 That is a difference of 17,856 so you blatantly underestimated the real figure by more than 50%.

You can add around 12,000 (estimate only 2 to 3 thousand per month) or so from January 2013 to now.

http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/2012-2013/boatarrivals

2nd The ones who overstay there visa do not cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars, because they are working and are not eligible for welfare legal aid etc.

3rd To quote you "over the past four years, over 95% of "boat people" were found to be legitimate refugees and granted temporary protection visas" YOU forget the important part ONLY around 10% were checked properly.

Matt, a thoughtful open letter that raises a number of important issues. Part of the problem you face in creating an intelligent debate is having the usual froth at the mouth ignoramuses being first off the rank with their invariably ill informed comments.

There are a number of things that could be done to strengthen Australian democracy, although the difficulty one faces is the entrenched belief of those who think that the present system is as good as it gets. You know from living In Europe, as I did for many years, that better systems are available. The present voting system here allows huge swings in the numbers of seats held by any given party that are not an accurate reflection of their voting support. It allows for example, a fringe group like the Nationals to hold seats in the House while the Greens, with three times their voter support have only just achieve their first seat.

Other areas of potential reform include having a Bill or Charter of Rights. Australia is the only major democratic nation that does not have that fundamental protection. Are we so exempt from bad government that we don't need one? The experience of the past 40 years would suggest not.

The huge concentration of media ownership is another area ripe for reform. There are many others. I hope that your letter sparks an intelligent discussion although on past form it would be unwise to hold one's breath.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Intelligent Australians; rather a pack of over credentialed under educated crypto-bullies who's logic extends no further than what earns points with their "Public Service" mates. This self serving "noblesse" has no "oblige" which requires thinking the next step or three of any argument. Oh goody, lets smack those naughty consumers with a huge carbon tax but do they care that kids are not getting washed daily any more? Hot water too expensive and rising fast. Of course he spewed tonnes of CO2 so he could be "...sitting on a bed halfway across the world...", what a fake.

What is clear is that these noblesse never have to pay the expense for their "Virtue", no boarding hoses are filled with economic migrants in Newtown (St. Kilda?) and their faux jobs are protected by Medieval Guild type rules.

There goes someone spouting the labor party spin ... again.

The liberal party has continually presented it's policy to the people of Australia over the past three years. It is not reported by the biased media in this country. What is continuslly reported is the labor party spin, that only the rusted on labor barnacles lap up. The claim Tony Abbott has no policy. The latest liberal policy document, unreported in the media, is a 35 page booklet stating their policy.

Of course the labor spin swallower who wrote the rubbish in this article has never seen nor even known about that or the liberals policy he does know
about he derides, even though there is ample evidence the liberals, including Tony Abbott, effectively employed those policies in the past.

What the author does ignore is the inability of both Gillard and Rudd and their cohorts are just hopeless at governing. The media has reported their failures. Make no mistake had Abbott had similar failures the media in Australia, where the author doesn't live, would have shredded him. It hasn't because he has been so effective and he will grow into a great Australian PM.

I may be missing something here. It wouldn't be the first time, after all. But Matt Large (that's Large, not Page, LEGO. Just shows how closely you were reading, eh?) seems to me to be excoriating our decrepit and wide-open-to-exploitation political system. Not the individuals, not the Parties, but the system that gives rise to them. With a quick side-swipe along the way at our print media, who are far too concerned about their business models and financial survival to actually report (deep breath) News.

Seems to me the lad has a point.

Thanks for setting the pace, LEGO.

>>Matt is FOR Julia Gillard, and he is FOR the idea that Australia should end world poverty by allowing the entire third world to immediately set sail for Australia and let the Aussie taxpayer finance their upkeep.<<

Verballed. Nice.

And a great follow-up, Philip S.

>>Asylum seekers arriving by boat, 1 July 1975 to to 31.12.2012. 48,856 That is a difference of 17,856 so you blatantly underestimated the real figure by more than 50%<<

This in response to Matt's statement that...

"At the end of 2011 it was revealed that Australia had an estimated total of almost 60,000 illegal immigrants living within its borders (and remember it's the British and Americans we should be most worried about here), while the total number of asylum seekers that have arrived on our shores since 1975 is just over 31,000."

Spot the difference? At the end of 2011 you'd need a time machine to report the figures for the end of 2012. And to the best of my knowledge, they didn't exist then.

Incidentally, Philip S, underestimating a figure of 48,856 by 50% will give you 24,428. Just saying.

But that did not stop this self-righteous attack on Suseonline

>>It tells a lot about you that you believed him and his FALSE figures. You have lost the little credibility you had.<<

And it says a lot about you, Philip S, that you deliberately use a different baseline for your numbers, then call someone else a liar.

That's just a little untidy, don't you think.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Thank you Pericles for actually focusing on Mr Large's arguments. Sadly, most of the responses are simply those trying to make some obscure point reflecting their own prejudices or focusing on something trivial.

Hi Pericles.

Matt (picky picky) Large is anguished by the fact that his Socialist Labor government is going to get tossed onto the dustbin of history by the electorate at the next election, and he blames the news media for that.

The news media did not create the stench of corruption surrounding Craig Thompson, Mark Arbib, Ian McDonald, Peter Slipper, Eddie Obeid, or Michael Williamson. Nor did the news media create the situation where Julia Gillard broke a solemn election promise to the electorate when she declared that she would not institute a carbon tax if elected. And the media is not responsible for the farcical situation where the whole Third World is waking up to the fact that Labor will not control our borders, and anyone who makes it to Australia with a sob story is set for life, courtesy of the Australian taxpayer.

I myself have issues with the political system. Specifically that in which political parties use "divide and rule" tactics to pork barrel ethnic minorities and thereby gain the "Greek vote", the "Muslim vote", the Lebanese vote", and the "Chinese vote". The only vote that they don't care about is the "Australian vote" and they wonder why the Australian people are disgusted with the lot of them and vote for Pauline.

Political parties beg migrants to become citizens right before every Federal election so that the major parties can formulate vote catching social policies that appeal to the self interest of the individual ethnic voting blocs. Giving away Australian citizenship as a way of influencing elections can be seen as a corruption of the democratic process, but Matt Page is never going to object to that.

Unlike Matt Page, I don't think that the answer is to man the barricades and make a nuisance of myself. Unlike Matt Page, I would like to have an Australian government which looked after the interests of its own people instead of screwing their own people with ever higher taxes, to look after any rogue who destroys his ID and barges into my country with his hand out.

Wait, did Lego just bring up Pauline Hanson? Isn't that like the Australian Godwin's Law or something? For shame, sir (or madam - I guess Lego is non-gender specific).

Interesting that so far the detractors seem to be attacking the author himself rather than the argument - as a previous poster notes above, Mr Large attacks only the system that causes him this frustration and the political situation that we are watching here in Australia (some of us, with popcorn and beer).

I don't see Mr Large's open letter as a condemnation of Australia - I see it as the lament of the heartbroken. Clearly, the author loves his country - you know, that ingrained way we love our parents - and just as clearly, he's afraid that maybe we're letting it get taken away from us.

I don't know if he's right, but I think it's reasonable to agree that the current political climate in Australia is causing a lot of uncertainty. I also think that we're about to base a very important decision on a lot of very emotional arguments, none of them the right ones.

And we really, really should be talking about it and maybe having the maturity and responsibility as a nation to consider our alternatives. After all, if you've got a project that isn't working, do you not look for ways to improve things? Even if that means starting over?

Aussies, when you go to the polls this time, do us all a favour - vote for the party you want to see in power - don't vote against the one you want out. More to the point, don't reward the opposition for not being the incumbent - make 'em earn it, goddammit.

Otherwise, a few more of us might start feeling like Mr Large. We might even start voting for him.

PhillipS >>It tells a lot about you that you believed him and his FALSE figures. You have lost the little credibility you had."

Charming.
I didn't realise I ever had any credibility with you Phil?
I must say I am now shattered I have lost it!

I don't really care much about figures actually.
Refugee acceptance, boat people or whoever, is not of major importance to me.
I trust that the immigration authorities are doing their best.

I am more concerned about our economy at present, so I will be looking for policies that address that issue when the election comes around.

It seems there are two kinds of people here. Intelligent open minded people who are able to embrace and discuss realities we all live in, leaving any personal bias at the door, and intelligent closed minded people that, regardless of their understanding of these realities, can never really give weight to their points of view because it is to polluted with their own dogmatic and biased mind set. Surely we all know who falls where, just for the record the author of this letter fall into the former, just as clearly as it's quite obvious, for the most part, which box each will tick in any given election.
I didn't feel Matt was in favor of either party. What he was doing, was simply voicing the complete disgust that we all should feel in the machine that drives the entire political world to such depths in the first place. His commentary on the Gillard downfall was exactly that, commentary.....not support. There is no denying that Gillard rode into the position to form her ramshackle failure of a government on this same machine we speak of. Just as there's no denying that voting for Abott cannot, simply for the essence of what he stands for, be beneficial to the vast majority of Australian people, or indeed our Mother Earth. I feel Matt was stating that a protest vote in the opposite direction does not make one a political activist deciding to take their country's well being into their own hands. For reference to this, ask anybody living in England where that got them, and if given the chance would they have voted differently. To be uninformed in any decision making situation is dangerous, but in a majority vote 'winner takes all' situation it can be disastrous.
So well done to you Matt for doing something to help inform people that may not know, what stinking piles of bull they are fed on a daily basis.
And people, learn to recognize and embrace the essence of a topic, or indeed point of view. You may find you're taken serious a lot more.

I am certain that Matt Large loves the landmass of Australia, Mr "The Idiot Gallery" (singularly appropriate name). It is just that he obviously despises his fellow Australians who do not share his Internationalist, social climbing, Socialist worldview. That's OK, we don't think much of Matt Page and his coven of supporters either.

I find it funny that you accuse Matt's detractors of attacking him personally, when it is perfectly plain that Matt has nothing but contempt form his opponents anyway. This inability to grasp simple, self evident double standards in your own logic appears to be a feature of the trendy lefty mindset. And I note that, true to form, both you and Matt have submitted your articles in the tone of moral outrage, with you even suggesting that I should be "ashamed" of supporting Pauline.

This convergence of fundamentalist moral Puritanism, with fundamentalist religious Puritanism, is another feature of your brahmin caste mindset. Evangelical social crusaders seem hell bent on saving their wicked proletarian inferiors from their sinful nationalistic and racist thoughts, and strive to instil the (carved in stone) holy word of Human Rights to the wicked pagan suburbinites.

If anybody should be whining about the electoral system, Mr TIG, it should be people who oppose Matt Large. Not only is our democracy being eroded by importing foreign nationals to vote in our elections, the statistics relating to the last One Nation election clearly displayed how the two main political parties conspired to disenfranchise people like me, using perfectly legal means which any Tammany Hall huckster would instantly recognise and approve of.

(From memory) the 14% of Australians who voted for One Nation got no seats in parliament, while the 8% of Australians with Matt Page's worldview who voted for the Greens, got 6 seats in Parliament. And Page had the audacity to claim that he and his supporters are hard done by?

Yeah. Try pulling the other one. It plays "Jingle Bells"

Although some have interpreted this article as a non-partisan critique of Oz media and politics. A deeper reading shows it to be little more than another sermon from a member of what Lego has aptly described as the (left-leaning) Brahmin caste

It criticizes the major political parties:

<<on one side an outdated misogynist who has 1970's era views on everything from climate change, women and immigration to homosexuality and indigenous affairs>>

and

<< a recycled narcissist who is undoubtedly more interested in the effect that power will have on his own ego than he is inhis ability to change the country>>

Significantly, Abbott's faulted for his policies and Rudd for his personality.

It criticizes the media for focusing on the wrong issues:

Citing the example of the *unreported* 60,000 Anglo illegals rather that the boaties -- a fact that is so *under-reported* that we must have each heard it 60,000 times.

And having just told us this is made up of <<illegal immigrants [from] America, Britain, China and Malaysia>>

sees fit to add:
<<(and remember it's the British and Americans we should be most worried about here)>> ?

Thank you PhillipS for pointing out the articles deceptive use of stats.

PS I am always very suspicious of new posters who suddenly pop up to spruik an article.

Ok, ok, - normally I refrain from feeding the trolls, but let's flex our brains in the right direction and boil it down to the point of the article.

It's a question: Australians, are you happy with your current system of government?

If not, what do you think we should do about it?

Mr Large has weighed in. Who's up next?

What Matt Large was whining about was not simply the disadvantages of Australia's electoral system, MR TIG. He was whining about the fact that democracy in Australia is not producing acceptable conclusions for the trendy lefty causes he advocates.

His answer was for the trendy's to riot, like they do in every other unstable banana republic which he apparently admires.

No wonder you trendoids get so much screwed up. You seem to have difficulty understanding plain English.

You're pushing a dead weight uphill, TIG, if you expect all posters to address issues: some people just come here for a fight. Nice idea though. Providing angry people with an outlet is probably a good thing and the rest of us can continue the discussion around them. Its a bit like stepping round a puddle of vomit.

I regularly contact politicians by email and get automated replies. I am involved in on-line lobbying in the hope that the weight of numbers might have an impact. If I write to my local member I get a letter in reply containing nothing more than the mealy-mouthed party line prepared in head office. I am annoyed each election that I cannot exercise an optional preferential vote and leave off the candidates whose policies appall me. I probably should do more, but I'm not the sort of person to take to the streets.

Lego: a genderless plastic toy with an angry painted face

I'm really liking the (deleted for abuse ) posts.

Haven't stopped laughing Candide.

"...and the rest of us can continue the discussion around them. Its a bit like stepping round a puddle of vomit."

Should be nominated for the OLO Word Picture of the Year Award.

I second WmTrevor's motion.

: )

More deep, thoughtful analysis and exemplary critical thinking from the "intelligent" class.

Rest assured, Lego, that any 'deep, thoughtful analysis and exemplary critical thinking' you may wish to contribute will be read with interest. I might even overlook your grocers' apostrophes.

@Candide. Don't hold your breath. Waiting for any kind of intelligent response from Lego will involve a long wait.

I can see that you are a modest man, James, with much to be modest about.

Well I'm an optimist: I'm sure that one day the POVs will realise that their angry and incoherent tirades, while entertaining, also make them look pretty silly. You can't claim any sort of credibility in a discussion while your default position is to abuse those with whom you disagree.

@Candide: agreed.

@Lego. Even your insults lack originality.

Dear Matt,

Thank You for your letter and your concern about
the state of our political affairs. You're not
alone in being concerned. The confected anger that
has been for some time now the stock in trade of
our politicians, some journalists, newspapers,
radio broadcasters,and columnists has done its work,
and has unleashed
a nasty, antisocial and destructive power that has
real consequences for the cohesion of our society.

In this country the voters are remarkably diverse.
We have voters of all persuasions, city and
country folk, very young and very old, gay, and
everything else. Therefore it is distressing that
to see the blind, partisan hatred that's tearing
this country in two.

We should all be concerned and thinking - as you do
about how to stem this surge - before it destroys us.
Australians' interests are far more complex than
those who insist on seeing all discussions through a
fixed ideological viewfinder.

We need to seriously think about what kind of society
we want to live in, and which direction this country
should be headed and who's fit to represent us not
only locally, but on the international stage as well.

At least it is a clever insult from a person who is well read. Much preferable to Candide's charming "puddle of vomit" metaphor. And then she had the nerve to claim that her opponents engage in insults instead of addressing the topic under discussion?

Consistency of logic has never been a strong point from the people on your side of the fence.

I agree Lego that Churchill was well read, but shouldn't you have acknowledged him when you appropriated his put-down

I'm not going to concern myself with the details of this letter nor it's supporters or detractors. The letter stands for itself. It will not change the minds of anybody that feels driven or qualified to comment here.

My beef now lies solely with Lego, who speaks of banishment from ones country, of covens and of people losing credit in his eyes, (like that matters you arrogant sod), when referring to anybody that doesn't share his point of view. How very Stalinesque of you. The Great Purge springs to mind, and surely you're not advocating that? No surely not. In fact, I'm not entirely sure what you stand for apart from people being in total agreement with you. You're the classic example of someone who's argument is lost and will only ever be seen as spewing out the jargon of an indoctrinated, dogmatic rhetoric. Jargon and fancy phrases don't equal an intelligent argument just as shouting the loudest doesn't make one right. 'Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken', to coin a phrase.

So you see Lego, you little ray of sunshine, you're are in fact part of the disease not the cure. The scary thing is, you don't even know it. And if indeed you discover your mindset was in fact the minority, will you be departing Australian shores to live out your days in exile as you have suggested of others?

P.S. I assume Lego, that there is somewhere where i can read something original from you and your efforts to create a better society? Or do you exist purely by commenting on other peoples efforts?

Greetings, Mr Jellyman.

I can not attack your logic on this topic, because in the two posts you have written so far, all you have done is to agree with everything that Matt Large has written, and then make personnel attacks on his detractors. Your first post was so generalised, rambling and incoherent, that I did not even bother to respond to it.

Your entire supporting argument, is that people who agree with Matt are open minded people who think objectively, while people who disagree with Matt are closed minded dills who think subjectively. Gee, Mr Jellyman. I think the same way, but the other way around. But unlike yourself, I am prepared to support my premise.

My argument is, that people who think like you do, have been culturally conditioned by their peers to think that tertiary educated people must always exhibit anti establishment sentiments as a defining characteristic of their supposedly elevated caste. Their sentiments are not based upon personnel conviction obtained by critical analysis, they are adopted in the course of believing that "intelligent" and "sophisticated" people think this way.

I base my conclusion on three factors. First, I used to be a young trendy lefty myself who matured intellectually and grew out of it. Second, the "arguments" of the trendies are primarily regurgitated slogans which they have never thought about. Could I submit as evidence the fact that their opponents on OLO routinely submit 250-350 word articles on any topic, while your supporters routinely resort to asking loaded Dorothy Dixer questions, mixed with sneery one liners. Whenever they write anything, their pathetic attempts resemble your own incoherent efforts. Conclusion? They have never really thought about what they espouse Their attitudes are blind belief.

Finally, their arguments are easy to counter. Many of them begin their posting like Matt Large, full of self righteous indignation and sneering contempt for their opponents. Then post by post, their attitudes change as their opponents get the better of them. They go through arrogance, to anger, to meekness, and finally some grudging respect.

I am confident you will conform to type.

Spot-on, Lego.

Great post.

Dear Jellyman,

"A good head and a good heart are always a
formidable combination.
But when you add to that a literate tongue
or pen - then you have something very special."
(Nelson Mandela).

Keep on doing what you're doing - because it's
working.

You are pretty good yourself, SPQR. I enjoy reading your posts.

[Deleted for abuse.]

The Russians would say that you were "nekulturnay", Candide.

How did a nice girl like you appropriate such unfeminine language?

Candide - I would like to Quote your words from page 4 "I'm really liking the (deleted for abuse ) posts"

What goes around comes around.

Welcome to the club.