I had great hopes for the Wikileaks Party and am disappointed by the very strange preferences to the far right, ostensibly to parties that don't typically share ideals of transparency and open government. To preference the Greens so low given their track record on defending Wikileaks and Assange is perplexing to say the least. This is particularly so for Greens Senator Ludlam in WA who has shared views about topics like data retention, surveillance and transparency. His performance in Senate Estimates around these topics are well known.

One can only assume there is a contingent of people within the Wikileaks Party that have another agenda, who either don't understand how preferences work, or who put values aside for other/strategic purposes.

Sad day all round. But on a positive note, like all new parties there is a teething period and maybe once this fiasco is sorted out there will be a better version of the party. It is a shame that the principled candidates felt the need to resign as they are the sort of people the Party should encourage, but I understand their reasons if there was intransigence on those matters.

One of the difficulties with a one-issue party based around transparency, is that they can attract people from all sides of politics and this is where perhaps the conflict lies.

However I do hope the Wikileaks Party wins a Senate seat, there is little movement on the issues they stand for within the current Parliament (other than the Greens).

If the party has been taken over by the Right Wing (and I emphasise IF), perhaps now is the time Wikileaks Party should outline their voting intentions on other issues around economic policies, the environment, social policy etc so that people have more information on which to base their vote.

Surely there is something more important to think about, than some strange self obsessed bloke hiding in an embassy in London, & a bunch of his oddball mates in Oz are getting up to.

How anyone could expect anything sensible to come from such a bunch I really can't imagine.

traditional media
and the two major parties..have the last laugh!

the media dont like how wikleakers made them look worse
the two parties..WILL fight to get the 2%..preferences

wikleaks was always going to be shafted from with-in
just like all dictraitorships..that get political..
you gotta play'..the same insane game..or quit

ie gain media favorable attention*..
somehow

yet

it was never going to work
but now the media is talking..
[giving good people airtime..who knows]

is it too much to ask..what deals were done?
who..DIDNT PUT WIKLEAKERS LAST?

detail
ie report..facts..
[just the fat cat fact..maam

no spin..not opinion..parties love to party
tall popies loose their heads first..

yet poppies products
pay for the same two party preferences scam
lie down with dogs=get fleas..and or/fleeced..

shorn within an inch of the truth..
cover the cuts ..with tar paper ..paper over the cracks/derision..

wikleaks has a higher vision..
di-vision..re-vision..

keeping the bar stewards..in power
the demonic demo-eratic/autocracy..two party gerontocracy

ok im gutted too
..but it was never going to be..ALLOWED*..to happen

Hackers are at best thieves and traders in stolen goods. Sometimes the things they steal put national security at risk.

There are many who see them as heroes, whistleblowers and activists against law breaking by governments. Which they expose by also breaking the laws? Doh!

Sometimes these hackers and scammers steal personal information that they then use to steal from your bank accounts. Not heroes then I would suspect?

So if they steal information that harms someone else or a “state” that you hate, that’s OK. But they steal from you, that “hacking” act is no longer acceptable? Just trying to see some daylight between the hypocrisy and the hypocrisy.

Julian should end up in the same prison as Ms. Bradley Manning and not as a Senator in my Australia.

spindoc
I don't remember Wikileaks supporting the hacking and illegal use of people's money in bank accounts.

Whistleblowing is not leaking especially when other avenues of disclosure are imperfect.

Hasbeen
There is nothing wrong with the idea of open government or increasing the transparency of governments which, if you have had any experience in dealing with bureaucracy, would know there is an elite group of people who believe they have the right to decide who gets access to information. And I am not talking about national security or other obvious areas where confidentiality would be assumed.

Simply put, transparency, access to information and proper whistleblower protections are the biggest weapon against corruption

I would support that pelican, if I thought it had ever happened.

This clown is not interested in increasing transparency or anything else for anybody.

All he is doing is trying to make a quid out of his long standing hobby of hacking. It is poetic justice that this less than desirable twit has chosen to lock himself up, to avoid taking responsibility for his actions which could, but not necessarily would, result in him being locked up.

Julian Assange is a darling of the corporate media. His creation was all about leading dis-affected people no where.He has achieved his goal.

In the military they have false flag attacks. Julian Assange is a false flag freedom fighter.

Yes, pelican it's "a one-issue party based around transparency".

And how is that "left wing" exactly?

Why the presumption that such a party *must* be leftist/progressive?
What does transparency have to do with the environment (and why is *that* a "leftist" issue anyway?), or cultural diversity or gay marriage or legal abortion or any other progressive issue-of-the-week?

You might be shocked, but many on the "far" right are strongly opposed to government surveillance.

Any smart alternative party knows that *any* minor party winning a seat disrupts the two-party system.
Surely subversive hacker-types would want to encourage such disruption?
Why the feigned outrage?

Shockadelic
Crikey! I just re-read my post and cannot see how you gained the impression of outrage - faux or otherwise. Especially such criticism coming from someone with the handle 'Shockadelic'. I think it more that you took personal offence at your interpretation of my words which were knee-jerk to say the least.

Let me try again. I specifically said that transparency was not a Left/Right issue and I have had enough experience in government to know that dodgy behaviour is not restricted to one party when it comes to transparency.

The reason why many people were surprised at the way preferences fell to far right parties was they have thus far exhibited little priority to the area of transparency. While the Greens (no matter what you think of them) have been the most vocal in this parliament over issues like transparency, data retention and the like. In particular Senator Ludlum in WA has often defended Wikileaks and Julian Asange and spoken in Estimates and Inquiries on these issues. Hence my reference to the odd choice to preference the far Right who have not been open about transparency (pardon the pun).

Regardless of any Left/Right bias one would assume preferences would be based on shared principles of transparency and desire for more honest government and public service.

Far right parties are not traditionally for Open Goverment nor are the far Left as commonly exhibitied in Communist nations. It's that simple.