Yes I'm gettinig so disillusioned with Prime Militarist Tony.

I almost choked on my Weaties when I heard Abbott was sending Minister Dutton, OberFuhrer Border Force Blackshirts, to Europe concerning an Off Water Syrian refugee matter.

Wasn't bombs on Syria meant to be Australia's main contribution not aid?

But then, so far, Abbott has collected himself saying he expected no net increase in Syrian-Northern Iraq refugees (to Oz) already planned.

How will Dutton spin it?

Poida

thank God we do have the 'religous' Tony Abbott. The flood of illegals under Turnbull would still be flowing (with many more drownings). We would still have the idiotic carbon tax killing business. Ironically this tax largely came about from the irreligous religion. Tonies 'religion'whatever that might be (volunteering as life saver, helping Indigenous while on leave, being faithful to his wife) might stink to the regressives but is far more appealing to anyone with any decency.

Another ignorant one blabbing about the "hard right" and religion, even though non-conformist religionists are so far to the Left that the cannot stand up straight; and the Catholics are gradually listing to the left, too.

And, most citizen don't join parties because they don't want personal contact with grubby politicians. Most people only vote because the grubs enforce compulsory voting. It's a pity that citizens don't refuse to vote, and demand good candidates as opposed to the there-for-life rubbish we have now.

Pete,

Stop comparing Abbott and his methods with black shirts (Nazis). They cannot be both right wing conservatives and National Socialists. The first people to be cleared out - even before the Jews - from universities and positions of influence were CONSERVATIVES, your right wingers. People posting here and people in general likening conservatism and the right of politics to National SOCIALISM are clearly ignorant of the facts.

Syd,
a well reasoned argument, but would not your solution result in an oligarchy not democracy-- or is that what you think we have now anyway ?

My own observation of older conservative people I move amongst does not reflect the view that they are predominantly religious.
Old people are often well read enough to realise that Christianity was , for centuries, as blood thirsty as Islam.

The Counter Reformation war of 1618- 1648 cost 40-50% of the population of Middle Europe-and thousands were burnt to death for 250 years for witchcraft, probably predominantly women. With no welfare net, single woman resorted to playing on superstition ( love potions, curses, predictions, cures) to survive. Failures were common and a complaint to a priest led to a barbeque.
All that was kick- started by Pope Innocent VIII' s edict that Exodus 20:18 be enforced: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

We wrinklies are against such trendy ideas as "same sex marriage" because we cannot see how we can validly ban polygamy if we stray from the traditional definition.

Polygamy is the abandonment of the basic building block of the Judeo Christian culture.

That culture, AND NO OTHER, has been rise to all the innovations from steam engine through to the internet which has increased mankind's productivity many hundred times over- without which 90 % of the world's population would not exists for lack of the ability to produce, transport and distribute the food and shelter to support them.
Institutionalised monogamy brings children up to the maximum potential which gives rise to invention and innovation.

Belief in monogamy is not belief in God.

Abandonment of monogamy is a reversion to the alpha male model of social structure seen in prides of lions and herds of deer, kangaroos, cattle etc. -Monogamy= civilisation, alpha male structure=savagery.

We wrinklies have logical, not religious reasons to be conservative.

ttbn

Stop your blather man.

Democracy is protected by criticising such Angels and Demons as the Jesuit Abbott.

That Abbott has created a private army of Border Force Black Shirts goes back to Abbott sitting on the knee of the late Bob Santamaria who had some good things to say about Mussolini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._A._Santamaria#Early_and_family_life .

What would be the practical difference between one party dominated by a rich, greedy, self-interested minority and another party dominated by a rich, greedy, self-interested minority?

Would not the problems evident in Labor's relationship with unions be mirrored in any party consisting of "elected members... plus financial backers"?

They are both bound to be antidemocratic, secretive, disloyal to their membership and elitist. And biased, if not downright fraudulent.

And the next model is... ancient Greek style rotating random citizens? If so, then sorry, the slaves and women miss out. Perhaps the Swiss village-green communal mass vote style of democracy, where populism is everything and argument is waste of breath.

The first Australian political party that successfully enables its members to meet democratically, as equals, not bound by back room promises or caucuses, one where members are truly valued and respected instead of being made to blindly follow a so-called leader, who is probably the son of a previous inglorious leader will grow like a wildfire in both membership and votes.

Unfortunately, Canberra being what it is, within a couple of months of arrival even the cleanest and most upright seem to turn into pigs at the trough, isolated from the public and uttering inanities from the day's list of talking points.

What is the next model?