Timkins !!!
Thats not a bad idea, the senate was meant to have equal numbers from each state to protect the rights of those with smaller populations and less seats in the House of Reps.. the idea of parties competing for it makes it virtually irrelavant in terms of its purpose.

To Nick

I object to being taken back to the 50's, not because it is unfasionable, but because I was there as a child and I know how bad it really was back then for some of us - how demeaning it was to get a divorce, how rigid and hypocritical the behaviour codes were, how difficult for underpriviliged people to get an education.

Despite the economic follies of Whitlam, he introduced tolerance which has made life easier for many people. I would rather have tolerance that allows me to lead a rich and meaningful life than economic success that provides only more and better possessions.

Also, Hawke and Keating were good economic managers and introduced many of the economic reforms that underpin our economic success now.

Molly

Timkins -
your theory - "switching political parties is better than not switching" is a simplistic theory which suits those upset with the outcome of any election.
Had this been the early 1990's with Hawke/Keating about to win another term you would beat a different drum - the one where "stability is good".
Oh and comparison to USSR - complete rubbish - the malais of USSR was due, in main, to the presence of successive dictators (Lenin, Stalin to Breshnev) and the apparatus of the state for denying the freedoms we in Democracies take for granted (like voting in free and fair elections for competing manifestos and something a little closer to free market economics and absence of the centralised control of everything).

Please, don't bother dressing up your political bias with voodoo theories, I have heard them all and can knock them all down in a thrice.

Arjay –
I am not sure why you have made note of my comments with your “Sorry Col,John Howard should have won the last election.”

My view – a nation will always get the government it deserves – I guess, as a nation, we must be doing something right to be so well rewarded with elected our incumbents.
Certainly if I cast my vote again it would be for the coalition (as it has always been since I came to Australia).

Nick Ferrett “I think people who make comments like "John Howard should have lost" and "the electorate got it wrong" are part of the problem for those who set themselves in opposition to John Howard.

They are not part of any problem – they are insignificant and diminishing as each day goes by -
Sour grapes makes the whine (pun intended) the pseudo-intellectuals drink when they witness their precious "socialist egalitarian theories" revealed as a bunch of simplistic and ill-conceived emotional humbug.

Addressing the article, the comment "any of.. 'Lindsay Tanner'.etc. would make a good leader..
Well, I say NOOOOOO !!! That man demonstrated the lowest of low, hypocritical scumbag kaniving immoral disgraceful opportunism that I've seen for a long long time when he dredged up a hitherto unheard of claim about ArchBishop Hollingworth or his handling of sex abuse issues TIMED perfectly to do NOTHING for the claim and EVERYthing to get his name in the media and to grandstand politicaly and damage John Howard by 'association'. He would be the last man on earth I would EVER like to see in ANY position of responsibility to do with government of this country.Kim Jong IL would be a better choice than Lindsay Tanner.

Col,
I was just wondering what are your ideas or suggestions regards checks and balances that could be put into place that will stop a government becoming corrupted. History shows that voting can be rigged, media can be made to be biased, politicians can lie or use propaganda to sway the public to vote for them. Russia is an example.

My thoughts were to have the Senate made up of independants only, and the House of Reps can be made of independants or members of a political party. This would help provide a check and balance on a government, so as to reduce the chance of it becoming a dictatorship.

Nick, you say, "Those who oppose him too often seem desperate to be regarded as 'hip'", and "Most people would choose ugh boots and a warm meal to heroin chic any day." Now, I know you are only indulging in a bit of a wind-up here (as your comments thread was threatening to run off the rails), and most of us can forgive clumsy attempts at wit, but let me just say this in return.

From your photograph you appear to be a fresh-faced young man, who has not been around for too many decades. You should know then, that the term 'hip' is hardly currency today. It comes from the fifties and the beatnik era. Update your language Nick, otherwise you will sound like you are just parroting the silly old codger who leads your party, and who really was around in the fifties.

And Nick, let's try to remember that 50% of the Australian electorate did NOT vote for Howard, give or take a few percentage points. To suggest that all these good citizens prefer "heroin chic" to a warm fire is pretty insulting, not too mention way off target, don't you think? I can't imagine what it is you are driving at here, but if "heroin chic" means anything to me, it is a term that arrived with the fashion industry in the eighties, not with politics. Sounds like you are stuck in a linguistic time warp, old son.