Sand.. we may not see eye to eye on somethings, but ur post this time is spot on.
Its hard to avoid 'agenda's these days in politics, it almost boils down to 'which' agenda your more comfortable with.
May I recommend Family First as a viable alternative to Greens.
I'm not a member, but I am attracted to their more principled approach. I have written to them to 'green up' their policies, particularly in regard to alternative energy.

Sandgroper,
These issues would be classic case of just how contorted politics has become. The political parties now have so many deals being made between themselves, that a member of the public has minimal idea of which policies they are actually voting for when they vote for a candidate of a political party.

If someone dares to vote “below the line” for the senate, then they have really no idea of who they are actually voting for, or what policies they are voting for, because of all the preferential deals going on between the parties, (or even if they vote above the line for that matter).

The whole thing has become a total scam. We need something a lot different to keep them honest than what we have presently got.

Natasha Stott Despoya embodied all that was surreal and shallow about the Australian Democrats. Isolated from the insecurity and toughness of the real world, having worked in one taxpayer-funded political job after another, Despoya was never able to embody a philosophy of self-reliance and self-help that is the natural philosophy for a third party of the radical centre.

Instead, big government, faith in a benevolent bureaucracy, and a disdain for the everyday concerns of suburban, non-professional Australians, came to prevail as the Democrat "ideology". Noel Pearson's critique of this 'progressivism' is the sharpest to yet emerge in Australia, and has all but killed off this progressivist agenda in terms of any intellectual and ethical standing. The death of the Democrats is not just a matter of organisational incompetence, it is also a consequence of the collapse of the ideology that they espoused over the last 10 years.

Richard Deniss misses all this. Indeed his Australia Institute is an organisation committed to the same ideology, so we shall have to look to other commentators for a fuller assesment of the Democrat debacle. In the meantime, a genuine third party of the radical centre remains critically important for a renewal of Australian politics and society.

Vern Hughes
vern@peoplepower.org.au

Vern,
You seem to be arguing that we need more of what we have had in the past. When it comes to politics in Australia, I can’t think of much worse.

The public should not have to hope that legislation is properly prepared in the House of Reps, and then hope that it is thoroughly reviewed in the Senate before it is finally approved. The public should be able to “expect” that these things occur, and not just "hope" that they occur (as the public ususally has to cope with that legislation after it has been approved)

Having a third political party is not good enough to expect or guarantee that parliament will work adequately. I think that a number of other things are necessary also, as well as having a third political party

I can't let the homophobic and other silly comments of 'Sandgroper' go unremarked upon.

Firstly, and despite Sandgroper's claim, the WA Greens did not ultimately support the ALP's attempts to bring about the equitable and sensible 'one-vote-one-value' franchise (much to my deep regret), and the dreadful and unfair gerrymander continues in WA.

Secondly, his claim that, "most WA Greens seem to be homosexual" is piffle. There are five Greens in state parliament and only one of them, Ms Giz Watson, is lesbian.

By contrast, Labor has two openly gay members - John Hyde MLA and Louise Pratt MLC.

There are a greater total number of closeted gay and lesbian MP's in both the ALP and Coalition. But does any of this matter?

'Sandgropers' alarmist claims that, "homosexuals are infiltrating parliament" and "pushing their agenda", is reminiscent of anti-Semitism and the fear mongering directed at Jews. And for the same reasons.

Finally, 'Sandgropers' claim that, "he is not anti-gay", is laughable, given the appalling allegation of sexual molestation he levels at gay men.

By saying that homosexuals engage in "predatory behavior" (in the context of the age of consent debate), 'sandgroper' is saying that gay men are inclined to molest boys. But he ignores the fact that the consent age for girls is 16 (same as it now is for gay males), yet he doesn't suggest this allows for "predatory behaviour" from heterosexual males. Bit of a double standard eh? Show me the evidence from any State or Territory (all of which now have equal ages of consent, mostly set at 16), that shows boys are being molested by gay men as a result. There is NO evidence for this.

'Sandgropers argument is a bit like saying, "I'm not racist, but I think blacks need a higher age of consent to protect whites from their predatory behaviour."

Kelpie PERTH

Kelpie
u justshowed why there is no point in trying to reason with people about homosexual, incestual and bestial behavior. If people wish to persue it..they will.
The best solution is to legislate based on democratic power.
I get weary of the 'charge and counter charge' as u have done with Sandgroper. It will always boil down to "we don't like living in a community which recognizes deviate sexual behavior of any kind."

and by golly, if we can change the social fabric.. we will.