James is simply describing a form of political action politicians from the traditional poles "left/right" would say they ascribe to any way - each party contends with their own unique ( well,,, sort of unique ) policy positions they aim to realise the dreams of the people etc etc etc. The terms are irrelvat only in so far as in Australian there is no real left or right.

You would need to go a long way back in Australian politics to find a genuine Left wing political party; the truth about Australian politics, more evident today than ever before, is that political thought oscillates between two very close poles - free uni education and universal health insurance and to a lesser extent the changes to the Family Law act represents the most "leftist" things we have been subjected to.

And as for archetypical "right " wing stuff the only things that come to mind are the IR reforms, diminished funding to universities and greater emphasis on usewr pays ( after most of the sitting members were educated on the back of the old federal funding ) and the VSU kerfuffle.

Its a small sample only but given the endless policy positions put about life remains fairly stable. To that extent in the Australian context left and right is some what irrelevant - but they save a lot of explanation

All elements of society retreat to socialism form time to time - our history and economy was based on agrarian socialist policies of protection/subsidies - industry was protected with tarriffs and still is with endless restructuring sweetners - sugar, dairy and most recently fisheries - kind of a wind fall one off dole payment versus the drip feed for the average punter.

Jimmys cry for positive politics is laudable but of little significance

Ludwig, & any who share his concerns about the ‘compulsory preferential’ voting system, have you read the submission 151 in my last post? When you do I hope you'll agree that it supports my theory of timid/intimidated reporters and editors since Albert Langer’s widely publicised jailing. If not please explain . . .

You also wrote: "There is no reason why the optional preferential system that we have at state government level can’t apply in federal elections." but how does that change the 'left' vs 'right' sham? Surely the evidence says it is just the same in NSW & Queensland as in Canberra & everywhere else. How do we explain the persistence of the 'left' vs 'right' sham in the optional preferential system?

Also the Alchemist reminds us that "no matter what people say, when it comes to polling day, like slaves they just vote for the duopoly. Very few have the actual courage to place the major parties at the bottom and choose their own preferences. Their excuse, well they are going to be elected anyway." How many of them/us do so because they/we are, in the legal terms used in the above submission, "unduly influenced" to number all candidates, including those they do not intend to vote for?

I think you'll find, like I did, that the answer to all such concerns is still hidden from the public by timid [& corrupt] editors. Can this forum change that? If not, what can?

Alchemist, again I agree with you, on all but one thing;

“We must remember that no matter what people say, when it comes to polling day, like slaves they just vote for the duopoly.”

To a fair extent yes. But my experience in 1995 was that a large portion of voters didn’t vote for the duopoly, at least not with their primary vote, and a good portion not at all. The vote for the minor parties and independents was high, and that was with one of the most progressive Queensland state governments in power, following the very long-awaited shift away from the Nationals.

I reckon that if people understand that they can meaningfully vote for alternatives other than the Laborials (the duopoly), then a reasonable percentage will, and progressively a larger portion of elected members will ensue

Thanks Humble for the link. It would indeed be a very good thing for the publishers of OLO to follow up. Yes I agree with you regarding timidity/intimidation of reporters.

Pertaining to the federal compulsory preferential and state optional preferential systems, you write; “Surely the evidence says it is just the same in NSW & Queensland as in Canberra & everywhere else.” Essentially it is. Although, all else being equal, the Goss government would have won a third term in 1995 if they hadn’t introduced optional preferential voting three years earlier.

Compulsory preferential voting is just one horrible tool used to keep the ‘Laborials’ entrenched. Reform of it in isolation wouldn’t achieve much. However, it is so blatantly antidemocratic and offensive that it should be reformed with urgency.

“How do we explain the persistence of the 'left' vs 'right' sham in the optional preferential system?”.

I’ll have to do a Hanson on that one – please explain

Ludwig, I don't know if anyone else is reading this thread but I hope at least you & Alchemist will read & respond to this. Three years on, its well known to many reporters & editors, particularly in the Murdoch press.

Apart from a simple reservation, I agree with your reply to his “We must remember that no matter what people say, when it comes to polling day, like slaves they just vote for the duopoly.”. You will not guess that reservation, or believe it when you read it! It is this simple question: What do you mean by "vote for"? Think about it before you go to this published but unreported High Court transcript. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/other/hca/transcripts/1998/S126/2.html?query=title+%28+%22+%20+s126+1998+%20and+%20on+%20%22+%29

If you scroll down a few screens you'll read this - where GLEESON CJ is the Chief Justice of Australia:
MR O'HAIR: That is certainly correct, your Honour. There is no limitation period or any other issue that has expired. Whether that would be a provident use of the Court's time having regard to authorities such as Clough v Frog and given that I am instructed to offer to pay costs, which obviously under the Rules that would have to be paid is the costs resulting from the amendment. Your Honour, I would submit that the full issue that arises as between the plaintiff and the defendant essentially does turn on issues of whether the plaintiff can be compelled to vote for persons that he does not wish to vote for and that it essentially rests on two - - -

GLEESON CJ: It depends on what you mean by "vote for".

MR O'HAIR: Certainly, your Honour. ...

Some reservation hey!

What a load of legal twaddle! How could the meaning of ‘vote for’ be in any way unclear? Under the current system we CAN be compelled to vote for persons that we do not wish to vote for, end of story. For the high court to fail to uphold this challenge and not declare compulsory preferential voting antidemocratic and illegal, has got to be THE single most blatant failure of our legal system ever.

It does NOT depend on the meaning of ‘vote for’, it depends on whether your vote counts where you want it to count. It is a crystal-clear concept that sits right at the very core of democracy.

Thanks for this very interesting insight Humble.