Most sensible post here was from Chris C... the preference deal was excellent, and helped Labor immensely.

When upper house changes were announced, the predictions were that the Greens could take up to five seats. Of course, the left fringe of society was rather chuffed by the idea, but Labor centre/right technocrats are cleverer than that... if they know anything, they know numbers. The result of 15 libs, 2 nats, 3 greens and 1 dlp was a stunning victory, considering how similar the dlp and much of labor right is.

Victorians, especially of the left, should remember this. Their state was for a very long time the jewel in the Liberal crown. Labor's disparity to the left caused by the dlp split which claim at times 15%+ of the state vote denied it office for ages. The Greens have had their ranks swell by the disposessed left faction's fall out. Labor only returned to power after the split when the centre faction took control, and have enjoyed greater power since the right have taken in much of the return from the diminished DLP. Guess why? Most Australians prefer Labor right to any other Labor.

The Greens should not receive Labor Party preferences except in exceptional circumstances because there are other parties which better represent the majority of labor voters who are not leftists. In most circumstances, supporting minor centre/progressive parties like the DLP, Democrats (no more), or independants should be followed. In rural areas, supporting the Nationals over the Liberals is to their advantage, because of the Nationals' tendency towards protection and the disunity amongst conservatives that can be caused.

The Greens are too extreme to deserve the preferences of a group which tries to represent around 40% of Victoria. In upper house electorates, the remaining seat is most accurately reflected by a centre party.

Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, thanks for the comment on my post.

BD claims a lack of interest in forcing his faith on others but shows in post after post that he is seeking a nation where the rest of us are forced to live within a framework which he see's as gods plan.

I'll have to part ways with you on the shared parenting thing though, the fundies seem to have very little interest in it, raising kids is womens work and all that.

As a single dad it's a cause I strongly support. I've had to deal with a system with an entrenched bias against single dads and I've experienced the very real harm it does.

As for fleeing DV (and protecting child) have a browse through some of the links being posted on other threads to research on genderisation of DV and substaniated child abuse (The White Ribbon Day thread has some good stuff).

If we want to cut down on post seperation DV then maybe we could start with making sure that one party is not left with his life in tatters and few viable options regardless of guily or innocence.

Start with a presumption of shared care and vary from that when a genuine risk is identified and substantiated.

R0bert

Boaz - just curious about one thing - you mention that TV programmers should limit their sexual content, yet you say nothing about violence. This is one paradox that has always confused me about the church. A large amount of preaching about sex, and less about violence.

I have a question for you... which would be worse for children to witness - a violent decapitation, or a hardcore (non violent) sex scene?

The difference is... decapitations are allowed to be shown on free to air television (even if it is late at night) yet a hardcore sex scene is not. I don't believe this is right, I'd rather the sex was allowed and the violence was not.

I'm rather interested to hear your preferred option (and let's take it as a given that you'd prefer neither... the tough answer which is the least of two evils here)