You seem to have a fairly unambiguous understanding of our parliamentary process Chris C, you have my admiration. I know I am naïve when it comes to politics so I would like your thoughts.

I have always thought it a good idea that some ‘party’ other than the one who has the majority in the Lower House, have the balance of power in the Upper House – to keep the bastards honest is oft quoted. I think the outcome of any debate then becomes more ‘centrist’.

I know it can lead to problems like double dissolutions and “government sacking” re-visited, but is this not better than one party controlling both houses like we have now?

When a ‘far rightist’ party has control of both houses then it could lead to a fascist state, as too when a ‘far leftist’ party has control of both houses then it could lead to a communist state.

Then there are problems with sweet-heart deals and “power of one” mentality.

What is the answer?

I just love the term "Progressive Parties" it sounds so, well, progressive. It is a highly inaccurate description of what is basically a collection loony-lefies who, if allowed, would kill our industries and send us back to the stone age.

Apart from their commendable concern for the environment the Greens vote with Labor on almost every issue, primarily I suspect because they cannot stand the Liberals. Why would I vote for them when I can achieve the same effect by supporting Labor which, at least, has a chance of forming a Government?

The Democrats are, I think, a spent force and their demise started, not with the G.S.T. but with Natasha Stott Despoya's leadership. This country simply will not support the Socialist agenda she pursued. About the only useful thing the Democrats did in recent times was to allow John Howard to introduce the G.S.T. and do away with the confusing mess which was the Wholesale Sales Tax system. Anyone who had to deal with that would agree with me that compliance with the G.S.T is a walk in the park by comparison and far fairer. All we need now is for the State Governments (which party are they??) to stop being so greedy for revenue and abolish the raft of taxes the G.S.T.was designed to replace.

At present the Senate is a sham just being a rubber stamp for the Prime Minister. An example being when Senator Parry expressed great concern about how the Coalition moved on the Mersey hospital. Senator Parry rightly expressed the concern of a great number of his constituents. Senator Parry was stared down and revoked his views.

Senators are meant to represent their States interests; that was the view of our forefathers anyway. If the Senate is to be a proper House of Review we need Greens, Democrats and Independants who are not aligned to the major Parties to hold the balance of power. Otherwise the Senate might as well be revoked as current checks and balances are constantly being eroded.

Bugger the senate, and bugger the concept of 'balance of power'.

The hand wringing, the compromising, the nagging. The senate compromises a governments integrity. Better to get rid of it.

No senate would give us forthright leadership and sharper choices, and a whole lot less mealy-mouthed politicians.

No senate would force the Greens and others to develop realistic policies and to demount their high moral horses.

Anyone else for a unicameral parliament?

That whole ‘the greens taking back control of the Senate’ thing is something I have a problem with.

Putting aside the obvious fact that the greens have never had control of the Senate to take back, it seems to me that the whole issue is that we need an independent senate, not controlled by anyone.

My preference would be a bunch of independents and minor parties holding the balance of power and keeping the major parties and each other to account.

And I just remembered where I’d heard the third party insurance line Bob Brown is using before as well – Natasha Stott Despoja used it in the 2001 federal election campaign. How very practical of Richard to recycle the lines from one boss to the next.

A basic failure to understand this election could wrongly lead some to think the greens can improve their vote.
It is unlikely they will in fact hold it.
Rudd understands the electorate is in a conservative mood, and unlikely over night to think in any way like the greens.
Polarization is the name of the game, Democrats imploded some time ago and would not bring a crowd together with free beer on a hot Sunday at Bondi, their death is assured.
I saw the green vote in state seats that saw the party request voters not to direct preferences to Labor leak one in three back to the ALP.
This election remember is not one that will see an anti Labor vote from other than the outgoing conservative lie machine.