There are two main problems with the author's approach to illegal immigrants.

The first is that the strongest supporters of Howard's policy on illegal immigrants was the Labor Party's heartland. No wonder that, as the author said, Labor had to run dead on the issue.

The second, and I believe much more important problem, is the profoundly anti-democratic flavour to his approach on this issue. There is no attempt to discover what the people want, just an attempt to have both major parties wedded to his approach.

This attitude is the nub of the problem. Many politicians seem to think that the people should elect politicians to determine issues according to the politicians judgment. The politicians should have the ideas, and the people should trust to their best judgment.

The only problem is that most voters think differently, and they are the ones who fill out the ballot papers. They think that the people should have the ideas, and that it the politicians role to carry out the ideas of the people. If they do not, they will be thrown out of office and replaced with politicians who will.

The inevitable result of me-too policies such as the author is advocating is the rise of parties such as One Nation, who were full of ordinary people disgusted with the antics of the major parties.

Another is the repeated refusal of the people to amend the Constitution. the most memorable quote I remember from the republic referendum was made in 1993 by a Broken Hill Miner (when Keating was PM and Hewson opposition leader).

He said "I would have to vote NO. What an opportunity to stick it up Keating, without having to elect Hewson."

Nice article. It is to be hoped that the liberal party returns to where it once was. In the last few years it became increasingly unrecognizable.

Plerdsus, in case you missed it, the majority of people spoke very loudly and very clearly in the last election. Obviously the liberal party was representing an increasingly smaller number of people.

As to the asylum seekers. It is sloppy and lazy politics to use wedge tactics to garner some votes. It will become increasingly difficult to do so as more and more people become more aware and knowledgable about issues.

it's important to have a strong opposition. but i'd rather do without. all those liberal whores who sat back silent while howard poisoned the waters, they deserve to twist in the wind for many years yet. to hell with the lot of them.

This is a good article, because it does a bit of navel gazing at the problems facing the Liberal Party, when confronted with a New Labor Party, under a leader with ethics and a Christian conscience. The Fascist Concentration Camps erected by the Liberal Party, were rightly immediately emptied by Chris Evans. They only survived under the Liberal Party, because the separation of powers, incorporated into the Constitution, were abolished in 1976, and completely abolished in 1979, and fascist style administrative Courts, established as the High Court and Federal Court of Australia.

We cannot have pagan Courts, and these were never contemplated, by the Founding Fathers. The hallmarks of Hitler, Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Mao, and Saddam Hussein, were Courts manned by State Officers. They are and remain Pagan Courts, because they refused to observe the separation of powers, which is not achieved by a pay bribe, to a lawyer, but by incorporating twelve lay voters into the process of passing judgment. The Magna Carta and Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp) a copy of which can be found online, at www.community-law.info are the guarantee under the Constitution of the Rule of Law, instead of the Rule of Rules.

All Judges must take an Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, and are bound by Her Oath. Parliamentarians as Judges, also must take that Oath, to sit in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. To get away with fascism, Judges had to be bribed to repudiate their Oath of Office. The proposal to pay Parliamentarians more is simply another bribe, to repudiate their Oath of Allegiance.

S 11 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1986, should be a guarantee of a jury trial in the Federal Court if requested. Section 39 of the same Act should be abolished, because it empowers a fascist Judge to refuse choice. Its like Henry Ford, and his Model T . You could have any colour you liked so long as it was black. It was a black day for democracy, when any Judge was empowered to exclude the common people from a “court”

I will tell you what is wrong with the countries that these people passed through. Jayb is under the mistaken belief that these are democracies. They are only half democracies. Yes they get to vote, but unlike Australia have no written Constitution, that should , even to Muslims, make it clear that Australia is governed in exactly the same way, as the English were governed from 1275.

In 1275, the people were given a choice of mode of trial. In 1297 they incorporated the principles of the Holy Bible into their law, and have never been invaded since. The Magna Carta incorporates the principles of the Holy Gospel into Statute law, from Mathhew 18 Verses 15-20. It was made law in England in 1640, in the Habeas Corpus Act 1640, that Administrative Courts, manned by Priests of any description, without laity as “judges” were Star Chambers, and illegal. The Separation of Powers, is not a recent thing. It was taught by Jesus Christ, in John 5 Verses 22 and 23. The concept of jury trial is also Christian, and does not exist in any of the countries that the refugees passed through. In a way the refugees are voting with their feet. Jury trial was introduced, to comply with the Gospel of Luke 12: verses 10– 12, after Matthew reported the edict from Jesus Christ that we must not judge each other. That is why a Judge or Magistrate who cannot offer a jury trial is a State Appointed pagan.

By the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp) the English established a Christian Republic, with a hereditary representative of Almighty God. They failed to extend it to their American Colonies, so they revolted, and elect the same representative as President. To avoid that, the English offered Australia an opportunity to vote for independence, instead of fight for it. We took it only after the Roman Catholic Australians were given equality and agreed to support the referendum. If the Liberals and Labor can agree to educate all Australians in their heritage, this country will remain a true democracy

Demonizing those who demonize fake assylum seekers is demonic.

How can a failed defender of convicted terrorists have any credibility on an issue like this?

All we need ask is "who benefits politicaly from supporting so called assylum seekers (but in reality, often country shoppers)?"

Why...surprise surprise..it's GREG BARNS...and his failed demo...who?.. mob.

Seems like the horse has long bolted on Demowho relevance Greg...
dragging up issues like this when there is an upsurge in boat arrivals now that the deterrence is less..is just a feeble political grasping at straws by a near dead but already irrelevant party.

In short.. a failed defender of convicted terrorists, supporter of dodgy artists who photograph naked children...

Greg Barns writes: (from Crikey)
<Politicians really are the most appalling of opportunists, and over the weekend they excelled themselves. Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Malcolm Turnbull, John Brumby and the federal Minister for Sport, Kate Ellis, all spent their weekend beating up on one of Australia’s finest artists, photographer Bill Henson.>

and now back on the support for country shoppers.... dare I say being 'opportunistic'?

I suppose Greg also regards Donald Friend as an 'inspiring and enlightened artist' rather than a paedophile?

But hey..that's just a wild guess.

Barns also berates the ABC for broadcasting an interview where Jack Thomas discussed taking money from Al Qaeda!

Could Barns dig a bigger hole for himself?