The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > New Australia Party

New Australia Party

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. 12
  14. 13
  15. All
I read the website.

It looks like a feel good wish list of contradictory wants.

Where on earth are they going to fund all these ideas?

Why not call it the "everything for nothing" party.
Posted by Democritus, Monday, 8 June 2009 2:04:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy, I do not understand your question if Pauline Hanson is " a member" in the New Australia Party. In this political space there are many migrants, many human rights activists, many internationalists, many atheists, many REAL progresive people. This political space is extremely selective, it prefers politicians with high standards. In this space the candidates should be like YOU, not like Pauline Hanson. Every one knows it. Do not worry about Pauline Hanson but worry for other things.

Ludwig,
Antonios "Why do you say this? Can you explain a little more why you think so poorly of this new party"
OK! What is the meaning from prefernces? We prefer the A party , and not the B party ,or not the C party because we think that the A party can promote better the national interests that it will be esier for us to cooperate with it and promote in higher degree our goals. When they decided to give their preference to COALITION and not to ALP as does the Green Party they decided it because they believe that the COALITION promotes better their goals then the ALP.
Realy? Do you believe that COALITION IS CLOSER TO New Australia Party than the ALP? Do you believe that COALISION promote better our social, environment,Democracy, or other major national or international problems than ALP? Do you realy think that COALITION care more for labor's rights, for our environment, for Aborigines rights, for migrants rights, for peace and democracy than the ALP?
COME ON LUDWIG WHAT HAPPENED WITH YOU? Do not you know that this kind of ideas have no chance in the political space between ALP and Greens? I am a voter of this space, Labor for Parliament Greens for Senate. Do you think we will allow a party which prefer COALITION THAN ALP, A CONSERVATIVE PARTY TO DAMAGE THE ALP OR GREENS?
Ludwig, I think you was once upon a time part of this space and you know what kind of people guard it!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Monday, 8 June 2009 4:53:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antonios, I still don’t understand why you are so concerned about New Australia ‘allocating’ preferences, or touting a slight preference, for the Coalition over Labor.

Preferences are determined by individual voters and how they fill in their ballot papers. Parties and candidates can only suggest how voters might allocate their preferences.
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/howpreferenceswork.htm

It’s understandable that any party would have some preference for one or other of the liblabs, while at the same time being fundamentally opposed to their philosophies or methodologies.

You said that “Their goal is to damage the ALP and mainly THE GREENS.”

Well…yes. Of course it is! But if they look like becoming a successful party due to a high level of community support, and hence successful in damaging other parties, then these other parties are likely to adjust their relevant policies accordingly. So if they all do a green shift as a result, it’ll be good, yes!

And if New Australia is more strongly aligned with the Coalition than is apparent at the moment, then the same green shift should happen with that major party if the new party gathers a high level of support.

So no matter which way you look at it, if they can garner support for policies that steer us away from our continuous-growth addiction and towards a demand < sustainable-supply-capability regime, with plenty of essential resources being left in reserve for hard times, and a healthy environment and high quality of life being maintained, and all the other stuff that they have put forward, then it’s got to be a good thing.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 8 June 2009 10:06:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig noticed I have missed a few questions. This is due to me being time poor + the word limit here:

(1) Re members, yes we need to get 500 members to register. Obviously its very hard to start a new party, we will see what happens. If it doesn't work out then we are back to having just the Greens who will again get around 10% of the vote and thus another 3.5 years of inaction on climate, etc.

(2) Re Political Donations, yes its a problem but no we don't have any particular policy on it. There is no good reason for this...we just haven't got around to it. Feel free to submit one. (We don't have anything on indigenous affairs either while your at it)

(3) Re preferences to Coalition (AFTER Greens / Dems) instead of ALP the logic was that we already have an environmental party that preferences the ALP - The Greens. So we thought we would go the other way with a view to attracting voters who would not like their preferences going to Labor. (This pre-supposes that the Libs and ALP are equally bad on issues we care about and might have to change)

The point of trying to create this party is that 90% of people will not vote for the Greens. POSSIBLY NewAustralia could attract people who don't like the Greens Tax, Defence, Welfare and Immigration policies. This would lead to an increase in the overall environmental vote: 10% Greens and x% NewAustralia. Sure, its a long shot. (I have tried doing how to vote cards for the Greens and Dems and that didn't do much good.)

(4) Funding issues: The funding comes from shifting spending - Roads to Rail, Defence to Education, Private Health to Public Health.

(5) Private health insurance rebate: Providing health funding via the insurance companies is inherently inefficient as each company has to spend money on their own execs, advertising, etc.

Thanks for all the feedback, its all good stuff and makes us think how we pitch the message.

Cheers,
Alan.
Posted by NewAustralia, Monday, 8 June 2009 10:37:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i got as far as:

"Note that the party founder and executive retain the right to veto major policy changes"

bottom of the front page on the internet site.

seems facism is becoming the topic de jeur amongst conservatives these days.
Posted by whistler, Tuesday, 9 June 2009 11:25:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Whistler,

What's with your obsession and 'facism?'

You've seem to have only the one 'song,'
to sing - and you keep singing it on
every thread - no matter what the topic is.

It's getting a bit tedious. Do us all
a favour - and learn something new to contribute!
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 9 June 2009 2:43:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. 12
  14. 13
  15. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy