Insiders today:
Milne from the Greens, insisting Ruddy Kev can wave a magic wand and save the nation and the world, totally ignoring the realities of real-politik and economics.
Field, the Independent, in total denial, and as politically canny as a Sunday school teacher.
These are the people who have the power to decide on legislation that will affect all our lives for years to come. We elected them. They put themselves up, and clearly stated their views, and won.
What have we done?
Is there a double-dissolution on our horizon, and how soon?
The Parties are wrecking our political freedom, making our desires irrelevant, yet these are the alternative?
What can we do

what can we do, Maximillion?

reform the Constitution to provide for a women's legislature to eliminate the quagmire of confusion over women's business and men's business which seems to incessantly outrage and amuse you.

Whistler, I've said all I intend to re' your obsession, and will no longer respond to it. If you post anything else, I'll treat you the same as any other poster, with as much respect as I can.
Any other, not obsession-related, thoughts on my questions or observations? Did you watch the show? It will be online if you're interested

You did ask for that Max with that opening post

Agronomist,
This person's answers the same regardless of the topic.I think Max has been incredibly controlled.

Max,
Refresh my aging memory which show?
Your observation are sort of right. We only knew of the the party views not the individual. Take my electorate (please..boom, boom):-)
The public voted for a Lib....but we didn't know of his Catholic "right to life-ism".

I'm not saying that he hasn't the right to his personal opinions bu he is supposed to represent the majority of the electorate which as it happens doesn't agree with him....But the majority of the electorate (by less than 200 votes) prefer the Liberals. The demographics show that the area has a disproportionate number of 68+. These are more interested in their maintaining their wealth and simply ignore the rest.

I strongly support a 3rd force in the senate to mitigate the extremes (un-voted for surprises...al la Howard's folly) from both sides but Field is not an independent (Fambly Ferst) and a single rep. He's simply a fool out of his medieval depth and force the same on us. (a good argument for the testing you raised before.)

The problem is not in having a few independents in office. The problem is having too few, in both houses.

The major parties have too many without the backbone to vote their electorate, their conscience, or even their own self-interest in the face of the parties that depend upon the patronage of sitting members for existence or relevance. In their desperation to *control* with no more consideration than you ascribe to independents, they refuse to let anybody else drive, ever, or even look at the map.

This lack of independence/independents results in logjams which none have the courage or humility to break. A few *more* independents could be grease to the process. How good is an idea if you *can't* convince a few indies? How good is a sytem that *can't* pass legislation without subjecting millions to the risible personal opinions of (say) Harradine?

In our system, I think democracy (of a crude sort) happens only at elections and Double Dissolution is just a way to have a little more.
Always painted as a disaster, it is an opportunity to legally chuck out a few dishonest, tired, lazy or otherwise undeserving whatevers a bit early, and boy don't they hate that...and all correct according to the constitution.