One would have to say, after thinking about the state of Australian politics I can only conclude that we do not have democracy at all.
What do we have? Dictatorship? Think about it.

How many times has a political party imposed somebody onto an electorate to run as a candidate for that election?

With the current amount of known branch stacking (corruption), there really is no democratic involvement except for those who have selected the candidate.
Thus given the lack of involvement in pre selection other than by key party members it cannot be said that such a process is democratic at all.

Have you ever seen or heard from your local member except at election time?

People at election time vote normally for the party as they have no idea about candidates, and it seems that’s the message that is always pushed is that one political party is better than the other, usually based on the national leader's image rather than the local candidate and local policies.

So what? It seems that political parties place people into these areas or electorates that do not have a sitting member or candidate or change the electorate boundaries to maximise advantage or minimise damage. This is not for the benefit of the people in the electorate, but to advantage that political party.

Question time in parliament demonstrates the lack of accountability as no questions are ever answered with those forced to reply using each supposed answer to gabble party lines for no reason other than arrogance or their own entertainment.

With this also, when there is a vote it is plain to see that party dictatorship in action as one side will mostly vote for and the other against no matter whether it is good or bad country. This is amply demonstrated by John Howard's repetitive statements that MP's loyalty belongs to the party room first and foremost.

Therefore, what we have here is ingrained dictatorship of the parties, which shows that democracy is dead by any measure, but something new is coming and will replace this dictatorship once and for all.

Hi tapp,

But we live in a democratic dictatorship, we are allowed to vote for the dictator we want :-)

Most of ours lives are controlled in one way or another if we allow them to be .. tv, radio, advertising, politicians etc.,

We live in an interesting 'Matrix' type world, where we actually believe that we have freedom but our freedoms are controlled by the powers that be.

There’s nothing like pouring out the soul tapp.

I think you’ve done it tremendously well. And I agree that there is some kind of looming replacement for what we presently thing we imagine is a democracy.

So, if we went and asked the people’s action party of Labor, just which road they are going to take us on, once past the fork, we might get an answer. But I doubt it. Perhaps therein lies the answer. The answer we had to have, but which they couldn’t tell us peasants.

And your point about politicians –the elected ones anyway- being visible, or out there in the community, is another indicator of the tools in the authoritarian closet. In my area, some do appear, even in schools. Now, they avoid the big kids schools and playgrounds like the plague – accountability is not the hallmark of an authoritarian. But they are willing and able, after quite some secret preparation and clearing of the decks, to turn up at kiddys kinder, boys schools and generally hang around the children of the realm. They even have the brassery to appear in glossy brochures and photos with said kiddies. Ordinarily, this kind of behaviour would be condemned. But because it is a political fiddle, not an apparent physical one, nothing is done to redirect the power thrust.

Mao introduced Middle Schools, the street activists of his era were from these.

One would have noticed that what i have written hasnt been fully understood, but then you get those who just wish to bypass what was written and say something else.

Our candidates are there to represent their electorates and thus vote independatly when this is not right.

If candidates are there only to boost numbers and to give the boss the party the power then we really have nothing but a dictatorship in government.

What you will find a change is coming for the people to be represented for the people by the people and candidates who live in those comunities not just shifted in with the right to stand and be heard without being blind obedient to a party policy.

Actually the internet can be the source of a true democracy,however without perfect knowledge of how both the economy and Govt works,the results for us nationally,could be devestating.

If the masses have the power to implement policies without professional skills and knowledge,then we will be in a worse predicament then we now face.

The reality is that we have to vote in people who have the knowledge and skills to represent us.To make them more accountable,job security should equal that of private enterprise.If we make the rewards comeasurate with their failures,then we will all get better results.

No Not necesarily

Those that stand for the comunity only need to be honest i know one of those words which brings distrust but there are advise which even those in government use.

It is CDF which brings to find solutions and not political gain.

People are suposadly there to represent each and every person in the electorates but this they do not
They are shackled by their own political party to do as you are told whether you like it or not.

Government should not have to have a conscience vote for the members to disagree or agree.

If its wrong stand against if its good and right stand for .

Not this party dictatorship that is there.

Tapp I am concerned with what appears to be your position on supposed “dictatorships” and your formation of “The Australian Peoples Party”.

You would know that the theory for the house of Representatives is the elected member represents those in his/her electorate. This clear representative position is diluted in the election to members of the Senate due to the election of multiple Senators for each state based on the black magic of proportional representation.

You would also know that anyone can offer themselves for election to the house of Representatives. Some of those individuals are called “independents” and get elected based on their ability to draw more votes than anyone else (with or without second preferences and all that bulldust).

You would further accept that it is possible for someone to be elected with a political party pre-selection and arrive in parliament and go to the cross benches or play the party game for a while and then go to the cross benches.

You would likewise recognize the limits of authority for party whips to exert the power of their position.

You would also note that the process is over 100 years old in Australia and around 400 years old in UK and the balance of power between “Parliament" and “Dictator” is readily identifiable and distinguishable to when Authority rest with Parliament or when it is in the hands of a "dictator". Oliver Cromwell (Lord Protector of England) being the only example (in UK / Australian history) of when a real dictator prevailed (and Cromwell was posthumously beheaded).

Two questions

1 How do you make the stretch of logic to equate the democratic processes which allow dissent of any member (at the cost of party elevation) in the Australian house of Representatives and “dictatorship”?

2 What do you intend to do with TAPP, contend for a seat in the house of representatives or maybe the Senate, so we can test how credible a political manifesto you have?

It is strange that you write and whine here about a “dictatorship” which you, through TAPP, presumably, have aspirations of participating in.

For Col
one would have thought that many here have seen question time

One would also wonder why is a conscience vote required.

If those who have watched parliament question time you would notice on a vote that one side will vote for and the other against.

Now if there is problems here like the telstra sale wasnt the nationals still quite happy for the sale to go ahead.
Now this is an example if its wrong why do they not vote for it but against.

One would also know that if you have seen the Australian Peoples Party constitution it isnt quite what is expected.

Am i going to run why hell yes a normal bloke standing against the big bullies for the people.

You may question my morals but dont you worry i stand firm and not scared of these dictatorship run by these party's.

So Col how are your morals and can you stand up or run like the rest when pushed.

I am standing up when a lot here only talk about problems, I look for solutions and get rid of the blame pushing as chrisc found out.
But what I got from this was an answer and that is what it is about.
My words may be rough but my moral standing is firm.

IF you realy want to help email me all i ask is be honest.
Email:swulrich@bigpond.net.au

TAPP Parliamentary question time, that is like recess in school, they all run around screaming, shouting letting off steam and carrying on like pork chops.

A lot of the real business gets done in committee, you should know that.
More gets done in debate and reading of Bills (before they become Acts).

Most of “government” gets done outside the chamber, with PPS’s and the bureaucrats. It is these bureaucrats who have a capacity for power and access to tax funds who really need taming. A good Minister is one who questions his/her Civil servants, a poor one is lead by the nose by them.

“You may question my morals”

I wasn’t questioning your “morals”

I was questioning your rationale in making a “colossal leap” between our parliamentary process and a dictatorship.

I was challenging your expressions relative to the “Westminster Model of Democracy” and wondering how competent was your comprehension of same (which, based on your initial post and now, reply, would suggest you are “seriously left wanting”).

However, if you want me to question your morals, when I think you are promoting a moral argument or have started preaching through your backside, I will happily bring them up.

AS for “So Col how are your morals and can you stand up or run like the rest when pushed.”

Oh, my partner observed, I have made a lifestyle from swimming against the flow. I have no problem in standing up and supporting, alone if need be, what might be the minority view.

In my business dealings I always consider the ethics of agreements I make and do everything to ensure that I conform to the spirit, as well as the wording of contracts and agreements.

So as for “I am standing up when a lot here only talk about problems,”

I think you perceive problems because you just do not understand the process.

Famous saying, “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.”

Since it ain’t broken I have no desire to waste energy in trying to “fix it”.

I will deploy my energies on more important things, like my family.

In a true democracy the public would be able to vote on every issue that is currently handled by parliamentarians - thus having no need for the Parliament at all.

The problem is, who would put forward each motion to be voted on on how would it be debated and so on. Completely unworkable.

The price we have to pay to "make things work" is that we only get to elect one person to represent us every thousand days or so and that's the true extent of our democratic process. The conflict is that the person we vote for is mainly working for a Party system and we vote on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. There is the occasional independent member elected but despite the best of intentions, the system is heavily stacked against them.

No system is perfect but some are fairer than others.

Perhaps the only system that guarantees mutual survival and fair treatment for all is the basic family unit - but hey, that's a type of socialism and nobody wants that anymore, do they?

The Government needs to introduce secret ballots in Parliament like they introduced for Union votes.

That would make every vote potentially a conscience vote and be more democratic.
Unfortunately you would never know how your Local Member voted on any issue.
Imagine the potential for corruption.

It is suprising that col say if it aint broke dont fix it but also says question time is recess or playtime for these so called representatives.

It is quite obvious that something needs to be fixed when if our representatives or so they say decide to play instead of work . Question time is for answers so col since they are just playing one would have to say it is broken but if it isnt broken then these people in government both houses

have no regard for the people
have no respect for the people
treat the people with contempt
treat the people like ignorant idiots.

Col one would also have to say that when or if ever you take your blindfold of and have a look at the real word you would then notice that choice has been cut.

Since you have also said that you always have voted for, and always will vote for the coalition, to you there is nothing else to say.

People in government only have to do what is right and until they decide to stand for what is right we will be dictated to by these corrupt and deceiptive political party dictators.

You can slice it
you can dice it
you can even change the head but underneath it is still the same.

Tapp, I have to agree with Col to a large degree. Take a look at some reruns of Yes Minister. The real power lies with those behind the scenes.

We dont have a dictatorship. We probably dont have democracy in the true sense of the word either, but neither did any communist country get that particular brand of politics spot on. We instead have a system based on democracy, that does a reasonable job of getting things done, but fails to truly represent each individual. Part of that failing is due to sticking to party policy and part is due to the impossibility of representing EVERYONE.

As far as access to members go, I cant comment on the city situation (but city-people seem to dislike contact with others generally, so I can only imagine that contact with your local member is not common). Where I live, the local member grew up here, and can regularly be seen around town, including doing his grocery shopping. Anyone has ample opportunity to approach him (although courtesy would dictate that you did try to discuss work with someone at the supermarket). Where I grew up, the local member supported all community events, was seen everywhere and gave generously to local charity (I was the receipient of a scholarship funded by his wife, as was one og my siblings). When my father saw fit to quit his membership of the Nationals in disgust several years ago (before I got the scholarship incidently), he was quite comfortable ringing the local member to explain exactly why. The same member, one being asked one day by someone driving him between towns as to why he waved to every car that passed. He wanted to make sure that anyone who recognised him felt that he had acknowledged them.

If you dont like your local member, exercise your democratic right and vote for someone else next time.

Good discussion so far. Well done all.

A few points. The dictionary definition of dictatorship may vary slightly from what we have today but the reality is we do not have democracy. For Col, read the dictionary and you will find that what we have is closest to "Oligarchy", not democracy at all. Read and let's hear what you think. Oligarchy is defined as "a political system governed by a few people". Ring a bell anyone?

I fail to see your statement re Tapp's "participation" in a dictatorship as valid. Is he not proposing to represent whatever electorate he may stand in? Instead of a pre ordained vote on every issue? If nobody actually fights from the inside how will it change? Revolution? Coup? Reality check Col.

Gadget, Labor ceased being the people's party as far back as Hawke and probably well before that, like after Gough. You're right about the appearing with children. It is sinister really as the public doing the same would be either foillowed, photographed, investigated or arrested. Perhaps it is as simple though as politicians preferring to appear with only people who don't ask questions or have opinions.

Arjay, when did any candidate for any major Party actually have relevant skills to offer? Skills relevant to what Ministry they might hold or committees they may sit on. The reality here is that it is the public servants and political staff that do all the work, not the politician. They just talk and appear, and vote as ordered. No skills are needed for representing the people in an electorate other than the ability to hear and provide strength in following their wants/needs. Experts are hired for their skills, not politicians. The currently favoured skills are lawyer or union official, both professions being trained liars. Perhaps that is the skill admired by the majors?

Country Gal,

You're part way there. You say we "probably don't have democracy in the true sense of the word". Remove the word probably and you have it.

Your last statement "If you dont like your local member, exercise your democratic right and vote for someone else next time.",

is actually exactly what Tapp is talking about. You don't have a real choice Country Gal. What you, and I, have is a vote for people we don't know, who are selected behind closed doors by generally unkown people for unknown reasons. Independents excepted. The ability to vote does not signify democracy. The USSR had voting too when there was only one candidate. Is that democracy?

Think about it. How many seats have we heard discussed between Lib and Nats where one decides not to run to ensure the other gets in? Democracy? I don't think so. We are treated as sheep. Bahhh.

What many call choice is really a decision about which major party rep they don't want the most. That decision is usually made based on the National Leader's agenda and has nothing to do with any local member. Do you agree? Voting for Labor instead of the Coalition is a devil and the deep blue sea decision. Many of us want neither but ....

Tapp “re No regard, respect and treat people with contempt as though they were ignorant idiots”

Somehow, I think you are either too far off the mark or maybe just too cynical to believe that anyone who has to be tested in elections every three years or so would treat their electorate so disparagingly. Although Latham did seem to fit your description and where is he now?

“Col one would also have to say that when or if ever you take your blindfold of and have a look at the real word you would then notice that choice has been cut.”

Oh my eyes are open and I do live in the real world too.

“People in government only have to do what is right and until they decide to stand for what is right we will be dictated to by these corrupt and deceiptive political party dictators.”

I believe a lot of people elected to government and opposition try to do what is right (although with the opposition I would suggest what they think is right, despite their best intentions, isn’t).

I see a negativity pervading your posts from beginning to end. Not the sort of stuff for anyone who needs to inspire others to vote for them.

Somehow I don’t think we will see you as Prime Minister any time soon but at least you can be assured, the reason you did not get elected is simply because more people voted for some other candidate who they perceived as being better equipped to represent them, in true democratic fashion.

Robbyh “"Oligarchy", not democracy at all.”

You get one vote, I get one vote, that is the process and it is administered by due process of law. That is “democracy”

As Churchill said “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms which have ever been tried”

Robbyh “National decision is usually made based on the National Leader's agenda and has nothing to do with any local member”

If that is what you really think, you are serious wrong.

“National Decisions” are made either as a matter of among others, the following sources

Local and National Party Meetings and conferences
Focus groups, research and polling
Party Manifesto
Parliamentary Party Room Meetings
Cabinet Meetings

And are not just the agenda of the Prime Minister.

I would also observe, we do not have elections for a national leader. In the house of Representatives the liberals selection of a Prime Minister is from the party members qualified to sit in the chamber and the position of LEader is subject to challenge at any time (just ask Peter Costello).

I think similar applies to the Labor party but they are always squabbling so much it is hard to tell who is for who and who is up who most of the time.

So, what’s new? This argument has been around since universal suffrage and no one has done anything about it. Most of the people in Australia, or any other democracy, are not politicians, so why are we allowing so few to do as they wish? The answer is probably that most people are satisfied with their lot.

We “do not have democracy at all”? Nonsense. Tapp needs to settle down and review his definition of democracy. It seems from all of his posts and gabble about his own political “party” that he thinks democracy is a free-for-all.

As for “local members”, they represent their party, not the electorate. Unless you have an independent local member, you will get only the party line and nothing else. Local members are a waste of space and money. We should be voting for a PM and Cabinet only.

We do have democracy. Anyone who denies this should at least define what he or she thinks democracy is before they say we haven’t got it!

In the meantime, the people of Australia have the power to put into government a wide range of people and parties. If there are none at the moment that they want, they do not have to vote for them. Ever thought what would happen if most people showed their dissatisfaction by turning up at the polling both and indicating on the ballot paper that they did not want any of the candidates?

Whatever the problems with our political system, it is in the hands of the Australian people to fix it

Col, please reply having done the reading. National decisions. Let's see. How about funding the Catholic Church to "counsel" on abortion? That's on everyone's list of things to do isn't it? Not. One man's view prevails. Abbott, with Howard's blessing.

Iraq maybe? Anyone else in Australia still think invading was right? Yes, one, John Howard. Yourself Col? Wake up mate, you are being had and you seem to enjoy it. The sources you quote are part of what is described as "consultation". It is a process that crept in over recent decades with good intent. Today it is used to rubber stamp idealogies as you should know only too well. It gives the appearance of consultation and agreement. Appearance Col, not reality, again.

No we don't have elections for a national leader. Did I say we did? Or are you just writing what you think I meant? The latter. Damned if I can find any words in my posts that say what you have written. Your help please?

I will say though that our elections are based on the National Leader's image and agenda rather than the local candidate's. The effect is a Presidential campaign.

Yes a lot of people do intend to do good things for the country. Once elected though they are quickly educated. Vote as we say or you lose preselection. Full stop. Democracy in action. It's the lack of conscience after that education that should be where these well intended people simply say "No. I will vote as my electorate sees fit, not how you or I see things."

"I see a negativity pervading " from Tapp's posts? Have you read your own Col? All you seem to say is "That's no good", or "That won't work", or "Your knowledge is lacking". Negativity? Cast that stone Col, but again, no boomerangs.

You are picking at the edges Col and wasting dicussion that would be useful for all of us. Issues Col, not the man. I can return that favour but it is pointless as you see and feel as you read this.

More to come...

Leigh: "so why are we allowing so few to do as they wish? The answer is probably that most people are satisfied with their lot."

I don't think that most people are satisfied with the "lot" of politicians we have in the circus. Most people simply are too busy and are probably slightly disillutioned with the process. While I do not share the dire pessimism Tapp seems to have, I do think that with only 2 major parties who have the financial support and political machines behind them, choice is limited. you have to essentially pick the one with a policy agenda that is not the worst. Politics as i see it on TV and the media is about personal ambitions, power and hypocrisy. How many of them have genuine concerns of the people. That said, the competition for votes between the 2 parties (plus some minor ones) would serve to provide a better outcome as the politicians play the game of public policy spin, with the sole aim of your vote.

While some commentators have suggested the disgruntled forum participants to stand for election to confirm their democratic rights, I wish to say that without the big brother party support. it might be a daunting task.

Democracy at present is a right to vote for those who manage to get support from significant and active forces in the political arena... potentially big businesses?? "Rights", they certainly are, but the choices are artificially constrained..

RobbyH “One man's view prevails. Abbott, with Howard's blessing.”

Hate to question your maths but that makes two men’s views prevailing. It is illogical for Howard to "bless" (how papal) a view which he would not support.

In fact your whole comment is a nonsense. I would guess, based on the number of congregants of the Church of Rome, that at least a few in the party room would agree too.

RE “I will say though that our elections are based on the National Leader's image and agenda rather than the local candidate's. The effect is a Presidential campaign.”

Any candidate seeking election under the banner of any political party would first support the manifesto of that party. If his/her views were inconsistent with that manifesto, they would need to stand as an independent on their own manifesto.

“Vote as we say or you lose preselection.”
Again if someone cannot remain faithful to the manifesto which they supported on their quest for election, they can sit on the cross benches and certainly, are out of step with the party manifesto and fellow parliamentarians and thus cannot expect pre-selection, leaving them with the right to stand as they want to behave, as an independent.

RE “The effect is a Presidential campaign”
Try your post of 5 Jan “That decision is usually made based on the National Leader's agenda and has nothing to do with any local member.”
I am not going into a semantic debate with you but your claim to a “national leader agenda” is ridiculous. The “National Leader: is elected from among his peers in the party room. Obviously, those elected members are going to support the person they have affinity with in terms of policy etc. as well as personality

As for “Wake up mate, you are being had and you seem to enjoy it.” I neither need or am enriched by your patronizing attitude.

RE “You are picking at the edges Col and wasting dicussion that would be useful for all of us.”

I will leave you to make comments as you see fit and respond as I see fit, that is the point with a public forum.

I would further comment, Country Gal affirmed support for my view, obviously she does not consider I am “wasting discussion”.

So, please resist your desire to dictate what and where I should post, you may find it relieving, I find it base. Similar to someone who breaks wind in mixed company, ultimately I will endeavour to embarrass then into acquiring some manners.

I suggest you confine your responses to what is addressed to you. Tapp is adult, he can respond to my observations of the content of his posts, without your intercession. Answering on someone elses behalf is seen by many as "sycophantic brown-nosing".

“Issues Col, not the man. I can return that favour but it is pointless as you see and feel as you read this.”

I suggest with your patronizing and dictatorial attitude you have already started “playing the man”.

Trust me, If I choose to bother to “response in kind” you will discover I will not be very kind at all.

Oh something I forgot form my previous post, your own negativity and ignorance to parliamentary process is evident from the misconceptions and cynicism you promoted in your post. I cordially suggest you acquire at least some passing knowledge of the topic before you challenge my posts in future.

Remember, debating is a battle of wits, do not come to battle unarmed and expect to leave intact.

Well said Goku. There is a lot wrong and simply turning blind eyes and continuing to elect people we don't want or trust is mindless and results in what we have today.

If rejection of that springs from negativity then so be it. Negativity can be changed through honesty, hope, support and positive criticism rather than the opposite.

I ask all to read what is written and respond to that. You can see how silly other methods are can't you? Independent thought and writing is essential if we do want change and I do.

What is happening on this thread is a normal tactic used by some. To dilute and divert the message. For what purpose? Who knows? I don't but I will make a point of exposing such tactics. I encourage those who don't fall for this rubbish to continue making your own decisions and not following the leader.

For Col.

Semantics? You mean you have no answer.

Condescending? Read your own posts mate. Mine are a response to your own posts.

Sycophantic? Read what I write, not what you think you see. Tapp will speak for himself as he has done. I'm guessing you assess the ability to be a sycophant as someone agreeing with another that doesn't agree with yourself.

Oh dear, Col has threatened me! I guess I should give up posting and run away in awe. Not. Don't come unarmed? Words are weapons Col, blanks aren't effective mate. Use of ancient cliches only makes you look foolish, not anyone else.

I decide what I write, when I write and to whom I write Col. It's called thought. You asked me not to dictate what others say and then proceed to do exactly the same. Huh?

Discuss the topic Col. Puhleeez!

For Col

Here i am Col it just shows how ignorant you are to the voice of the people and there concerns.
now lets see when you have finished playtime are you going to answer the quetions brought up in the initial discussion.
If not there really is no need for your parlimentary crap so keep to the initial discussion.

Now lets have a look brown nosing one would say that Leigh is doing what you are saying if anyone agrees with me so it seems that there are more who wish to side step the questions than answer.

Now Col I have a constitution and working one my platform as you keep bring up manifesto which is not used here in australia but by many communist leaders it would be assumed that The coalitions comunist manifisto is what you agree too as you have said " I always have and always will vote for the coalition" or words to that effect.

So Col if you have difficulty answer questions dont bother.
This is about debate but since you are not bothered with the initial questions you are really not interested in debate.

Since you have brought it up as well another question which needs to be answer besides the others what is the manifesto of your coalition Col.

Freethinker wrote:

"Most of our lives are controlled in one way or another if we allow them to be - tv, radio, advertising, politicians etc.

We live in an interesting 'Matrix' type world, where we actually believe that we have freedom but our freedoms are controlled by the powers that be."

Australian Intellectual Clive Hamilton believes our identities are defined by the influence market forces have on our consumption behaviour, resulting in new forms of exploitation and loss of an authentic, liberated self identity:

“Socialism emphasised the relationship of individuals to means of production. Today it is not production but consumption that is the key, in particular the relationships of individuals to the goods they buy and the influence of marketing in the formation of those relationships." (Quarterly Essay 21/2006)

A marketing student myself, I have reason to be sceptical of
Clive Hamilton's claim that "liberation" from marketing-influenced consumption is the key to self-control, rather than "equal rights" in the participation of production.

It’s not just political ideology emphasising the relationship of individuals to means of production. Consider the discipline of Project Management:

Since workforces have become team (project) oriented, instead of permanent job title oriented, it’s worth noting that “controls” occur throughout project lifecycles to manage activities, interactions and transitions (from one phase of the project to the next).

Do you control the projects you work on or do the projects control you?

It is rather ironic that I can put this question to you after studying Project Management as part of my "marketing course", while also learning how to exploit your consumption behaviour and ultimately deny you from achieving a self-controlled, authentic, liberated identity :)

Be careful how you separately analyse different production and consumption games.

“It’s easy to fall into the trap of analysing these separate games in isolation, imagining that there’s no larger game.” (Brandenburger, Nalebuff. ‘Co-Opetition’. 1996 Currency Doubleday)

Understanding, playing off and changing links between games are “the levers of strategy”. The key to self-control in the 21st century is to “master strategic thinking”. Understanding politics is only part of this task.

…From Justin

In Western Australia, the politicians have democracy, the public do not.
The Labor politicians give the people referendums then when the result is known, the politicians go the other way.
In other words, they get the results they want by riding roughshod over the electorate.
Generally this is a symptom of holding power too long.
Referendums should mean something,they should be respected as being the result of the people's needs and wants.
When political parties show no respect for their electorate,their employers, they generally get what they deserve.
So by being undemocratic they give us the chance to prove that we do not live in a dictatorship.

Tapp “Here i am Col it just shows how ignorant you are to the voice of the people and there concerns.”

How paternalistic of you, I challenge you to a moderated debate on almost any topic. I would even go as far as to suggest you decide if you are in favour or against an issue and regardless of the issue, I will give better account of myself in either defending or assailing the position than you.

I have purposely ignored the baseless ramblings of your lap dog, RobbyH, I suggest make sure he has more ruffage in his feeding bowl, he writes as if he is just so constipated.

“This is about debate but since you are not bothered with the initial questions you are really not interested in debate.”

I have challenged various misconceptions and misrepresentations you and your pet have presented with brief but adequate description of real-world process and procedure.

Your negativity now descends into aggression toward those of us who exercise our democratic right to challenge or oppose your view.

Again, a behavioral style completely unsuited to anyone who wants to be taken seriously in seeking public election or office.

As for “what is the manifesto of your coalition Col.”

If you had any ability and googled “liberal national manifesto” you would find listed

http://www.liberal.org.au/default.cfm?action=2004_policy

Now maybe we could see a similar document for tapp,

I googled “the australian people party manifesto” and found stuff all for “TAPP”.

As the wise counsel said, “be prepared to ask of others only what you can do yourself or risk being called inadequate”.

So take your whine and asinine quasi-theories of the ignorant and insecure and try to stand for public office.

That is my challenge to you!

Publish something and I will happily shred it in review

Hold a public meeting and if geographically convenient, I will attend and run your sorry ass off the stage with direct challenges to your manifesto.

My support of free speech is based on the truth: that idiots declare themselves through their own words.

So declare yourself Tapp!

Now Col I have a constitution and working one my platform as you keep bring up manifesto which is not used here in australia but by many communist leaders it would be assumed that The coalitions comunist manifisto is what you agree too as you have said " I always have and always will vote for the coalition" or words to that effect.

So Col if you have difficulty answer questions dont bother.
This is about debate but since you are not bothered with the initial questions you are really not interested in debate.

So Col since you didnt really bother to read my post here is part again
You will notice that i said i was working on my platform but have my constitution.

I may not have a web site yet but will come.

I see the manifesto of the liberal party is what they used from the previous election.

I can see you are talking about up and comming so col where is this new way or do we have to wait for the US to make the descision.

If you do not wish to fully answer my questions so be it how about making your own discussion and i will attempt in the same fashion to answer yours as you have to mine.

I am not scared of your tactics or any other party.
As I have said i will be running at the next federal election.

I stand for all who are disgruntled and see that they dont get a fair go.

Can I throw in a spanner in the works?
You are all right, so how about put all knowledge into one melting pot and divide it equally.No winners and no losers.
Here is my point to be thrown amongst you-all.
Present day countries/parties are run by Companies. (International and/or local ones.)
If all people could only think of themselves as part of one company with a vested interest in their own future with all survival techniques (voted on) than there is no more use for those blasted party systems which only look after the favourites.
Company policy is peoples policy and not a rule of the few.It could take care of private co's distruction of taxhavens and set "healthy" health department rules for all (again voted on by people) for starters. Study any company and apply enmass.
Any comments?

Yes good call

it seems that these parties that hold office do recieve large amounts of money and also have their own corporations behind the scenes.

Now i disagree with what they have done and are doing.

give me a call email swulrich@bigpond.net.au

tell me more

Tapp “not bothered with the initial questions you are really not interested in debate.”

Asked and answered, repetition is not a good trait for anyone who expects to impress an audience of electors.

“I see the manifesto of the liberal party is what they used from the previous election.”

Generally published prior to a general election, I would have thought someone who expects to stand would have realized that already – you do need to brush up on your “process”.

“I am not scared of your tactics or any other party.”

I speak as a private individual, not a political party. Actually, whilst my voting preference is Liberal, I am not a member. Maybe I should join, swell the numbers of the rank and file.

I have declared my tactics. I am feeling rather smug about one of them too.

“My support of free speech is based on the truth: that idiots declare themselves through their own words.”

Is certainly shaping up to be a winner.

“As I have said i will be running at the next federal election.”

As is your right and I full expect you will loose your deposit

“I stand for all who are disgruntled and see that they dont get a fair go.”

Maybe that would be a catchier name “The Fair Go party for the stout hearted under-trodden“

or better still “the disgruntled party”

eftfnc “Study any company and apply enmass.
Any comments?”

Couple of points

People pay for shares,

I pay taxes others do not pay the same amount as me. Some seem to think the shares they own are something which they just have to put their hand out for, instead of working.

Some share holders prefer to exercise thrift, saving their dividends for reinvestment, others just blow every dollar they can.

My point, companies hold a common objective. Electorates don’t.
The success of Democracy is to govern but not to impose a common objective on everyone. Leaving everyone to decide how thrifty or how profligate they want to be and the electorate to bear the consequences of their own decisions.

The success of Democracy is to govern but not to impose a common objective on everyone.

Well we can see that the liberal party is not democratic as trying to impose anti abortian and religion on everyone.
Then Iraq imposing democracy interesting or to govern.

Another thing you say where is my platform but then the coalition does not have one but you give an excuse of the previous election.

At the rate the liberal and labor party are going why dont they just change to the in god we trust party and kiss the US a bit more.

As at the rate the liberals are doing this australia will not be an nation but a state of america.

At least i am not here to whin but to try for change, you also need to instill a bit more heart into your bullying. So still not scared of your pathetic liberal tactics to attempt to disrupt what i am doing.

As a matter of fact the more people like you try the stronger this party gets and makes me more determined to succeed.

So you see whether i win or lose i have already won by my achievements, and that you or anyone else can take.

Whether you like it or not Col i couldnt care so keep going with you bullying tactics thats ok, seen worse.

I am standing up for something that i believe in and you or nobody can take that away.

Tapp,

You are still making some very wild statements. You a say that the “liberal (sic) party is not democratic as to imposing anti-abortian (sic) and religion on everyone”.

Absolute rubbish, and if you don’t know that, you have one hell of a cheek suggesting that the Australian Peoples’ Party (I think you call it) has anything to offer.

Even if your ridiculous claims were true, you still have the democratic right to vote for something more to your liking.

Your ravings are becoming more and more absurd, and the more sensible people try to argue with you, the sillier your responses become, and the wilder and less coherent you English expression is.

You are making a fool of yourself, Tapp. Try taking up something you can do with your hands.

from Col The success of Democracy is to govern but not to impose a common objective on everyone.

Well we can see that the liberal party is not democratic as trying to impose anti abortion and religion on everyone.
Then Iraq imposing democracy interesting or to govern.

So people yes can vote but when government kneels to those and use what was it 51 million dollars to reduce abortions one would have to say this money would be better spent on schools than the whims of a bible basher.

State and religion do not belong together as you end up with a stupid waste of tax payers money.

leigh
Even if your ridiculous claims were true, you still have the democratic right to vote for something more to your liking.
You are making a fool of yourself, Tapp. Try taking up something you can do with your hands.

I cannot open your eyes but maybe you should ask around
A fool would be those that take the people for granted re question time as Col said its only recess/playtime.
It seems that the more determined i become the more viscious you will.
Ill dont need to take something up my line is already drawn just like my cards, it is you clutching for excuses.

I am not here for excuses like you but solutions to real problems that need fixing not just bandaids.

I have neglected to check this discussion for a little while, but have found it hasnt progressed any further than a few days ago.

We do have a democracy, just not the text-book definition of. The fewer political changes (read parties winning government) that we have, the more stable our country is. Yes, it does mean that we then tend to vote on a lesser of two evils basis. However, the last few elections that we have had, there have been umpteen numbers of candiates and obscure parties vying for votes. Anyone can vote for these if they so desire. I assume, given the results, that this is not what people desire! Educate people to vote fully rather than giving away preferences, and you will further enhance the democratic process. I always vote below the line for the upper house, so that I get MY say in who gets elected.

The growing number of independents indicates that democracy is alive, even if its got a head-cold. "Mavericks" like Joyce are also a breath of fresh air, even if he will toe the party-line eventually.

The libs and nationals usually do not compete, because where-ever one party holds the seat, the other is unlikely to get in anyway. And so what - they might as well be one and the same most of the time.

Actually the party-line thing serves as great amusement, when watching someone like Peter Garrett get interviewed over party policies that conflict with his own views. Now thats comedy!

Well said, Country Gal. Fitting comments to finish off what would have been finished earlier had not Tapp been such a goose. He is the only one who could possibly find anything else to say.

We should, I suppose, be thankful that there is only one like him. We should also be thankful that we have what we do have, and not what he thinks we should have - whatever that is. I don't know what he is blathering about.

If we all advised our current crop of dim-witted politicians (all brands) that we would vote only for those who put a population policy in place which would gradually reduce our population to its sustainable level of about 13 million, there would no need for a discussion of this kind.

I'm not a member of any political party, but I agree with Nick Ferrett's response. The ALP, particularly under Beazley, is more interested in 'selling' its policies to the electorate than it is in listening to what the electorate wants in the way of policies.
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 20 March 2006 11:27:40 AM

for this part CG well said i did very much like this part as i found an understanding but not leighs.Country Girl i do see where you are comming from and as being originaly from orange it is good to see that this is happening out there.
-
The libs and nationals usually do not compete, because where-ever one party holds the seat, the other is unlikely to get in anyway. And so what - they might as well be one and the same most of the time.

Actually the party-line thing serves as great amusement, when watching someone like Peter Garrett get interviewed over party policies that conflict with his own views. Now thats comedy!
No CG you are right about that
-
Now leigh you may have not noticed but have answers questions maybe you should open your eyes but here is a piece of Cols

from Col The success of Democracy is to govern but not to impose a common objective on everyone.

Well we can see that the liberal party is not democratic as trying to impose anti abortion and religion on everyone.
Then Iraq imposing democracy interesting or to govern.
One should also look at the gay and lesbian community as they have also been imposed on.
So this would be deemed as a type of dictorship.
Also re platforms and where do i stand read Cols and you will find that i am no goose just reply with comment.

Tapp I noticed you are starting to repeat your statements. I know I occasionally quite deliberately quote myself but concerning your last two posts

Re
9 January 2007 10:37:47 AM
“Well we can see that the liberal party is not democratic as trying to impose anti abortion and religion on everyone.
Then Iraq imposing democracy interesting or to govern.”

And again

9 January 2007 6:21:06 PM
“Well we can see that the liberal party is not democratic as trying to impose anti abortion and religion on everyone.
Then Iraq imposing democracy interesting or to govern.”

And actually I am still trying to work out what the first

“Then Iraq imposing democracy interesting or to govern”

And

“Now leigh you may have not noticed but have answers questions maybe you should open your eyes but here is a piece of Cols”

Please Translate

Are you taking English language lessons from MichaelK?

It seems to me running off with phrases like “If we all advised our current crop of dim-witted politicians..”

should you manage to get elected, based on your abuse of English, you would be indistinguishable from the other “dim-witted politicians”.

Country Girl “We do have a democracy, just not the text-book definition of.”

I agree with you. We do have a democracy.

A democracy does not come from a text book. Democracy is a practical and organic system of pragmatic government which respond to prevailing circumstances and most important of all, the desires of the electorate.

The great thing with a democracy is that it is not fixed, like dictatorships and communism were fixed and unyielding. A democracy can change and will only change by the will of the people (constitutional referendums). OK some folk, like Tapp, are negative about it but they have to learn that since they are the minority, their support for democracy means they are required accept that “their view will not prevail” because “it is not the majority view”.

Tapp “IS AUSTRALIAN POLITICS REALLY DEMOCRATIC OR JUST A DICTATORSHIP”

“Australia is a democracy”
You have failed to convince us to your minority view

Tapp “IS AUSTRALIAN POLITICS REALLY DEMOCRATIC OR JUST A DICTATORSHIP”

Well Col you still havnt conviced me that the australian people believe you.
Oh another thing maybe you should re read some of those phrases which you would find is your mates Leigh.

I had asked the question on what i have heard, seen and what people say.

Well Col regards to this

9 January 2007 6:21:06 PM
“Well we can see that the liberal party is not democratic as trying to impose anti abortion and religion on everyone.
Then Iraq imposing democracy interesting or to govern.”

And actually I am still trying to work out what the first

“Then Iraq imposing democracy interesting or to govern”

This was repeated due to the inability of leigh to understand why this was written due to this statement of yours.

9 January 2007 6:21:06 PM
“Well we can see that the liberal party is not democratic as trying to impose anti abortion and religion on everyone.
Also the gay and lesbian community
Then Iraq imposing democracy interesting or to govern.”

The success of Democracy is to govern but not to impose a common objective on everyone.

So by this statement of yours you havnt convinced me or those within these communities that it is not a dictatorship.

Tapp the point with your statement ““Then Iraq imposing democracy interesting or to govern””

It is unintelligible, it has no reasoned meaning because you have written it in the “style” of Michaelk , in other words devoid of the normal rules of English grammar.

Oh and its origin. YOUR POST. No one elses. Now if you expect to stand any serious chance of getting elected, I suggest you get someone else to proof read your publicity material, pamphlets and speeches or you will be deep in the doggie doo.

“So by this statement of yours you havnt convinced me or those within these communities that it is not a dictatorship. “

I don’t think you know how well or otherwise your or my view is regarded here at the forum.

As for my view, I seek no public office for which I need to impress anyone, if people choose to think similarly to me, that is up to them.

My future is not staked on the success or otherwise of a political circus which, by all appearances is lacking the vital role of ring master

Tapp,

The first paragraph was actually posted on Tues. 9th January 2007, NOT on Mon. 20th March as you state.

What other incorrect information are you spreading, one wonders.

Did you get the second wrong, too? I don’t remember posting that one.

However, I know about the first post you reproduced, and while I cannot remember the second, it does sound like me. But, what is the point of displaying them? Neither has any relevance to your ratty ravings. If you think that my contempt for Australia’s current political gangs opens the way for your rubbish, you are more seriously deluded than I thought.

“Now leigh you may have not noticed but have answers questions maybe you should open your eyes but here is a piece of Cols”.

It’s no use asking you to explain what that gibberish means, or you wouldn’t have uttered it in the first place.

I think that the best thing I can do for you, Tapp, is to ignore your posts in the future. I truly sympathise with the condition you have which apparently makes you believe that you are talking sense

Well we can see that the liberal party is not democratic as trying to impose anti abortion and religion on everyone.
Then Iraq imposing democracy interesting or to govern.”

And actually I am still trying to work out what the first

STATEMENT BY COL
The success of Democracy is to govern but not to impose a common objective on everyone.

TAPPS RESPONSE
Well we can see that the liberal party is not democratic as trying to impose anti abortion and religion on everyone.
Also the gay and lesbian community

THIS IS AN STATEMENT THAT WAS WRITTEN BY COL OR LEIGH IN ANOTHER ARTICLE WHICH I AM STILL TRYING TO RELOCATE FRO ANOTHER DISCUSSION
Then Iraq imposing democracy interesting or to govern.

So by this statement of yours you havnt convinced me or those within these communities that it is not a dictatorship.

LEIGH
You are still making some very wild statements. You a say that the “liberal (sic) party is not democratic as to imposing anti-abortian (sic) and religion on everyone”.

Absolute rubbish, and if you don’t know that, you have one hell of a cheek suggesting that the Australian Peoples’ Party (I think you call it) has anything to offer.

Even if your ridiculous claims were true, you still have the democratic right to vote for something more to your liking.

Hello Leigh obviously living in the world of Col and yourself.
You are right about one thing your statement of absolute rubbish is what you have written.
Ridiculous claim, not claims fact
Abortion,ru486
Gay and lesbian community

If you can say these people are not being dictated do and they are free as people to not be dictated to then abortion is ok
the gay and lesbian community are allowed to be married by whoever they chose.

I know that you cannot answer these as you know there is a dictatorship and as col has mentioned in other posts its only 2 minutes between

WELL COL AND LEIGH YOUR 2 MINUTES ARE UP

“Hello Leigh obviously living in the world of Col and yourself.”

As far as Australia is concerned, Leigh, me and about 20 million others. Oh I know you will find a few loons to support your stance but the vast majority of Australians think similar to Leigh and I.

As for “I know that you cannot answer these as you know there is a dictatorship and as col has mentioned in other posts its only 2 minutes between”

And “THIS IS AN STATEMENT THAT WAS WRITTEN BY COL OR LEIGH IN ANOTHER ARTICLE WHICH I AM STILL TRYING TO RELOCATE FRO ANOTHER DISCUSSION”

You know tapp, if you want to quote people, do as I do, quote them and include references to the quote (thread, poster, date etc) as it is, you have not quoted me but paraphrased me and implied a different meaning in the rewrite.

No wonder you are having trouble finding the origin to your statement (as you kindly stated in capitals and I quoted verbatim above)

“Then Iraq imposing democracy interesting or to govern”.
You probably paraphrased that and stuffed up the grammar in your reconstruction.

I am glad of one thing, you do not participate in the structuring of legislation which effects the rest of us, otherwise we would likely find the baby bonus reconstructed into subsidising incontinence pads.

I note you also mentioned RU486, that is appropriate, one thing you are doing here amounts to aborting your cause.

As for “WELL COL AND LEIGH YOUR 2 MINUTES ARE UP”

1 your rewrite of my statement is demented and garbled
2 The 2 minutes is misapplied
3 I do not recall anyone authorizing you to stand over me with a stop watch
I have been known, on many occasions, to tell those who attempt to usurp or presume authority which they do not possess to take, in this case a stopwatch, and jam it up their fundamental orifice.
4 If I were you, thank your lucky stars my imagination extends to a stopwatch, it is a lot less rectally demanding than imagining a grandfather clock.

Tapp, count me in with Col and Leigh. Sorry, but we have a democracy. So now its 3:1. Better just accept that you are in the minority (which incidentally LOSES in a democracy)

Hi Leigh with regard to that phrase i do appologise to you after 779 posts.

What did amaze me as why you have not emailed me .
I had agreed on much and times had a good laugh and disagreed as well.
We do agree on religion does not belong in politics

and there is require a real change.
If you wish the constitution and actually know more
about me email swulrich@bigpond.net.au.
Now you either will or you wont that is you choice, but also saying we need a good choice to replace these two and you dont email then it is you who is wingeing not me you actually do have a good choice.

I have also inseted the definition of undemocratic which one could say would lead to dictatorship.

Main Entry: un•dem•o•crat•ic
Pronunciation: "&n-"de-m&-'kra-tik
Function: adjective
: not democratic : not agreeing with democratic practice or ideals
- un•dem•o•crat•i•cal•ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/

One would find that by this and my heading which is
IS AUSTRALIAN POLICS REALLY DEMOCRATIC OR A DICTATORSHIP

I HAD FOUND THAT YOU HAVE STATED TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT POLITICAL POLICY IS UNDEMOCRATIC WHICH HAS BEEN FORCED UPON US.

And as Col has said there is only 2 minutes between democracy and undemocracy.
If something is forced is this undemocratic, dictator, dictatorship.

It is hoped that i do here from you Leigh and then you can way what is said. This document is 11 pages long your choice.

I have found that since Leigh, Col and country Gal all agree with one another as also stated that the 20 million other Australians also agree with then do agree about having an undemocratic Political System in Australia.

One would also have to say that this amount to a benevolent dictatorship which is stated by Leigh.
So Is Australian Politics really democratic or a dictatorship

Well this has be answered

AUSTRALIAN POLITICS IS UNDEMOCRATIC AND IS A BENEVOLENT DICTATORSHIP

This is part of an article posted by Col see Ref

As far as Australia is concerned, Leigh, me and about 20 million others. Oh I know you will find a few loons to support your stance but the vast majority of Australians think similar to Leigh and I.
Ref: Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 10 January 2007 2:11:03 PM

Tapp, count me in with Col and Leigh. Sorry, but we have a democracy. So now its 3:1. Better just accept that you are in the minority (which incidentally LOSES in a democracy)
Posted by Country Gal, Wednesday, 10 January 2007 2:57:41 PM

From Leigh

The draconian gun laws are a croc, as any one who thought about it at the time knew. Criminals are still out there with guns, killing, robbing and threatening. Nothing has changed.

Our politicians have once again fooled dopey citizens into thinking that they (politicians) were doing something to protect them, while merely wasting public money for nothing.

Unless Australians wake up to the fact that we have a benevolent dictatorship, they will wake up one day to find that the benevolence has gone.

Think about the real reason for disarming the population!
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 9:31:54 AM

In general, a nice piece summing up why it is good to be Australian and live in Australia.

It's a pity about the undemocratic enforcement of the silly and dangerous policy of multiculturalism, though.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 15 September 2006 10:03:58 AM

APP a people orientated democratic political party you only have to email.

The choice is up to you

Email: swulrich@bigpond.net.au

Tapp “And as Col has said there is only 2 minutes between democracy and undemocracy.
If something is forced is this undemocratic, dictator, dictatorship.”

I said no such thing.

I will paraphrase what I did say.

If we imagine the extent of political spectrum as a clock face.

on the hour, a 00 minutes we have a democracy

To the left, 29 minutes to the hour (hour:31 minutes) we have communism
To the right, 29 minutes past the hour (hour:29 minutes) we have fascism.

Represented on the face of a clock, there are 29 MINUTES between democracy and the dictatorship of the left or the dictatorship of the right.

As joint opponents of democracy, it is communism and fascism which appear only 2 minutes apart.

The policies of Australian Liberalism, US democrats and republicans are around a few minutes past the hour and the socialist at around (I think I said) 10 minutes to the hour.

If that is a sample of your interpretive reasoning ability, then no wonder you are getting in a pickle Tapp and you expect to replace one of “our current crop of dim-witted politicians”?

I wonder how many other misconceptions and misrepresentations will be laid out in the Tapp manifesto if we ever see it published.

IN REGARDS TO THAT COMMENT I HAD RE READ IT AND DO APOLOGISE IT SEEMS THAT THIS SOMETHING THAT I AM ABLE TO DO .

This was only brought up to change the subject as you have found yourself now in a position of being not only a hypocrite, but also being unable to to say ok you one this time.

You are also given that since you have not replied as to

Australian Politics is really undemocratic and a benevolent dictatorship why now should anyone believe what the three of you have to say.

THE FOLLOWING IS PART OF ARTICLE FROM EARLIER STAGES OF THIS DISCUSSION.

I don’t think you know how well or otherwise your or my view is regarded here at the forum.

As for my view, I seek no public office for which I need to impress anyone, if people choose to think similarly to me, that is up to them.

My future is not staked on the success or otherwise of a political circus which, by all appearances is lacking the vital role of ring master
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 10 January 2007 8:09:59 AM

Now Col as for those who disagree or agree they can see if those who state even by their own words are not able to say they agree, then how can anyone take any view that you post seriously.

As for you think i am here to impress people, for that you are very mistaken.

This discussion has been answered and the answer is;

AUSTRALIAN POLITICS IS UNDEMOCRATIC AND IS A BENEVOLENT DICTATORSHIP.

“IN REGARDS TO THAT COMMENT I HAD RE READ…”

In the absence of being addressed specifically, I assume you are writing to me.

My comments of the clock face were brought up to correct your gross misrepresentation of what I said. It is an ingrained habit of mine to correct those who corrupt or misrepresent what I do or say.

Regarding “Now Col as for those who disagree or agree they can see if those who state even by their own words are not able to say they agree, then how can anyone take any view that you post seriously.”

My problem with that sentence is, it lacks the grammatical discipline which might make it otherwise, intelligible. Re-write it in English and I will endeavour to answer.

“This discussion has been answered and the answer is;

AUSTRALIAN POLITICS IS UNDEMOCRATIC AND IS A BENEVOLENT DICTATORSHIP.”

It is undemocratic for you to presume a unilateral right to declare the discussion is concluded and that question conclusively answered.

Although I think we might be running out of steam to bother, I would remind you that

A democracy is never a fixed set of immobile sytems but a series of changing responses to general principles and values.

"Democracy in action" is a moving feast.

That is why I use, for myself, the clock face as a mental prompt to plot where peoples views seem to lay.

That is why I see Australian liberalism and US democrats a few minutes to the right of “pure democracy” and the US republicans a minute or two more to the right and the forces of communism and fascism as diametrically opposed to democracy.

I would fully expect your views swing from 20 minutes to the hour and 20 minutes past the hour, depending on your emotional state at any moment.

Finally,

“As for you think i am here to impress people, for that you are very mistaken.”

Well congratulations, you can mark up that as a success. You have failed to impress anyone.

For Col

As i have said i am not here to impress anyone as implied by a previous comment of yours

You,leigh and country Gal had all agreed with each other so as to your agreement then you had to agree as to Leighs comments.

These comments which are black and white not gray as you would wish.

Australian Politics is undemocratic and a Benevolent Dictatorship.

It doesnt matter how you try to slice i did take the time to read Leighs 779 posts and this is what he agreed to.

Oh your posts i will go through this weekend which should make for good discussion on monday.

Those who read this will find that you will either break ties with Leigh for his comments regarding undemocratic policy and benevolent dictatorship, or of course there is the backfip.

I for one have been hearing many public comments around about this undemocratic behaviour in politics and people are calling a dictatorship so it seems that 20 million people are in aggreement about the state of political curruption,deception and all around couldnt care for the people.

It should be beneficial that high school students now have to study government.

What about the dictators in the media? When they don't like a candidate's views (right of centre) they are labeled populist. When the left of centre behave similarly it is a valid grass roots initiative.

I couldn't understand how populism was a bad thing when I studied government but I have learned, the majority isn't always right they are just the winners of the debate. Latest example is the media beat up over P platers. While it is illegal to sell investments using statistics from one or two years the media is quite happy to beat up more fear and stigmatising of a group. Now it is P platers having tired of Cronulla dwellers, 4WD owners, Mt Druitt students, V8 owners, firearm owners, Christians, jet ski owners, and certain dog owners. However, a replay is always good for circulation something akin to a Hollywood sequel. Unless Nicole is visiting Sydney then the important public announcement can wait for a slow news day.

How about equal treatment under the law? After all isn't Australia the freest country in the world? If the proposed discriminatory laws are justifiable for young adults how can one argue against applying them across the board.

The electorate has proven they are happy enough to trade off someone else's freedoms as long as they are OK Jack.

The thread question: democracy vs dictatorship...do we have either, or?

Manning Clark had said it thus ( and I paraphrase him) " Australia is nothing more than an autocratic, monarchic state..."

So to Crown Policy since Arthur Phillip dropped anchor off Camp Cove...'divide and conquer' - it's still happening today as we blog folks, and it won't change until the reality dawns on the masses and another political entity emerges to supplant the current two party abused system of voting. An entity, group or otherwise popular 'party' that poses a real threat to counter the CLP/ALP in all things.

But wait a minute, Hanson & Ettridge, weren't they gaoled for electoral fraud initially? That scenario is how the 'Crown' will likely react again if another party dares raise its head above the parapets without first doing its homework. That was 'democracy' in action (sorry 'inaction') in Australia. Unless you actually read through the court transcripts and gleaned out who the actual villians really were, most Stralians were happy to swallow the media interpretation of the whole sad event and accept it as 'truth' whilst the Crown spun out its lies and vomit.

Rum Rebellions... just keep the masses subdued and happy on Bundy & Cokes, Jim Beams, XXXX etc. Don't raise the price of petrol, smokes & grog too drastically, and they'll happily follow you over the hill to oblivion...how tragic, how historic.

Cowboy Joe
you do raise some very good points and yes in agreement
It seems that the media likes to beat up what it wants us to know and nothing more.

Albie Manton in Darwin
The points you raise are quite good and what the people think.

The thread question: democracy vs dictatorship...do we have either, or?

Manning Clark had said it thus ( and I paraphrase him) " Australia is nothing more than an autocratic, monarchic state..."

But remember the question was in regards to Australian Politics itself.

Also what this party is about has not reference to any other.

What I have done is given you the oppertunity to email, not to be force or stacked so really the choice for more about this is up to you and there is no strings attached, and you might just find this isnt weird or wacky but very straight forward by a person to the people. The only thing I ask, is for you to be honest and with my reply it will be clear.

Thank You

Email: swulrich@bigpond.net.au

Tapp “Those who read this will find that you will either break ties with Leigh for his comments regarding undemocratic policy and benevolent dictatorship, or of course there is the backfip.”

I agree with many things many people say and disagree with many more. I often agree a lot with some people but rarely agree on everything they hold a view to.

I have yet to find anywhere in this thread where I would need to “break ties” with Leigh for what he has said on this thread.

You are probably rewriting something Leigh or someone with a name like “Leigh” might have said somewhere else, converted it into your words which, we have seen from your attempts at quoting me, produce a farcical misrepresentation and corruption.

I would note Country Gal has openly agreed with me.
I read Leigh believes we do have a democracy, as do I, without either of us confirming agreement with the other and without our definitions necessarily being in complete agreement.

So whatever “ties” you think bind us are mythical. It merely confirms my view of “Democracy” and Australia being one.

“The success of Democracy is to govern but not to impose a common objective on everyone.”

The “common objective” would be the state declaring the how, what, where and when of everything. That is a dictatorship.

It can be seen in communism and fascism. The individual is suborned and the faceless, soulless, caringless State; which determines and decrees everything.

By your free dissent with the Australian government of the day, here, confirms that government as Democratic. If you were to criticize the government in China, a dictatorship still (although one which is slowly moving toward democracy), you would be in jail. You would not have free access to any internet site in the world which took your fancy. You would not be able to practice your religion. A few years ago, you would not have been allowed to have a thought of your own.

As dearest Margaret, said “Of course it's the same old story. Truth usually is the same old story.”

Facts are Facts and Truth wins always

I have found that since Leigh, Col and country Gal all agree with one another as also stated that the 20 million other Australians also agree with then that be do agree about having an undemocratic Political System in Australia.

One would also have to say that this amount to a benevolent dictatorship which is stated by Leigh.
So Is Australian Politics really democratic or a dictatorship

Well this has be answered

AUSTRALIAN POLITICS IS UNDEMOCRATIC AND IS A BENEVOLENT DICTATORSHIP

This is part of an article posted by Col see Ref

As far as Australia is concerned, Leigh, me and about 20 million others. Oh I know you will find a few loons to support your stance but the vast majority of Australians think similar to Leigh and I.

Ref: Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 10 January 2007 2:11:03 PM

Tapp, count me in with Col and Leigh. Sorry, but we have a democracy. So now its 3:1. Better just accept that you are in the minority (which incidentally LOSES in a democracy)
Posted by Country Gal, Wednesday, 10 January 2007 2:57:41 PM

From Leigh

The draconian gun laws are a croc, as any one who thought about it at the time knew. Criminals are still out there with guns, killing, robbing and threatening. Nothing has changed.

Our politicians have once again fooled dopey citizens into thinking that they (politicians) were doing something to protect them, while merely wasting public money for nothing.

Unless Australians wake up to the fact that we have a benevolent dictatorship, they will wake up one day to find that the benevolence has gone.

Think about the real reason for disarming the population!
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 9:31:54 AM

In general, a nice piece summing up why it is good to be Australian and live in Australia.

It's a pity about the undemocratic enforcement of the silly and dangerous policy of multiculturalism, though.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 15 September 2006 10:03:58 AM

Re: The Disarming of Australia, Google or otherwise research a Dr Rebecca Peters et al, and see her magnum opus in the form of actions taken by the Howard government - post Port Arthur , the lead up, and its aftermath. What did the Great Gun Buyback really achieve?

Where is she today? But back to the topic...

It has been said that divide and conquer is more the action of an imperialist entity, but could be construed as being one among many in an armoury of 'mechanisms' used by communists to achieve their goals as well.

From a scriptural perspective, yet another observer might say it was a sign of the final days, a symptom of the underlying disease afflicting us world wide, but being played out in our own backyard. Is this the reason for the increase of followers of Hillsongs and their ilk - to counter the upsurge in Islamism in a sense?

Is it more the case of a new crusade being waged on too many fronts, in the hope some confusion will allow disarray amongst the populace generally and thereby the opportunity for a New world Order to come into play?

To am did read that and yes where does that put australian politics but people dont want change a change which means better outcomes and not just at election time

AT LEAST I TRIED.

Hi Albie,

I posted with you a couple of years back on the NT News "CLP" site which is now Labor.I left Darwin some years back for here (still tropical though mate).

Your words sound like you may have similar views to a number on this thread. Contact is available if you are interested. Australia needs more people like you and us to speak up and oppose the Party hacks like Col. He'd be sitting in a office somewhere paid for by the taxpayer under Howard and thinks he is presenting an opinion. The rest of us know what it actually is. Spin direct from his masters.

Also directly from George. Howard doesn't have a policy other than what George says. Care to praise the Free trade agreement right now Col? Howard's End is near and I'm guessing he'll see the writing on the wall, suddenly retire, at our expense for the rest of his pathetic life and blame Costelloe for the coming loss.

Who ya gonna vote for then Col? Yourself? You sit on your backside writing spin and do nothing. You're welcome to your opinion, but I for one, will not defend your right in that regard as you are less than honest.

Go ahead. Ask for removal of my post. I'll just reword it and continue to expose what you and others like you, in both Parties are. Barrackers, nothing more, not thinkers or free Australians, followers for the $ right?

Note Britain's wind back. George is running out of mates isn't he. Getting down to lap dog Johnny what? And youself of course.

As Tapp wrote. He's having a go and you are not.

Col. It is simply amusing to see your endless and pointless diatribes. Remember where you stated your votes have always been Coalition? And you obey as he gets us to pay for his holidays.

Try the "Howard's paying his way" rubbish. He ain't and it seems you are amongst the few willing to keep supporting his BS.

Try the "he's offered to pay his hotel bill and a domestic airfare." Bet it's economy. Forget the hundreds of thousands the Raaf and the taxpayers put up for his jaunt. Enough is enough.

As to your completely offensive remark to Tapp re mental health and emotions. You simply display your ignorance and that of your masters. Or perhaps you don't think at all mate. You need an independent brain to feel the emotions of real life. Publish your real details and let's have your words combed through by the appropriate authority. No response coming there is there?

Wait for the "leftie" tag. Wrong again Col. Pre empting your next post so ask someone else what to write OK?

Want some facts on Australia's "evenly balanced education system"? I suspect not. The facts are that the Australian government spends 32% of the budget on public education leaving 68% to guess who. Leaving the public system $1 billion short for guess who? The better off, not all of course but generally. More are beleiving the spin and it's absolute tripe. Yes, yes The States are responsible for Education but where does all the money come from? Us, not the Coalition. The Australian people.

Free Trade? IR? AWB? Interest rates perhaps?

Care to discuss his recent hiring of a further 133 "Coalition" hacks as taxpayer funded help? Meanwhile more homeless die, more people create violence due to lack of aprropriate resources and you cheer it on.

I have plenty of material here Col. Self researched, not at taxpayers expense. Want to keep playing? You could always accuse me of being a burden on taxpayers. Have a try. Keep combing. Good luck.

RobbyH “He'd be sitting in a office somewhere paid for by the taxpayer under Howard and thinks he is presenting an opinion.”

I write from my own dining room, looking out over the pool.

The nearest I have been to a “government office” in the past year, is on the inside of a Max security prison wall and paid a bit more than the pocket money prisoners earn.

And I do represent an opinion, an opinion which has more credibility than some piece of political flotsam which gets blown in when the wind is coming off the toxic waste tip.

As for “You sit on your backside writing spin and do nothing.”

Strange, I do nothing, yet pay taxes.

As for “Go ahead. Ask for removal of my post. I'll just reword it and continue to expose what you and others like you, in both Parties are. Barrackers, nothing more, not thinkers or free Australians”

Even those who disagree with my view would observe, from the history of my posts –

I would be one of the last people to ever suggest anyone’s post should be removed or anyone should be censored.

My view is

Censorship treats and presents the Sage and the Idiot equally.
Free speech exposes the Idiot and the Sage in the quality of their respective posts.

I would not want to stop you posting your inane idiocy here.

I think, therefore I am and I am free to think of you what I choose (which is almost nothing, less than a greasy smear on the sole of my shoe)

You, through your own words do more to discredit to yourself than anything I could possibly say about you

The rest of your vent is not worth commenting on, other than

“Keep combing. Good luck.”

Having a full head of hair I will do just that.

Oh how the malcontents get flustered. I would suggest in response to

“I have plenty of material here Col. Self researched,”

Please present your “research”, I will be happy to shred it and what you substitute for reputation in a instant.

Col,

Your insults continue to reveal your inability to think beyond Party policy. Thanks for that. It's a reflection of you mate, no one else. Intolerance and ignorance is all yours. Thought you'd be waiting and a lure brought you out again.

Perhaps you might allow the thread to return to it's original purpose. Being a failure of the current political system and government which represents a minority except when throwing our money into the wind, usually Rupert's way or mining companies. Or to buy votes.

What reserach would you like to discuss? Give us all an insight into your version of Coalition policy. Start a thread yourself perhaps instead of ranting about malcontents who seem to be overlooking a pool about now, again yourself.

No response from you on the few issues I mentioned. Too busy looking for insults apparently. And no direct threats this time? Come on Col, get it together. Flotsam? Jetsam? Seems you don't know the difference in terms. Back to the dictionary Col

Comb away Col. You'll find a topic to present your own opinions on instead of simply sitting there insulting people who see the change required whilst you apparently are content with today's self serving governments. Your attempted humour at others expense is a failure. Perhaps the mirror would help you out?

Combing? It's demonstrated ably by your inability to write your own words without quoting others constantly. Enjoy your view, condescending and ignorant as it is.

No apology to Tapp? Of course not. No names for appropriate authorities to examine? Of course not.

Comment on those issues raised would be a start for you mate. Or have you no response on such issues? Bully boys are both sad and lonely. Always.

RobbyH said “I have plenty of material here Col. Self researched, not at taxpayers expense.”

I said
“Please present your “research”, I will be happy to shred it and what you substitute for reputation in a instant.”

Then you have the audacity to suggest

“What reserach would you like to discuss? Give us all an insight into your version of Coalition policy. Start a thread yourself perhaps instead of ranting about malcontents who seem to be overlooking a pool about now, again yourself.”

Well that sounds like a climb down to me.

You offered your “research”, acquired not at tax payers expense.

I asked you to present it

You then demand I supply you with something.

Yep that’s a climb down or a deflection from living up to what you threatened to hit me with (your research)

I guess your “research” is just puff and wind, an idle threat which, when called out, is myth (polite word for Lie).

I know you are eminently qualified to describe the solitary nature of bullies.

Bullies use lies and threats which they cannot follow through on, like you used “research” as a threat to me which you have failed to follow through on.

As for insults, I would suggest it is the whine of the arch hypocrite who complains about what someone hands back in response to what you have handed out.

You originally came forth at me with
“You sit on your backside writing spin and do nothing.” And “you are less than honest”

So don’t whine on about “insults, when you have already hurled your feeble efforts my way.

Re “Comment on those issues raised would be a start for you mate.”

As I said, I await your “research” to comment on

Col,

Again you miss the point. I raised issues which you still can't see. Read mate, read. Research has already been presented but you missed it mate. No climbdown here. Just waiting for you to see what's written and respond. Won't hold my breath but see below.

My insults are simply a reflection of your attitude to others. Enjoying it? No one else is, just you.

If and when you seek a rational discussion without the endless quotation remarks, combing, I'd be happy to oblige. I am sure you can do so when you want and would like to see you contribute rather than destroy. Any chance? I have no doubt you have plenty to offer but perhaps the anger is not helping. I have such also as seen but it seems to be reserved for situations and exchanges as we have had.

Any chance of Col writing a thread? On your topics?

Bullies always respond in the manner you have, what's new? Point that finger at the mirror if you will.

RobbyH “Research has already been presented but you missed it mate. No climbdown here.”

Oh, I have been back over this thread.

I see no claims to “research” by you previously.

You leave me with no choice but to observe your climbdown.

Oh your “insults”, don’t worry, they are feeble anyway, barely worth a smile.

However, keep posting in your opinionated style and I am sure, you will experience some well crafted slights, first hand.

As for “Enjoying it? No one else is, just you”

I like it when someone claims to speak for everyone else, in their own words, they display the falsehoods of their cause.

As for a thread, any ideas for a topic?

From your posts I figure your creative imagination leaves you better equipped at ”doing the reading” than “doing the writing”, so I will spare us all and not reciprocate the suggestion.

Col,

Topics mentioned clearly mate.

Free Trade? IR? AWB? Interest rates perhaps? Suggestions for a Col thread. Education. I know you have reread but you still miss the words.

It seems the difficulty you have is you think there is something to be "won".

Re insults Col. Exactly again. Feeble to you, subtle to others. I don't see any other posts here admiring your style. Do you?

Of course you figure incorrectly. Have written on a number of sites but your interest wouldn't be welcome on those sites.

Do you really need me to give you ideas for topics? Apparently so.

Falsehoods of their cause? What cause Col?

Clearly there is no intent from you to offer anything constructive at all and that simply goes back to your ignorant rants. Back to your view.

When I was a young boy (50 or so years ago), I remember talking to one of the teachers about Democracy, what does it means? I asked. The replay really opened my eyes was so easy to understand and I also thought was easy to abide by. He said "Democracy is like this, think as if each and everyone of us lives in a circle, within that circle we are free to do whatever we want, whatever makes us happy, whatever we can think of can be safely done within that circle, BUT we must be very careful not to step out of our circle, because by doing so we will place ourselves into someone else's circle, therefore we are invading the other person freedom and that is a breach of the democratic principle, We expect that no one else will enter our circle and we must make sure not to enter anyone else circle. Now let me ask you this "How many times someone else has entered your circle? Personally I can honestly tell you that I am never alone in my own circle, is invaded each and every day by many others, be it Government agencies, People stronger than me that believe there's nothing I can do to stop them entering my circle, Judges, Legislators, Polictical activists, Political Corretness Activist, those are the major culprits in my case. Tell me now "How many times is your circle has been invaded by others?
(not allowing you, freedom of speech, freedom of movements, freedom to work without being afraid of losing your job, freedom to make choices) and many other things which would fill and entire library if anyone tries to list it all) Moral of the story Democracy = UTOPIA