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.