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.