Posted by Pericles, Monday, 23 August 2010 8:47:48 AM

" ... So this is our reward: a "government" for the next three years that is representative of the wishes of absolutely no-one in the country. ... "

Oh come now *Pericles* It's a fantastic result. The collective voice of the Australian people has spoken and has said:

" We bequeath not unfettered power to either the blue or the red of politics, and neither side shall make any law which as of July 2011 and the new Senate that shall not be subject to the full scrutiny and authority of the *Greens*

And let them squeal all they like about the Senate. Bring on a Republic!

..

Further, my view is that *Bob Katter* et al have a solid and worthy contribution to make, and if I were them I'd only start listening once cabinet positions and appropriate portfolios were being discussed. The same goes for *Adam Bandt*

I believe that when you have a hung parliament, it is vertually proof that neither is really acceptable to the public, the fanatics think otherwise of course. When the Australian constitution was written, it surely was written solely for politicians, because the people are unable to alter it or commence the process to alter it, and consequently, the only alterations that are made has to be instigated by politicians, but has to be passed by the majority of the people in all the States. This has a bit of safety, but not enough. There should have been provision for a safe non parliamentarian - a non party person, to place any proposal to alter the conditions, salaries and perks for our employees. It is then up to those who decide they want to be a parliamentarian, but the onus should be on the public – the employers, not on the people who are applying for that position of employee. They have an integrity commission in parliament, but the members can hardly say that they have any integrity, because when they join their party, they sign a promise that they will obey the decisions of the majority, I wouldn't call that integrity. Every organisation, in applying for employees in responsible positions, require them to present a resume, with definite proof that they have the qualifications for that position. These people who have been filling these position for at least the last 40 years, definitely do not have the necessary qualifications, and have proved it. The people chosen into the ministry are generally professionals, and have shown no signs of concern for wage earners. The fanatics deem otherwise, but it is dangerous to be influenced by a fanatic.

I think that the report "Hung Parliament" should be carried out in principle, like the earlier leader of the democrats would say, "Yes, hang the bastards". The 2 party system plays into the hands of the fanatics too much, I believe that the country - any country - would be better off with a common committee or board member meeting, any member of a committee will tell you that there is plenty of objections presented at those, but they are readilly recogonised as pure piffle if they are, unlike today, where such piffle is taken by the obscessed fanatics as wonderful decisions which will lift the country into unblievable wonders, and they never have, have they.

I remember Mr Howard trying to destroy Labour as a political governing entity (Labour is associated with unions) and Mr Howard tried to destroy union influence (less Labor votes/less members = less funds = less financial support to labour).
I look forward to a coalition government with the support of the 3 independents, one of whom would most probably be given a ministry, the nationals having to deal with an ex National independent rewarded for abanding the Nationals (not to mention- the bad blood) and the Nationals saying at the next election "we will no longer be a coalition because as a seperate political party we will have more bargaining power with the Liberals, to form a government".
Also of note is the fact that as at the last election where the High Court looked at McEwen, there could probably be referrals to the High Court again where the outcome of seats are close. It took 6 months to conclude McEwen, so there is a possibility that in 6 months time the election result is still questionable.

*Merv* I think that what you are suggesting is a new system altogether. Akin perhaps to *Rob OakeShott's* views or maybe a new system all together.

I personally favor a system with an *Australian Head of State,* a new flag, a Treaty with the BlakFellas if that is what they want, and enshrined Human (Australian) Rights and most definitely something other than the current 2 party preferred system.

..

I note from the ABC that Mr Abbott is talking warm and fuzzy, though how sincerely remains to be seen. And also that cabinet positions are being put on the table, but I for one wouldn't accept 1 for 3.

..

As for the *Greens* member well, I must say that I have a different view than having a sole preference for joining with the ALP. Reason being, is that I believe that both climate change must be addressed with accurate science at its core BUT that also big business must be brought along with it, dragged kicking and screaming if necessary.

Now, the best ones to whip the big corporations into line in the national interest is the Liberal party, and the best way for the Greens to earn economic credentials and serious player status and respect from a larger segment of the Australian community is by bringing about viable, transitory (capp exed) change in conjunction with the Liberals.

So, I would suggest that Tony ought start talking fast if he wants Green support.

Of course, we do need to see how the final undecided seats fall following postal votes etc.

I also like the trio of Bob, Tony and Rob and strongly support food security based on strong and healthy local rural communities which play a significant role in the management and maintenance of the land and its biodiversity in all its forms, including off setting the fire risk in relevant areas.

"that also big business must be brought along with it, dragged kicking and screaming if necessary."

"Now, the best ones to whip the big corporations into line in the national interest is the Liberal party, and the best way for the Greens to earn economic credentials and serious player status and respect from a larger segment of the Australian community is by bringing about viable, transitory (capp exed) change in conjunction with the Liberals."
DreamOn the Liberal party is the party of big business, you speak as if there is no relationship between the two. If someone needs to be whipped into line it will be Abbott and co and big business will be doing the whipping. Then you suggest The Greens hop into bed with the Liberals, the party of big business, there is no rank and file support for such a move, will they re-write our policy for us so we can gain 'economic credentials' and then maybe qualify for 'serious player status'. The ALP have sold their soul to gain 'economic credentials' and 'serious player status' and look where they are now. When the new Senate goes in to vote you will see that The Greens are very serious, so will big business.