I spent election day handing out how to vote cards. What struck me about the experience the general disillusionment among voters with politicians in general and the major parties in particular. I am not disappointed at the fact that we have a hung parliament but we should not lose sight of the fact that we elected these people to do a job and that job is to look after the interests of all Australians. It is for this reason that I am puzzled at the preoccupation in the media with the notion that the independents are faced with the choice of either enabling a Coalition Government or a Labor Government. There is a third choice: a government of national unity. A government of national unity would reflect the wishes of the voters - we have rejected the notion that we want to be governed by either Labor or the Coalition for we have seen what that is like and believe that we can do better. The way could be made to work is if the house of representatives elected the most capable people in the house to form the ministry; given that there would be no ministers in the Senate it would mean that the Senate could function as it was supposed to - protect the interests of the country as a whole against the temptation of pork barreling in the more populous states.

Let's face it Baygon,if Tony Abbott had not been caught in his budgie smugglers,then Parliament would not have been so well hung.

BAYGON I too handed out HTV probably for a different party the ALP.
My thoughts are not unlike yours.
Here they are 2 weeks into the campaign it was an ALP victory.
Then the leaks, even I thought we had trouble ahead.
My booth was a close to the sea one.
outcomes had always [we had the booths history] been ALP.
fishermen, well of second homers and welfare voters make up the rest.
Labor was to be punished that was clear from first voter.
Greens clearly got the ALP protest and just as clear the not quite sure what its about vote.
Liberals trotted in looking like they Had already won.
Labor sent us instructions what to say to voters? even my lefty booth Cap said no to that, some 20 year old kid, it happens every election made those silly things up.
We ran a shocker, every time these kids miss use members , I once got the task of nailing posters to sticks while a bus loaded with unionists letter boxed and got lost, in my area, I was 100 klm away in HQ nails in hand
Voters did not trust us or them, greens got votes they never will again if we get 3 years before an election.
PS running me and the lost was the 18 year old son of the candedate, she lost 4% off our vote.

BAYGON,
A government of national unity is a fantasy as the big two and the little two would never be able to swallow their pride and arrogance. What a come down it would be for them having to co-operate with each other and do the right thing. What we need is a way of truly punishing our poli's a way to have them sacked and and not allowed to stand again for incompetence. Not workable i know, but the biggest fear i have is that the current situation with it's possibilities will be lost due to game playing from the lib's and lab's. We have already seen the lib's at it and then have to back down, it is looking more like a race to the next election and which party can control the damage enough to win so that things can go back to normal. This should be a landmark change in the putrid political scene in Australia.
Belly,
since the election your posts have been frantic and confused. Your constant attacks on the Greens shows us that labor really has not learned anything from the battering they got at the election. It's all someone else's fault isn't it, The Greens, QLD or NSW labor lies of the opposition. The fact is labor would have won if their record was good enough, they should appreciate that the electorate didn't fall to the old three card trick and give Abbott power but have handed you a grand opportunity to redeem yourselves and do something truly outstanding and nationally unifying.

My perception is that we now have reached an equilibrium of the two work forces. The revenue producing & the revenue using hence the clear cut numbers. It is now up to one or two of the independents to realise this & then give the Conservatives the go ahead to govern. Simply because we need an economic pick-up & clearly Labor can not achieve that. The conservatives have proven time & time again that they can. The choice can not be any more obvious.

My views have not changed not one bit.
Before the election, in my first post after Rudd I said I do not trust Gillard.
But thought she would govern well.
I have for a very long time considered the greens lead by Brown a threat not a promise.
The man is a radical and frightens me.
While great numbers played out the unhappiness with Labor by voting green they wasted votes, many NSW seats did not need preferences ,people who thought their vote would go to Labor helped conservatives win seats.
Greens, tell me I am wrong, stopped any ETS getting up, voted with Abbott on this.
Tell me no more than 15% of this country's voters have the right to say what will happen to this country's next three years.
A DD election ,full senate too, can save this country even if the mad monk wins power.
See that rude silly man from the dead FF party, understand the fool says he may not pass any bill for Labor.
Those who childlike say Labor has moved too far to the right, that the greens are the new Labor,betray their own roots.
Middle class higher education radical but unconnected to middle Australia Labor should not bend to the greens ever.
I want to remind ALP voters Brown said he did not like preference deals, without doubt this meant many did not preference us.
Leave the greens if you can last and fill in all boxes in the senate greens second last, unless you want to end our defence ties with America stop selling coal the list is long and if you care look closely at the greens.

Wow Belly. You'd rather an Abbott government than a Gillard minority government?

I knew you hate the Greens, but I hadn't realised how much. I'd point out the falsehoods in your latest rant, but we've been here before plenty of times and the truth doesn't seem to make any difference to you when it comes to the Greens.

You really need to lose the hatred and start thinking about "moving forward", so to speak :)

I was a member of the ALP disillusioned with the way the party machine dominated decision making I moved to the Greens. No point in going to the liberals - a friend of mine who was on the Liberal State executive resigned from the Libs at the same time for exactly the same reason. So the Greens it was. Got involved got to know the party and discovered that like its big brothers the Greens too had their party machine - not as well oiled but really no difference - the rhetoric of inclusion was not matched by practice.
Disillusioned I am looking for a new illusion maybe a parliament where everyone behaves like an independent?

Good grief C J Morgan hate? no never fear is what drives me.
I am not unique you know, those I work for the ordinary country people fear them too.
BAYGON I am a refugee from my branch, you will see that in posts from 4 years ago.
Fact is politics is mathematics, numbers only numbers.
Right now my party is in deep trouble.
My home, the NSW right, has mucked about with NSW the home of Labor victory's.
Long forgotten the power they have is not theirs , it is the power of numberer's voters members each grain of sand they stand on wants better out comes.
C J Morgan I believe Abbott, his team, the tainted Australian media are not worthy to govern.
I fear the FACT we are judged by media owned by an ex Australian ,maybe driven by him, would like to say more about him.
But for every one leaving us I think we lost one to conservatives who think as I do we are too close to pushing Browns barrow.
If we had a DD election ,IF Abbott won, it would be a one term government, if the senate lost independents ,even if your mob held[with less than 15%] the balance of power the party, my party reformed and lead by real talent would Be intact.
IF we sell out to your mob, if we do not tell our ex members how they will never get the dream time world you promise then we are not worthy to govern.
Hate come mate my first thought it for this country greens are radical and lost .

Dear Belly,

You are a loyal soul to the Labor Party.
I think during this election in particular it has been difficult for you to form a philosophical idea as to the issues that have turned people off Gillard's campaign.
I believe for many "thinking" voters, it comes down to a sense of principle and the fact that the two major parties appear to represent the same interests. The Greens are seen to still have some scruples and an interest in equality of treatment for all individuals. I had great difficulty accepting Gillard's hastily concocted East Timor Solution - for several reasons including our attitude to our poorer near neigbours and the fact that Labor had spent a goodly proportion of their time in opposition criticising Howard's similar agenda...am I supposed to ignore such things.
As far as our defence ties with America go - after watching Mr Howard obsequiously courting that dangerously inept president and consigning Australian troops to contrived theatres of conflict, it is good to have someone Like Bob Brown to at least speak out when he sees us unquestioningly falling into line with our major ally.

Belly, thanks for your honest response. However, fear and hate aren't mutually exclusive - indeed, the latter is very often the product of the former.

Your fear is misplaced. The Greens aren't your enemy - indeed, they're about the only hope that Labor has for a future. Have a great day, and don't fret too much, old mate.

This election result, a hung parliament, was decided by a mere several thousand voters.

Australia has NOT spoken. The people who HAVE spoken is that tiny, tiny number of people who have swung marginal seats one way or the other.

That's one problem with democracy; governments can rise or fall on the votes of a mere handful of people.

Nah buddy, that doesn't make much sense. Sure those few thousand votes count, but no more than the millions of other votes. If any part of those millions of other votes were different, then the election result could easily be different. So I think "ALL" votes count pretty much equally.

Dear Baygon,

I love your opening post,
and wish it could happen.

A Parliament where everyone behaves like an
Independent? However, I don't think
that it's going to happen. We've always
been a two-party system (more or less),
with each party electing their own leaders.
Whether we like a leader or not - voters
have always voted for the party of their
choice (the fact that we think we're voting
for the leader in some cases - is an illusion).
It's always been about party politics in this
country. One can live and hope for a Parliament
of national unity - but I somehow feel that
it's not going to be allowed to happen, at
least not yet. Once they've tasted the power,
how are you going to persuade them to share it?
I think the three Independents we've seen on
TV - Tony Windsor, Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott
are impressive, and we need more of them in
Parliament - but realistically, how much
influence will they have and what sort of deals
will they make - we'll have to wait and see.
My money's still on the Party System, unfortunately.

I agree that the two party system is probably here to stay.

I am happy that Mr. Windsor and Mr. Oakeshot will be two voices of reason of the three independents deciding on who is to lead our country.

Mr. Katter is certainly a voice for country and farming people, but I dislike his views on guns. He seems a bit of a hothead to me.

I watched a program on TV about him last week.
While carrying on about the wonders of country life, he goes on to say that apart from the many guns lining the walls of his living areas, he also keeps a gun in each of the children's bedrooms, just in case they should ever need to defend themselves when he is away!

I hope the other two independents are able to rein this guy in!

Belly, you're showing nothing but good sense being worried about the greens.

By the time they had opened our borders to anyone who wanted wander in, there would be nothing left of our country, lifestyle, or your unions.

The last thing we need, particularly now, is a bunch of dreamers with any trace of power.

It will be interesting to watch the fight between the new independents, & the greens, trying to do exactly the opposite to/for the bush.

Suze, I hope that if ever you go & live in some place isolated from any overview by anyone, that some wiser council will prevail.

Anyone in an isolated home must be prepared to defend themselves, & the belief in the neighborhood, that you are well armed, & willing to use your arms is the first line of defence.

Unfortunately I think it is most likely that many who have been living very sheltered lives, may soon have to rethink their attitude to many aspects of life in Oz.

Well I am really pleased top see the rise of Green Senators, and the new chum in Tanner's seat too.

Wilkie deserved a win after all his work exposing the sham of Howard's handy-little-war, although he sounds as if he might not quite have grasped what he's up to there, so far.

Windsor sounds like the politician we all need in this electorate, Oakeshot is something of a fundie by all accounts, and sounds just a little too unrealistic in his war-cabinet dreams, as with our initial poster here.

Gillard is proving to be a total dud, first female PM or not, although she retains the 'marginally better choice' ticket than Abbott, who clearly never expected to win this, yet may still flop over the line.

The ALP, the caucus and the machines in every state and federally, are to blame for this mess.

First by electing Rudd to PM status, when his track record in Qld with Goss was there for all to see and understand.

Secondly for being so weak they never tried to pull him in as PM.

Third for dumping him without any idea what to do next.

Fourth by allowing Gillard to behave in exactly the same way as Rudd had been, making things up on the run, and coming up with daft ideas, like the 150 'citizens'...or wasting another $222m on evangelising nut-cases in our schools.

Should Abbott get up, as it looks as if he will, I hope that Gillard will be done for within the ALP.

There are no real contenders within the ALP, never mind caucus, who deserve to be PM, but there may be a worm somewhere within that could cobble together something resembling an opposition.

With luck, should Abbott get in, he's such a dunce, with such deadwood all around him, that he too will blow it, and probably in less than 3 years.

If he does get in.... the Senate should be a real laugh-a-minute.

To be sure we are living in interesting times.

Gillard's East Timor Solution was the final straw, that decided for me to vote Greens in both houses. To all who believe that the Greens are nothing more than a singe issue party, I suggest you do your homework and check out their policies and bring your knowledge into the 21st century.

Foxy, I'd be careful of what you wish for if you really believe that Katter is "impressive".

Oh JR... how could I have overlooked that master stroke of ALP tomfoolery, the Final Solution of Gillard to burden our poverty struck neighbour with the flotsom-jetsom of the global refugee industry?

What will she come up with next in an attempt to buy off the three wise men I wonder, given that it appears caucus/cabinet has empowered her to 'keep on being the real Julia'.

Gillard is so beholden to her parents for instilling her Atheist-Baptist values that I fully expect them both to be drawn in to become official Lodge advisors to 'the real Julia'.

Seems they taught her about the evils of same sex marriages, but not of 'living in sin'.

It must have been a household of very selective Baptist values then... how odd, I thought they were very much 'all or nothing' people.

Dear JR,

I actually don't know that much about Katter having
seen him only briefly alongside Windsor and
Oakeshott. However, the three of them seemed
to be a refreshing change from pollies like
Barnaby Joyce and Kroger whose combined behaviour left
a lot to be desired on the night of the Election.

As I pointed out in my earlier post - its probably
wishful thinking on my part that Party politics will
play a lesser role in Government.

But I can live and hope.

While Katter is certainly an 'interesting' politician, there's more than a few roos loose in his top paddock. His racism and homophobia are well-documented, as is his AGW denialism.

Suze, if Katter does indeed have guns hanging up on walls in his house, including in his kids' bedrooms for defensive purposes, he's not only demonstrably paranoid but also breaking the law.

The other Independents seem to be quite reasonable, but Katter's a loose cannon of the worst kind.

Foxy... Katter is Katter. What you see, is what you get.... the little ticket he normally wears on his hat, with '10/6d' stamped on it, seems to have fallen off in these days of media spotlight.

He does have the singular distinction of understanding how corrupt the Nationals were/are, and resigning from them, having served with 'reasonable' distinction as a Minister in the era of gross corruption under Joh....I hasten to add, there never was, nor should there ever be, any whiff of corruption concerning Katter during that sad and pathetic era.

Whatever else people may think of him, there is no doubt that he is honest... a rare commodity amongst politicians.

The remnants of the Nats, including the man from St George, described quite accurately by Windsor as 'a fool', fear Katter, and those like him from the agrarian-socialist arm of the old Nats, or in fact, the old Country Party.

Their hero, Black Jack, wouldn't bother to relieve himself on any of them, least of all St. George, if they were on fire, having strayed so far from the agrarian-socialist dreams he had for the nation.

The Qld Country Party of then, was very similar to the Qld ALP of then, who introduced such 'evil' socialist schemes to build the widespread community into a cohesive unit that the ALP of today looks far more like a Pinochet style form of pro-USA capitalism than it does a 'social democrat' party.... only the lack of torture marks the difference.

He is, however, best left to his own devices as a loud lobbyist, rather than a prime decision maker. His penchant for guns can probably be ignored... as part of his 'schtik' (if that is how its spelt?).

suzeonline, "While carrying on about the wonders of country life, he goes on to say that apart from the many guns lining the walls of his living areas, he also keeps a gun in each of the children's bedrooms, just in case they should ever need to defend themselves when he is away!"

I did not see the interview, but commonsense alone should inform us that if indeed Bob Katter said anything like that it would be a facetious remark. Australia has some of the world's most restrictive regulations. Even joking like that is to risk a very dangerous unannounced visit from a Queensland Police Special Emergency Response Team (SERT).

http://www.police.qld.gov.au/Resources/Internet/join/documents/LR_SERT_160709.pdf

Seriously, are you sure that is what he said? Queensland is the Nanny State where Anna Bligh's police are presently proposing even more restrictive regulations and penalties, for instance a $4000 fine for anything that resembles a gun: toys, wood labelled 'this is not a real gun' and even guns modelled in soap by a kid in a bath. Such 'dangerous' models will have to be registered and kept in firearms safes, otherwise the full weight of the firearms laws and a $4000 fine will apply.

Lonely Planet will have to carry a warning about the hysteria that is rife in Australia. Actually, that is very close to the truth because in Queensland you can be arrested for the possession of a Swiss Army knife. Possession of this handy tool of choice of backpackers becomes another way to harass youth for some sport, or an arrest to get the numbers up.

I have a feeling we can breathe easy and Bob Katter isn't maintaining an arsenal displayed on the walls of his house.

Bob loves guns more than his kids:

"Five things you didn't know about the Mad Hatter

The parliamentary football team hasn’t been the same since Bob pulled a hammy.

Bob refuses to drink his tea in anything but a metal mug – even in parliament. He drinks his tea with condensed milk and must always have orange cream biscuits.

Bob and his wife Susie have two dogs. One is a beautiful English pointer, full of class and distinction, just like Mrs Katter, the other is a mongrel blue heeler stray called Jack that turned up one day and never left.

Hat of choice: Akubra. Is there any other? Bob replaces his Akubras but could never bring himself to throw one out.

When Bob had one of his guns taken off him his children noted he loved that gun more than them and more than their mother. But when they said he loved his guns more than his favourite dog, he told them they’d gone too far."

http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2010/08/24/123711_local-news.html

But maybe, he keeps his arsenal locked away from prying eyes. - Just a thought.

Johnny Rotten

That was a tongue in cheek article wasn't it? Here is another bit of fun by the same journalist, Jennifer Eliot:

http://www.news.com.au/national/mutchilba-man-catches-30kg-barramundi-in-drain-with-bare-hands/story-e6frfkvr-1225836017978

Here is some fun photography by Jennifer too:

http://tools.cairns.com.au/photo_gallery/photo_gallery_popup.php?category_id=11745&offset=0

Of course Bob Katter has an arsenal if that is what people want to believe and he has caught an even bigger barra in that hat of his too.

I will be glad when this election is over and no, I don't want to hear what Mr Rabbot has caught in his budgie smugglers. He never could be outdone that Rabbot.

Those in the know, and who wear 'em, have trouble saying 'Akubra'.

It's just too foreign for the Aussie mind/tongue to cope with, just like Bligh has trouble saying 'asked' and comes out with 'arkst', and the same as those who confuse 'bought' with 'brought'...

And 'the fool' from St. George insists on 'irregardless'.

The real Qld Akubra wearer calls 'em an 'Arkaburra'.

Bob's from 'The Smart State', same as Anna, so what's the betting he's an Arkaburra man too?

Can someone arkst him?

Cornflower

Erm, don't need to be a betting man to know you can catch much more with an Akubra than speedos.

Anyone who wears an Akubra (or Akuburra)
will get my attention.

That's because I matured in a harsh land with
few of the niceties. I've still got family
who are stud farmers in Quirindi. The Akubra
to me represents a lust for life. I've got
one that my brother bought me as a birthday
present (he lives in Kempsey). The one he
wears is covered in yellow dust and hardened
by drought, then made soggy again with too
much rain, rendered tough once more by bad
times and fluffy as a lamington by good fortune
yet again restored.

To me the hat is a celebration of where
we've been and a guide for where we should be
going. Call me sentimental.

I think a Gillard minority government with the independents will be a welcome alternative.

Looks like the guys in the Coalition have already started with the late night abusive phone calls to the Independents and I would rather not have that sort of government. It reeks of the dirty games in the election previous where the Coalition sought to frame the ALP over false anti-Muslim propaganda. It is like dealing with the mafia and at least the voters have said enough is enough.

Then we have the hollowmen of the Labor Party - but if it is a choice between the two majors, the ALP would be my choice with the Independents and Greens to keep them honest.

Australia could really benefit from this arrangement if we don't let ourselves get fooled by the fear mongerers who paint doom and gloom in the prospect of a minority government.

Australians have already proven themselves to be smarter than that, but it looks like the movers and shakers in the majors are still not listening nearly hard enough.

On the subject of Akubras, a well-known rule of thumb in the bush in Qld is the broader the brim, the smaller the spread.

We need some reality here, the ALP crafted its own down fall.
Rudd thought he could be a dictator.
He time and again was asked to be inclusive and would not.
SOME in my party did no wrong in dumping him, but should have given us the reasons and more time to take it on board.
Gillard if she is able will govern well, but I never will trust her.
Labor/Liberals did not win this election.
Threats and reminders of their roots are likely to see those who won, the three ex Nats win, but not Australia.
A third of greens policy's I share.
A third frighten me.
I trust Bob Brown less than Gillard.
Without the protest vote to the greens Labor would govern now? even if they do strange and sometimes silly deals will be needed.
Let get in to the house have a DD in 3 months and let the winners take the prize we can not deal with minority's in things majority's do not want.
Abbott?given the chance Tony will tread on his bottom lip in power and be a one termer too.
How many greens knew in protesting, in more than one seat conservatives never even had to go to preferences ALP voters smugly saying cop this mug put Abbott in this position.
Much that hurts about Labor but if greens did not become a parking zone for unthinking Labor do any of you doubt Abbott could not have done this well
C J Morgan you must not confuse my honestly held view Australian did not want a hung Parliament with hate.

My exegesis in this thread was that we elected a set of people to do a job - the fact that we did not elect sufficient labor or coalition members to form a government does not take away from the fact that the individual candidates have a responsibility to do the job entrusted to them. This is not a particularly new idea look at Edmund Burke's speech at the declaration of the Bristol Poll in November 1774 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html ! He made similar remarks that we are now getting from Oakshot.
The comments that have been made about the three parties tend to ignore one overwhelming reality that the policies promoted are really variations on a theme. Why is the idea of picking the most capable people to form a ministry so repugnant? Are there such fundamental ideological differences that they could not work together? I know sufficient members of parliament (from all sides of politics) to be convinced it is workable but the real obstacle is that it would damage the Labor and Liberal brands.

Dear Belly,

I disagree that those of us who may have voted Labor, and who transferred out vote to the Greens were "unthinking" - quite the reverse, actually. The point is that we did "think" - and in doing so we found the shifting sands of Labor policy to be unacceptable. As I said in an earlier post, it all comes down to principle.
Perhaps Labor might absorb the fact that many of us moved left towards the Greens because we don't see much "left" in Labor these days.

Why don't you be honest, if any one of the parties was intelligent and honest, and had any allegiance to the Australian people, it would have rompted home in the election, however I don't think that either of them is worth giving one skerick of thought. If they were paid what they are worth, they wouldn't be able to even have a cup of tea or a beer. They haven't any conscience either have they.

Hasbeen <" Anyone in an isolated home must be prepared to defend themselves, & the belief in the neighborhood, that you are well armed, & willing to use your arms is the first line of defence."

Gee Hasbeen, which awful neighbourhood do you live in?
I live in a country area where guns are mainly used on farms or at gun clubs.
We moved to the country for a safer lifestyle for my family- and it is certainly safer than when I lived in the city.

Cornflower, I finally found what Bob Katter actually said about guns, while he was being interviewed on TV. He sat in what looked like a living room while he was being interviewed, and my husband commented on the rack of rifles on the wall behind him.

I can't remember the actual program, but it was reported what he said
at the Australian website on the 23rd of August 2010 -
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bob-katter-wants-to-deal-the-cards-for-rural-australia/story-fn59niix-1225908603672

"I was a weapons instructor in the army reserve, own a stack of rifles as my grandaddy did and my great-grandaddy before him.
"If you come and see my house, it's built like a fortress. You retreat through one set of locked doors and another set of locked doors and there's a siren and three locks on the door and every bed has a rifle, so if we're out and the kids are at home, they can protect themselves. To leave my wife and kids unprotected because I'm away is absolutely appalling. I believe in it as an article of religious faith."

Scary stuff coming from a man who seems to have some sort of say in what happens in Australian Politics, wouldn't you say?

I wounder how many Greens/Labor or any other Lefty's are truly of the left?
Not the private school left not the working class left the true post ww2 left.
I grew up in that world.
Small country towns hungry days and nights ,close to starvation at times.
A different Australia, one that excluded me, my working class, oh yes we had classes then.
Bowral, Mittagong,rich mens country in 1955,you nearly had to hold your hat over your heart to talk to them.
They called England home and still I think of them as fools.
In 1955 a town of Mrs Buckets.
My childhood hoping for a communist take over was not a dream it was a night mare.
A little older much wiser I wanted Socialism via my ALP.
I was just as wrong, we have socialism as much as we need , both party's support it.
Health welfare education so much better than America.
But Labor did not wander into Liberal paddocks without reasons.
We followed mainstream voters no government can be elected by a rump a small group who can not understand this basic.
Socialism is not going ever,to rule, voters know understand and want governments to act for every one.
NO government can please every one but understand the bell curve is just as real in politics you fail if it is not balanced.
My record on predictions is tainted this however is true.
Once Australians find out just how radical greens are the party will need new leadership and direction or fall into the same deep hole as Democrats one nation, the small body of Family first is in the same hole, once in you never come out.

Belly

The Democrats were started by ex Liberals, and only ever wanted to be like Menzies in supporting small business.

Kernot and Stott Despoja were abberations in leaning leftish.

Murray was closer to the core, and that woman, whose name I forget, who took over after the meltdown, who brown-nosed her way with Howard, was far closer to Howard than even Murray was.

The Democrats fell over because of her, and the failure of other Democrats to take charge, as with Rudd when he went bonkers and took off acting as if the ALP belonged to him.

The Greens are every bit as mad as the Democrats, with hundreds of individual members not clear on what it is they support. So they may well fall apart under pressure.

But it is unlikely that they will be as hopeless as the Democrats were.

As for looking for a hint of 'left' in the ALP, there is absolutely none there. Look who was once 'left', Tanner -rightwing neo-lib; Gillard-rightwing supporter of the ACL agenda and USA education systems, anti gay views, pro Baptist believer, as with Rudd; Ferguson, Martin- supports uranium mines and nuclear reactors in Oz;the other Ferguson has never lifted a finger to do anything useful; Jenny George- didn't she evaporate this time?; Combet-weak as water do nothing; Dougie Cameron from the metal workers-totally silent lounging in the Senate..and so it goes.

Your mates in Australia's Worst Union determine what goes on, as has happened since 1880. Look to them for reasons why the ALP is a failed and discredited flop of a political crew.

I fear those goons in NSW who determine how the ALP is run, more so than the Greens.

Lee Rhianon looks like a good sort though... she might have a bright new 'leftwing' view in the Senate, but she will be on her lonesome.

Some interesting thoughts have been presented here. Suze and Cornflower, in my experience the further you move from town the more likely it is people don't even bother locking their cars or their homes. Katter seems distinctly paranoid to me.
I can see a clear parallel between Akubras and the problems of the National Party. For working class (small) farmers, the Kooby was only for goin' to town. Way too hot to work in, unless you were the sort of farmer who only left his air conditioned office to hop in his air conditioned ute, or at worst his air conditioned tractor (if his farm manager was off crook).
The old Country Party was for country people; small farmers and the towns that supported them -and vice versa. The national party seems more interested in going with the money; the Pitt St farmers and campaign fund contributors. This makes them virtually indistinguishable from the Liberals.
So who do working class farmers and country folk vote for? Most small farmers (rugged individualists, all) dislike and fear the unions (strikes can destroy them) but at the same time they recognise the dangers of the farm conglomerate down the road, through unfair competition advantages.
In the district I come from, they vote for Rob Oakshott.
As for Belly's original post, I see a free-for-all parliament leading to the greediest pigs giving up their (pitifully few) principles to cross the floor, for the chance of a ministerial post and pay rise.
Since Paul Hogan told Mike Willesee several decades ago “I think we should pay 'em more (the politicians), maybe then we might attract a better class of people” I think the opposite has held true.
The more we pay them, the more self serving they become.

Hi TBC,
The Greens are made up of a wide cross section of the community, academics, workers, students, retired people, youth etc etc. One thing I find common to all is they are people with a social conscience, they really care about their fellow man. The ALP has lost any humanity it once had the Liberals never had it to begin with. The Democrats tried to be a small l Liberal Party. Meg Lees is the woman you were trying to think off GST Meg. Her actions with the GST were a prime example of 'small l-ness'. "Yes lets tax the poor at 10%, but please don't tax their chardonnay or vogal bread and everything will be OK." As for Abbott and Gillard don't be fooled by their pompous posturings that they are thinking whats good for the country, they are thinking whats good for themselves. The cynical might think they each intend to form a short term minority government and hope that their popularity improves with the voters and then get the mugs to vote them back in.

Quite so Paul1405. I agree.

Yes, Meg Lees was the person I had erased from my mind, thanks.

I voted Green anyway, and am a member too, but am very aware of the rather too broad range of people in the Greens, from complete loopy crystal gazers, to Tarot card turners, to proper environmentalists, to dope fiend tossers, with tons of well meaning Xtians chucked in too, which is not recognised by the oaf Abbott, or the pretend atheist Gillard who must think all Greens are atheists, having listened to her real Baptist values for too long.

And yes, neither A nor G care two hoots about much beyond them and their place in history.

I can see Gillard has lost it now, and we will be lumbered with cronies again, and 'the fool from St George' as T Windsor so eloquently refers to him as.

This will be a rough ride ahead, with luck made rougher when Turnbull challenges after Abbott makes his first major mistake, about two weeks hence.

Hold on to your Arkaburra cobber... we're going back down that Menzies time tunnel, to a world with 'telephone operators' who will help connect us to The Internets, are back, along with party lines and, wait for it... that reassuring sound of The Dial Up.

Yes, Tony will do us proud with his 'vision' for the nation.

Wait for his long hoped for Bible lessons in every school, particularly for the 'reffos' in western Sydney who 'queue jumped' to get here.

Australia will become GREAT again, as the mother in law of the AWU chap gets pitched out and John Howard takes up his place as our next GG.

Look forward to that happening!

TBC

Interesting scenario you paint with John Howard as Governor General...do ya think he'd live at Yarrulumla - or maybe just commute there for functions?

suzeonline,

I am not worried at all about fellows like Bob Katter MP who are a little eccentric and theatrical.

The fact is that the incidence of gun related death in Australia remains on a par with 1902 and as was the case back then, the illegal use of firearms is all down to criminals.

Howard's gun buy-back, gun laws and the white elephant of a gun registry are costly fakes. Howard wrongly sooled police at honest, licensed firearms owners while pretending that the solution to violence was gun control.

You and most Australians were hoodwinked. Forget licensed gun owners like Katter (if he is one) and direct your attention to the major and all pervasive drug gangs that put drugs and the other social problems and violence connected with them within easy reach of any primary school kid. It is silly to waste judgemental frowns and words on the innocuous and largely ineffectual but entertaining country hick Bob Katter, when the corruption from organised crime and the drug trade has permeated through all levels of society.

With the greatest respect, governments have got it made where they can whip up gun or knife hysteria (or 'youth hysteria or....) and pretend to solve it through bans and redundant laws. That is a whole heap better than tackling drugs and organised crime. Sure protects some biggies in society too.

OT, but since you raised it, Cornflower - you may have missed this news item yesterday:

<< Howard's gun buyback slashed firearm suicides

Australian researchers have found there has been an almost 80 per cent drop in firearm suicides since former prime minister John Howard's gun buyback was introduced in 1997.

The figures equate to about 200 lives each year.

The 1997 gun buyback saw 650,000 semi-automatic rifles and shotguns destroyed, and is estimated to have halved the number of gun-owning households. >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/30/2996838.htm

That has to be a positive result, no?

Poirot... the die is cast.

His Excellency, the deposed King of Bennelong (hohoho), and the unsuccessful Czar of Cricket (hahaha), will turf the Abbott from the NSW Commonwealth pile where he lived as lowly PM years (not enough of them) before and take up his rightful place again.

Abbott will have to slum it in The Lodge because the cycling is better in the ACT than on Keneally's dangerous NSW roads, and no one really cares if Keneally falls prey to a poorly driven NSW Barina, but to lose a PM that way would be too much to think about.

After all, we've already had one PM 'taken' by a yellow submarine, and we dare not lose anymore, particularly as 'roadkill'... very messy.

<< That has to be a positive result, no? >>

Not sure about that CJ. The obvious question is: how many people who would have committed suicide with a gun ended up doing it by some other means?

The article says nothing about this.

The gun buy-back scheme probably has been quite significant, but maybe not to the extent that the article implies.

Now, I just don’t understand why the independents are required to back one or other major party especially, as Andrew Wilkie said yesterday given that he (and presumably the others) will continue to be independent and assess each bill on its merits rather than on a party-aligned basis.

I’ve said it before a couple of times on OLO and there has been very little comment – it just makes a complete mockery of the principle of independence for these four MPs to align themselves with either major party, especially in the enormously significant manner needed to decide who will govern!

Tony Windsor sounds like he is very concerned about alienating lots of people no matter which way he goes. Well… of course each independent is going to incur a backlash and an entrenched group of people against them that are currently not at all against them, no matter which party they back.

So then, why on earth don’t they just insist on remaining neutral?

OK, so they could win some advantages for their electorates in the deal-making process. But they’d compromise their integrity. And I’d suggest that integrity in federal politics is a very rare and valuable commodity.

Alright, so I guess they should fully suss out what advantages there might be in supporting one or other party and then possibly do it if the gains are really significant.

But they sure as hell should NOT be required to back one or other party and should be allowed, unpressured, to remain fully independent if they so choose.

C J Morgan

The suicide rate overall was falling before the Howard gun laws and buy-back and continued at the same rate notwithstanding it. How come Howard's 'initiatives' showed no effect?

Again, the authors you quoted did not consider substitution of the means of suicide. Say rope or car 'accident' in lieu of gun. In fact the most popular mean of suicide, hanging, increased during the period.

How could a buy-back of semi-automatic guns reduce suicide anyhow when only one bullet is needed? Also, many of those who owned the categories of gun bought back by Howard would have owned other firearms. So how could that stop their suicide if that is what they planned? The authors didn't think that through.

There is much more but that is enough to destroy the findings. Well, that and the simple fact that there was a national initiative, in which all levels of government were involved, to reduce the incidence of suicide. Didn't the authors of that report think of Beyond Blue, the initiatives taken prevent male suicide in country towns and so on? Tough when so many professionals and the public put so much work into mental health, depression and reducing suicide but the 'researchers' who wrote that paper were apparently unaware of it.

Then again, the authors seem unaware of the recent gun violence committed by drug criminals with illegal firearms, such as the bikie driveby shootings and middle eastern drug turf warfare in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. Must not read the papers, huh?

The authors themselves made the point that suicide has fallen for ten years and suicide by firearm is almost statistically insignificant. They should give credit where credit is due - to the national mental initiatives the credit for reducing suicide, not Howard. Howard blew $1billion that could have gone to mental health.

TBC you have the taint of that lefty thugs and mugs union and its slogans in you.
I have its members, refugees from lefty loony ism and screaming and shouting.
Stay as close as you can to reality.
Tis thread has been interesting but Abbott would never dare put the dwarf in that job.
Ludwig without independents, look at the senate in the last Parliament, no one can govern.
We must know that basic surely.

[Deleted for abuse].

And I don't even own a gun!
But I do know how to use one!

Ah Belly, you are keen to attach me to a particular union, but I am none the wiser as to which one it is supposed to be.

Do tell me, and I will confirm or deny.

Don't be to sure about Abbott and Howard... those right wing crazies owe Howard for keeping them in the trough for so long, and since Bennelong and the cricket world have no room at the inn for him, there is but one more place left, the GGship.

In the days Howard and Abbott look back to with relish, he would have gone to the Cinque Ports, of course, and a stay at The John Howard in London when he was propping there at our expense, on his way to the House of Lords, not to be confused with Abbott's version, the House of Lourdes.

So, do lay your cards on the table Belly, and let me advise you of the truth of the matter.

With the greatest respect Cornflower, I doubt many people would call Bob Katter eccentric.
Paranoid, aggressive, old-fashioned, redneck, and gun-mad, yes....but eccentric he is not.

CJ Morgan <" Australian researchers have found there has been an almost 80 per cent drop in firearm suicides since former prime minister John Howard's gun buyback was introduced in 1997."

CJ you took the words right out of my mouth. I haven't seen any figures on suicide by hanging having increased since the gun-buyback Cornflower?

Will we need to worry that Bob Katter will ask for unlimited gun licences be handed out to any boy who wants to continue playing cowboys and Indians into adulthood?

I remain worried about this loose cannon having any say in our parliament.

suzeonline, "I haven't seen any figures on suicide by hanging having increased since the gun-buyback Cornflower?"

Maybe you didn't look either. Here, from the Australian Bureau of Statistics:

"ABS 3309.0.55.001
1993 TO 2003
SUICIDES: RECENT TRENDS,
AUSTRALIA

In 2003 the most common method of suicide was hanging, which was used in almost half (45%) of all suicide deaths. The next most used methods were poisoning by 'other' (including motor vehicle exhaust) (19%), Other (15%), poisoning by drugs (13%), and methods using firearms (9%). This distribution was consistent with that of the previous few years. However, over the decade strong trends were apparent such as the increase in the use of hanging, and a decrease in methods using firearms."

If you look at the ABS publication "Suicides: Recent Trends" for 1993-2003, you can see that the suicide rate varies between 11.1 and 14.7 per hundred thousand. In 1993, there was 1.5 hanging suicides for each firearm suicide.

In 2008, ABS "Causes of Death", the suicide rate was 10.2 per hundred thousand. There were 7 hanging suicides for each firearm suicide.
Hangings increased from 595 in 1993 to 1151 in 2008, while firearm suicide decreased from 435 in 1993 to 170 in 2008.

Despite the passage of years and the desperation of some to find some vestige of positives, no-one, absolutely no-one has been able to demonstrate any positive outcomes whatsoever from Howard's hugely expensive, self-serving publicity stunt of the guns buy-back and redundant gun laws.

It is disgraceful that the media has sensationalised a report by two economists with so many very obvious weaknesses in methodology and evidence.

Again, it is most regrettable that credit has not been given to the obvious success of the national mental health initiatives in assisting men in particular to seek help, particularly for depression. If that is accepted and all of the evidence points in that direction, there should be an increased budget for mental health. We can always hope that evidence and reason wins out, even if such boring (sic) news doesn't sell newspapers.

Cornflower:"means of suicide. Say rope or car 'accident' "

I do tend to agree with this, especially the car "accident". There are many single vehicles fatalities in which the single occupant was drunk or stoned, with no seatbelt on and has driven straight into a tree or roadside structure.

These are rarely investigated as suicides and nor are those in which an oncoming vehicle is the target.

On the other hand, such an action requires planning and some focussed attention to carry through, while grabbing the gun in the cupboard takes very little.

Whatever I thought of Howard (not much) and the implications for indidvidual freedom represented by the gun buyback (freedom, what freedom) I don't think it's reasonable to argue against the proposition that it has reduced the frequency of suicide among young rural men especially. If one is determined, there are any number of ways to kill yourself, but really depressed people are less likely to be determined or organised enough for long enough to carry through complex plans.

Antiseptic,

The problem with what you are saying is that there is no evidence to support it. Yet the numbers do support reduction in suicide of men because of the mental health initiative.

As is always true of change, people are liable to forget or even discount the very positive and continued outcomes of sometimes very simple steps. Taking men as an example, it was not so long ago that to admit any anxiety, stress or mental 'deficiency' would have been quite impossible. If told to a doctor it would likely have been dismissed with an embarrassed cough, or "Mate, develop a thicker skin or take some leave if you have it." It was impossible for men in positions of trust, especially in politics or business, to admit anything, even to their wives and for trades or blue collar workers, no chance!

Fact is, it remains very, very hard for men to go against the conditioning and insensitivity they were exposed to as a routine in their youth, when growing up and even when they are seniors.

One of the really big discoveries for improving men's health was that although they were interested in their health they were confronted by a system that for whatever reason (and there are many) didn't really mean it when men were encouraged by brochures to get examinations and it wasn't particularly rewarding when they did. Men knew that instinctively and things still have a long way to go.

Never underestimate the difference made by brave men like Jeff Kennett coming forward.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1152967.htm

Returning to the research report linked to by C J Morgan, not only is it obviously deficient in fact and its methodology is suspect, but the authors themselves acknowledged major limitations in it (at pages 17, 25, 44 and 45 from memory, but easily checked).

Frankly I smell a rat in the coincidence of the sloppy 'research' being released now by the two economists, one of whom is a newly elected Labor MP. Mental health funding is up for dibs and there are uncommitted independents around (fewer today).

Cornflower:"The problem with what you are saying is that there is no evidence to support it. Yet the numbers do support reduction in suicide of men because of the mental health initiative."

I don't think the two things can be treated separately. There may nave been a transfer to other means, which allows the mental health initiatives time to work. They can only work if there is recognition that a problem exists. The common lament from loved ones left behind by suicide has always been "I didn't know anything was wrong", which seems much more likely if the person can simply get drunk and pull the trigger. Many young men (and older ones) have done so.

I was a long-time rifle-owner, but I didn't bother getting a license after the Howard gun laws, since I didn't have one at the time. I've not noticed the lack.

Antiseptic,

As I have said in other threads and on different subjects, I don't mind government spending large sums of money provided there is evidence of positive desired outcomes and value for money is obtained. That will never be likely where political cynicism, emotion and the media drive policy.

That is what spin and political correctness are all about, avoiding the need for evidence and proof. Put your own critical faculties and judgement into neutral and let them do the thinking for you. After all it is much easier to be a Lemming than to fly where Eagles dare.

A second theme of mine simply put, is freedom. If there was a Liberal Party in more than name, there would be a champion for that, but alas that is not the case and probably never was, although Ming sometimes gave in to fairness. Labor and the Greens are no better in that respect.

That brings me to your comment that you have no interest in shooting sports and have no use for a firearm as a tool. That may be the case, but by itself it does not justify your rejection of the right of others to own and use firearms.

Contrary to the 'red neck' name calling from the anti-gun lobby, whose membership and sources of funding are dark secrets, the shooting sports in Australia have a very fine tradition of exemplary law-abiding conduct and inclusiveness. By way of examples, there are many women members (full members at that) and people with disabilities.

It suited Howard to ruthlessly brand these very ordinary and upstanding members of society as likely criminals and he wasted a billion dollars plus in doing so. At the same time he made it easier for criminals to do their worst and the drug trade has bloomed.

contd..

contd..

In another thread you are horrified that NAPCAN is indirectly labelling all men as possible child abusers and making them responsible for the wrongdoing of the few. You are worried about prejudice and stereotyping against men and you and you should be. However on the other hand you yourself have a blind spot in respect of law abiding (licensed) gun owners and would join in the hysteria of others with a secondary agenda in mind.

I do not intend at this stage to revisit the numbers and references I quoted, having provided more than enough evidence to show the publicised report for the crock of proverbial that it really is.

Pardon the call to order, but it is needed where political correctness rears its ugly head.

Cornflower:"you yourself have a blind spot in respect of law abiding (licensed) gun owners and would join in the hysteria of others with a secondary agenda in mind"

I don't think that's at all fair. I have no problem with other people owning firearms and if I felt the need or even the desire I'd get myself a license and buy one. I can't see how that's in any way relevant to the issue of suicide, which is all I've commented on here.

There's no hysteria on my part, just a recognition that impulsive behaviour can more easily lead to bad outcomes if the means to act on the impulse is available. Moreover, those around have more time to recognise symptoms and help if those means are not easily accesible.

The Howard laws required people to have proper storage facilities with proper locks and separately locked enclosures for the bolt, and that ammunition had to be stored separately, IIRC. That means a fair sequence of events between deciding to top yourself and having the means to hand when compared with having a shotty under the bed with a round in the breech or in the box alongside. Think of it as a safety analysis problem: the risk of someone using their weapon to do themself harm may be low, but if it occurs, the hazard presented is very great-few people survive such an attempt. That's why we put fences up at known jumping spots, to the disgust of those who miss the view.

On the subject of individual liberty I'm very much on your side, but it has to be regulated to some extent. The problems occur when the intrusion is not proportional to the risk and hazard presented.

Antiseptic,

So you imagine that where a person is clinically depressed to the point of suicidal ideation he is going to just 'snap out' of his depression because the gun is a minute away in his safe and not beside his bed?

Cornflower, I've been severely depressed. If I'd had a loaded weapon beside the bed, I'd not be typing this. Even the effort of going and jumping in front of a bus can be too much for the very badly depressed. Add the effects of alcohol or dope and you can see where it ends.

Anything that makes the task a little more complex is a good thing, I reckon.

This thread has swung way off topic, but I have to say that I'm once again in agreement with Antiseptic here.

Yes, suicide has been enormously difficult to research since Durkheim's seminal study. Indeed, the authors of the report I cited acknowledge that any suicide research carries inherent limitations - the biggest being that its prevalence is too low for much in the way of statistical inference.

However, if you reduce the number of guns by 50% and the suicide rate by guns subsequently falls by 80%, you have a strong correlation between the availability of guns and people killing themselves with them. Of course, that doesn't establish a causal relationship in itself, but it certainly warrants further investigation.

Cornflower, would you acknowledge that, as a gun enthusiast, you're not exactly an unbiased commentator? The fact that you've successfully hijacked this thread to your favourite cause would support such a contention, IMHO.

TBC you must not be a member of thugs and mugs, but your words anti my union very much lost left are theirs .
'Any chance you come from WA? have a big gut small brain made up by a big mouth?
If you do not know what so called union I talk of you are no Unionist.
Lets see Victorian ETU is getting there.
But not them care to Comment Friend Mate Everyone has Unhappiness in their past.

C J Morgan, "Cornflower, would you acknowledge that, as a gun enthusiast, you're not exactly an unbiased commentator? "

Back to your old tricks I see. If anyone criticises anything you approve of they soon know through your reversion to name calling and diverting the debate by claiming they are 'for' one side or another. Predictable.

As you very well know my interest is in correcting errors of fact and ensuring that the national mental health initiative gets the kudos it deserves. That is crucial for ensuring that advances in men's health, especially in mental health are not lost. You and I have had that argument before where you declared that men should solve their problems in a pub like you.

You posted the link to a sensationalist article about research that was easily proved to be flawed. In fact the two economists who wrote the research paper admitted as much through listing limitations which they later 'forgot' when making their findings. Particularly, they failed to consider the results of the national health initiative and they pretended that substitution of suicide method did not occur.

You should re-read my earlier posts and the research itself because your grasp of the problems in the survey method are made obvious through your example. But then you are out to label, not understand.

I have already noted the coincidence of that 'research' report you hyperlinked being sensationalised without any apparent critical analysis by some sections of the media at the time of the hung parliament. It doesn't take much intellect to see that the report and the media treatment of it could impact on the independents, especially Katter who originally advised Howard against his $1billion failure. If you want to discuss the hung parliament what about discussing this coincidence and the interests involved. It is certainly something that Media Watch should address.

Antiseptic,
A flaw in the research methodology is that substitution of suicide method was not considered, nor was the positive effect of the national mental health initiatives - men helping men, that sort of thing.

Whatever you say, Cornflower.

The fact that you're a gun enthusiast has nothing to do with you derailing the discussion about a hung parliament into one about gun control and mental health.

If you'd like to do the right thing and start up your own topic along those lines I'll be happy to correct your misunderstanding of research methodologies. However, I'm not going to indulge your contravention of the forum rules any more in this thread.

On topic, I think Katter's nutty as a fruitcake, and if he's a gun nut as well that only reinforces my assessment. I can understand why people are concerned about him being anything more than a sideshow freak to the Parliament.

The real irony here is that while Abbott loves decrying the Labor party for being the tool of the unions, he completely ignores his coalition partners' affiliation/sellout to the Farmer's Federation/agribusiness campaign contributors.
Why do you think the key independents (state and federal) are all refugees from the National Party?
These guys are smart enough to know that big money and campaign contributions are no substitute for votes.
The old Country Party represented not only farmers, but also the country towns that supported -and were supported by- the small farmers.
Who represents these folk now?
Bloody independents, that's who.
The clear lesson here, for any MP smart enough to learn is:
constituents first, party policy second.

C J Morgan,

Heh, heh, you can't resist, can you? I didn't raise guns as a criticism of one of the independents of the hung parliament and I certainly didn't stir it along as you did.

I definitely didn't post that article with the flawed research paper about guns and suicide that has strangely come into prominence during the hung parliament. You did that and yes, it does create murky politics around the independents.

I did take you and others to task about facts and evidence. Fair enough too.

Now your closing and best shot is to make another personal attack on me? But hey, that does mean you finished the thread as you started it, with a personal attack on a poster. Good one!

CJMorgan:"its prevalence is too low for much in the way of statistical inference."

I don't know what you mean by that. There are several thousand suicde attempts each year and at least a couple of thousand succeed. I suspect a greater factor is the historical reluctance of authorities to make much of an investigation, especially of it can be written off as death due to misadventure, such as a car "accident". I'm not suggesting anything sinister here, just a motivation to make things easier for those left behind. Combined with the dearth of rigour in the social "sciences" this creates a fertile environment for misinformation and poor outcomes.

Cornflower:"A flaw in the research methodology is that substitution of suicide method was not considered, nor was the positive effect of the national mental health initiatives - men helping men, that sort of thing."

It seems a great flaw to me. The only way to arrive at decent understanding is to consider all of the possible impacting factors.

Come on, Cornflower. I haven't made any kind of "personal attack" on you. I have suggested that, as a gun enthusiast, your interpretation of reseach findings about gun suicides is likely to be biased. That's not an attack, nor is it any kind of abuse.

As I've said, if you want to start your own thread rather than hijacking this one as a platform for your hobbyhorse, I'd be quite happy to correct your misunderstanding of the research methodology and findings.

Have a lovely day.

C J Morgan,

So it wasn't your last post and you have come back for another last post to do the same?

Can't you do any better than name calling a MP as a:
"gun nut",
"nutty as a fruit cake",
"sideshow freak",
"paranoid",
"racist",
"a homophobe", and
"a loose cannon of the worst kind", among other epithets?

On OLO, in this and other current threads you are similarly free with your disgraceful name calling of contributors and respondents alike (eg "Peter the Babbler") and abuse of anyone who is unfortunate enough to express a different view to you.

There are murky politics being played to sledge the independents of the hung parliament and attempts to lower their credibility through personal attacks is just one of the tactics being employed by those specialised in the dark arts of scurrilous politics. OLO is not free from that it would appear.

Cornflower, you claimed that I had "personally attacked" you.

Are you actually Bob Katter? It would explain alot.

However, assuming you're not, you were 'exaggerating' just a tad, weren't you?

On the subject of Katter and his wheeling and dealing in the context of the hung parliament, today's Crikey has this pearler:

<< Bob Katter, energy corridors and conflicts of interest

by Bernard Keane and Wendy Bacon

A key element of Bob Katter’s regional development wish-list presented to the major parties will directly benefit companies owned or controlled by Katter’s brother-in-law, and was spruiked by the Member for Kennedy for months in 2009 before Katter acknowledged the conflict of interest. >>

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/09/02/bob-katter-energy-corridors-and-conflicts-of-interest/

Just another reason to be apprehensive about this character's access to any degree of real power, I reckon.

Unfortunately, you have to register to read the rest of the article, but you can do so for free