I think there's a bunch or two of sour grapes being expressed by rehctub and Crackcup here. Oakeshott and Windsor have acted as true Independents by negotiating the best concessions they could get for their constituents and the country. Their explanations were anything but "outrageous".

rehctub, we know that spelling isn't your greatest strength, but have you considered writing your posts in a word processing program and running a spellchecker through them before copying and pasting them here? I had to read your OP several times in order to decipher what it is you were trying to say.

"Fumming made" indeed!

I'm with you Crackcup.

The reactionaries will say "it can't be done".

But it should. With one teensy proviso.

That the candidates themselves write down their policies, and then stick to them.

The result will be - effectively - a parliament full of quasi-independents, perhaps affiliated to, but not beholden to, a political party; elected by an unequivocal majority of voters, who cared enough to vote.

Debates would be real debates, not simply the constant, on-message party sloganeering that passes for parliamentary procedure at the moment.

Votes would be real votes, with the member voting according to the wishes of the people who elected him/her.

The laws would then be real laws, with the committees that tend to the detail unhindered by party dogma, and thus able to detect and close loopholes ahead of the bill's passing.

And the Senate would be a real Senate... er, well, actually, that's another candidate for much-needed, long-overdue reform...

Mind you, chances of any of this happening?

Buckleys.

Why would a politician even bother to lift their snout from the trough, for one single second?

That would need integrity.

And right now we're witnessing a real life example of a government that has all the integrity that our money can buy.

Thanks rechtub, Honorable mention to crack up both have me smirking even out right laughing at the lack of understanding.
Once we had a country party, it looked after the country cow cockys.
Then became the National party, it looks after? miners.
Never, not once has the Nats acted for the bush,and it never would,it is the servant of Liberalism.
Oakshot, Windsor, wanted to do what the party they left should do, get more for the bush.
No love in for Labor just the only way the only outcome that saw them win was to back labour.
It is no gift no do as you like thing it is hard work.
The one winner is the most left out section of this country the heartland we say is the real Australia.
Gillard will govern well, a lot will not get past this hung and strung Parliament.
War will be a daily thing Abbott loves confrontation, that will one day be his undoing.
Points of interest.
Gillards lead over Abbott in preferred PM is double figures.
If conservative insist on calling us the rainbow coalition how do they claim most votes most seats,, clearly not true.

INCONCEIVABLE!

hahahahaha

Yes well, what can I say.

Day ONE, we have a missunderstanding about the mining tax.

Boy Tony, you should have got that one in writting old mate. To late now to say I thought......

You see, one of labors fundimental errors, is that they fail time and time again to dot the 'T's' and cross the 'I's'.

So I guess it's yet another round of 'here we go again' time.

I just hope they leave some sought of a skelton once they are finnished so there is at least some chance of re-building the economy we once had. Having said that, if the previous three years and the first one day are any indication, we'd best hope for the best and plan for the worst.

If it wern't so serious, it would be funny.

How did I go col?

<< they fail time and time again to dot the 'T's' and cross the 'I's'. >>

Now that is truly funny. Not even a spellchecker would help you with that one!