Wow! Who would ever have thought the ALP had 'other' members of parliament?

Doug Cameron, in there for years, done nothing, said nothing, supported Rudd and Gillard without question, now finds a voice.

What next?

Shall we start a thread supporting Rudd for PM?

That would be a larf hahaha.

And sundry non-entities too, like Ferguson, never said Boo! to Rudd, never questioned his brother's support for uranium mining and everything overseas miners want, suddenly, 'speaks out'.

My, my, the peasants are revolting.

As for our AG, well, he's a DLP throwback, like Gillard but she's a Baptist really, even worse than DLP, so what could we expect?

It's taken the New Voices a long time to see what "we, the people" are saying though, hasn't it?

TBC,

No doubt about it - they all waited to see which way the pendulum swung and if the government's initial stance was going to hold sway as it usually does when crushing dissent. Belatedly, they seem to have accepted the extreme level of support in the general community for Assange and Wikileaks

Poirot, if we were French, we'd have burned the giant flagpole to the ground by now.

If we were English, we'd have hurled rocks through the windows of The Lodge and set the CommCar pool alight.

If we were American, we'd have started endless litigation against every politician in Canberra.

Sadly, we're Australian, so a 'moment in the sun' will have to suffice as numerous blogs go apeshit in support of Mr Wiki.

It'll all have vanished by next week, and we'll get back to the barbie, xmas, and moaning about politics.

I have been here from the first second TBC you fish in a dam that has been dry for century's if you think you can turn this issue in to a lefty one.
And do harm to its victim.
The support for free speech is widespread and far more than your sides 11% and shrinking.
Gillard is however a flop and a few of her team nearly as bad, roll on Bill Shorten.
In about an hour we will know if he got bail, or if laughable put up not existent sex crimes help America kidnap him with the help Of Sweden.
If that happens we are in dreadful strife and democracy is dead.

Belly, the issue at hand challenges the status quo.

It therefore falls into a vague and general 'left' sort of 'issues box', whether you like that or not.

The 'right' always support the status quo, and seek to go further right while they are at it.

You have moved 'left', although not Left I do concede.

And some of your statements are quite radical, even if you do not understand why or how that can be.

Who is 'the victim'? Mr Wiki, or open government? Or both?

I know you like Shorten, but he is part of the status quo, and will never seek to change one iota, except to position himself into government.

Once there, he will be as reformist as Swan, or Emmerson, or Gillard for that matter.

The ALP does not have the wherewithall to change, to govern, to keep Abbott out for that matter.

Here is a brief summary, sent by a Pommy colleague to his chums in the UK, as he awaits Ponting's next failure at the WACA.

It rather echoes my observations- and he has only been here about 10 days:

"What I think holds Australia back most are its politicians, who seem to lack the abilities they would need to get elected to a County Council in England. Rudd was a monster, Gillard looks a lightweight to me, and the opposition are just a joke, led by a sort of Aussie Berlusconi in budgie-smugglers."

So, will Shorten beat Tony Berlusconi?

Sorry to interrupt, boys, but I just wanted to mention something I noticed this afternoon when I strayed onto Fox News (not my usual port of call).
I caught Glenn Beck's show (pity AGIR is not about).
He had Fox News' regular legal adviser on the show to talk about Assange and Wikileaks. So, I sat there waiting for the demolition job.
Surprisingly, though, the opposite occurred.
Beck first asked his audience to signal if they felt uncomfortable about what Assange was doing. Most of the audience raised their hands.
Beck then asked who in the audience wanted Assange shut down - only five members of the audience raised their hands.
Slightly non-plussed, Beck turned to Judge Napolitano for his views questioning the legality of Wikileaks actions (no doubt, for some support).
However, the judge wasted no time spelling out the letter of the law to Beck stating that: "The thief is the person who commits the crime - The person who disseminates the material is not the one who commits the crime".
He went on to say that he applauded the exposure of the truth and that the U.S. Government had behaved reprehensibly by intimidating the vendors who did business with Wikileaks - adding that the constitution prohibited such engagement.
We were left with a rather deflated Beck murmuring vaguely about who was behind Wikileaks and who was funding them, until he ran out of puff and wished everyone a Merry Christmas.
Thoroughly entertaining to watch Beck's carefully crafted Tea Party agenda washed away by Fox News' own regular legal adviser - not to mention the tepid audience response.