We it seems have excepted we will for the near future be ruled under the Westminster system.
I very much would prefer reform,no Senate would be a start.
I propose major party's put donkey party's up in seats that are tight, to use up preferences,why?
In the Senate sits a DLP Senator, put there by Labor preferences, no Friends these two.
A south Australian Senator who too prospered on other party's preferences ,not intended to put him there.
In the lower house a Green sits,put there by Tony Abbott making a choice to give him preferences.
As the 88% who do not vote greens, the current beneficiary's of our system why give such power.
Andrew Wilkie sits in the house, while I understand his reasons are good, holding this government to ransom on poker machines.
He ran third ,yes he finished third on first preference votes but won the seat.
Today the greens tomorow? Christian fundamentalists, Muslim, why do we not elect the most popular?
If the major party's run candidates to absorb preferences just maybe we will get the people most want in Parliament.
Not as it is some truly by chance winning a lottery at public expense.

do we really accept the system
or just allow its excess..cause we dont want to do 'better'

get rid of states before getting rid of the senete
and even the senetors..before loosing the oversight of a senete

yes the parties allrewady put up donkey nominations
cause their preferences for you..
..or against you
make the difference between obeying the liberatters
or the labratters party machine/men's...how to vote orders

most of the rest i will take as commentory

my commentary is get rid of parties
councils and the states...

just have local school districts
who send their rep..to govern on their local behalf

each govt gathering..would be to resolve specific issues
with the schools reps being specialists in this weeks debate

govt should look for a concensus
[concensus forces deal making]

but no govt level should be allowed to raise tax or create new taxes..nor give out money..to non govt organuisations

ie only controls the issue of money/credit[via the banks]
and insures finances and underwrites the local school disticts
per head..of the council like areas/services they run for the good of us all

good luck with the topic

OUG what you are saying would be shared by about one tenth of one percent of voters.
I am more than pleased with that, the world you lay claim to never existed, you have of late put your name to things so weird it stunned.
First I want to forecast some one will launch in to Windsor and oak shot.
It would be wise to remember both won very clearly, by big margins, first preference majority's.
Not sure about Oakshot,But Windsor could better the leaders of both party's, he is head and shoulders above in honesty trust worthiness and likability.
Greens have a higher profile on the net, but the truth in my post is this.
IF ONLY Conservatives think as I do, the greens must confront the truth.
3 plus voters distrust them for every vote they own.
A party could be formed, call it the preference party.
Its single policy could be to ask voters to give it third or even second preferences to see majority control of both houses

Belly, I'm really not on your case particularly, but you keep in posting such one-eyed, partisan and ill-informed nonsense that I feel I must respond. Nothing personal, you understand.

Firstly, preferences only come into play when nobody wins an absolute majority in the lower house or a a quota in their own right in the Senate. Since nobody has the direct support of the majority of voters, the object then becomes to identify the candidate who will be most acceptable to the majority of voters in the electorate. The system you favour - first past the post - actually guarantees that the person elected will have less supporters in their electorate than those who oppose them.

The allocation of preferences is a way to try and ensure that the 'least unpopular' candidate is elected, such that while most people may not get their first preference, they can at least live with the person thus elected to represent them. The only real objection to preferential voting comes from rusted-on members of the ALP and Coalition who object to anybody else being represented in government, which they see as their rightful province.

Out of time now, bit I'll clarify your other misapprehensions later. Hope this helps :)

I am in doubt that the current political system is good for Australian's Democracy.

But preferences are distorting the results less than the coalition deals. Each political party should stand on its own at election day. After the elections the party with the majority votes each time should decide with which other party or parties to form government.

A situation where one party holds the majority in the parliament and the senate is the worst for the democratic system. That's what I would call a party dictatorship and it only differs from the CCP because we have question time where the opposition has the chance to be against everything the government does, even if it is good.

The second problem is that most parties muzzle their members which is bad for democracy as well. No free speech for party members. We need more independents because they stand for what we have elected them for.

A proforma two party system is also no good for the democratic system. We should have more parties in Australia.

In addition the press is not helping the political process to make good decisions.
Crating each week another poll is journalistic masturbation. A cheap way to fill news content instead of analysing the topics and feed the public with real information.

Polls each quarter year and weekly before elections would be far enough. I guess Australia is world leader in regards of polls.

The only good democratic parliament is a hung parliament because topics have to be discussed and cannot be dictated by the PM or one party.

Say as you wish Morgan, try to drown my thoughts in a mud that infers I am unaware or a bit silly.
You will be aware your lower house green got there on conservative preferences.
That Wilkie ran third but won on preferences.
You know too family first got a senate position on Labors left overs.
Lets not duck, weave and dive around the truth.
Most Australians, did not want your Greens to hold the balance of power.
My idea is for majority rule, and that,as it should, frightens the greens.

Belly, the trouble is that first past the post cannot result in majority rule ever, by definition. I would point to chris_ho's interesting observation about preferences per se as opposed to pre-election deals between parties, but it's increasingly clear that you don't really understand the system that you love to discuss so much.

It seems that your position is 'Labor good, everybody else bad', which may have been appropriate for an old union warhorse, but is increasingly unsuited to understanding and conducting politics this century.

FIRST PAST THE POST, the only solution.

SOG I find it hard to warm to you, but you have it down to pat here.
Morgonzola is an active green, I activly oppose them always, as a result of Browns actions.
My poor formal education is leading a bloke I have always liked, to say I do not under stand the way preferences work.
Quite silly, I offer this in reply Morgan, do you rebut my claim your first lower house member got there on conservative preferences.
Do you think conservatives wanted that out come.
Are you, surely given your feelings I am not informed, you are Wilkie won a seat after finishing third, on preferences.
DLP got a senate seat on my party's preferences.
Who put family first in the senate, it was us again.
Do you challenge my view more will never vote for you than do.
I may well lack understanding,but today you bloke,a fella I think left here once told me I have my arm over SM shoulder or words to that effect.
My loyalty is to Labor because while not one serve every thing I want they forever serve best, one vote one value no senate and no one with 12% in control.

"Wilkie won a seat after finishing third, on preferences"

Belly if that's the case it means that more voters prefered to have him there than prefered the two who had more first choice votes.

That looks like a far better outcome than a first post the post situation where the majority of voters in the electorate could have had a rep they most definately did not want.

I would like to see preferences being optional, some people you don't even want to put last on a ballot paper.

R0bert

Belly:>> SOG I find it hard to warm to you, but you have it down to pat here.<<

Don't find it so hard Belly my china, I warmed to you right off the bat, I grew up with lots of "you" around me, perhaps that is why I am particularly scathing regarding your defense of the Rudd Gillard governments as there is no Labor in them. Kim was the last. Re what you said to Morgan was exactly right, we need first past the post.

A brief outline of how stupidly unique our preferential system is, note the two other winners that utilize this non sense system, one that in essence acts against democracy.

>>Australia is also of international significance as the home of preferential electoral systems. It was the first place to use them, today it is the largest of only three established democracies to use the system—the others being Malta and Ireland <

RObert your extrapolation regarding the last coming first is absurd, why don't we just throw all the names into a hat, the result would be the same, the last could come first.

SOG sorry but see you tell me you are a Democratic Socialist, and I often after reading your thoughts ask does he mean as in Nazi?
I actually like the Irish, you are Irish?
They are a massive part of my party and my union.
And bloke fun! working with them, or being their union official never bored.
I do love them some of the best unionist are Irish.
I think my party needs a kick in the kibber,no preferential votes would help.
For a Bleeding long time the union movement lost its way, noncopulsory unionism woke them.
We have some slugs in every party mine will never please you, but rather it win election than be in opposition forever.
Except mate I want not to harm you,spoke as you have to me and about my party often but, it seems you and I are unafraid to be our selfs.

@ Belly:

I'm not arguing that preferential voting doesn't result in some odd outcomes, such as the ones you cite. However, the problem would be solved quite simply by prohibiting parties from dealing in preferences, as chris_ho pointed out earlier. The Greens would rather not engage in the practice at all, but the system as it stands virtually demands it. Many Greens branches refuse to direct preferences or hand out HTV cards at polling booths, while others still hand them out in different versions for Labor and Coalition first preference voters. Greens voters are notoriously undisciplined when it comes to following HTVs anyway - I certainly don't :)

However, the fact remains that preferential voting is much more democratic than first past the post systems, as R0bert very succinctly demonstrated. I would compromise at optional preferential voting, although that system still strongly favors the 'majors', but pre- election preference swapping deals ought to be prohibited. But voters must not lose their current right to indicate their preferences if their first fails to attain a majority.

One vote, one value is already practised in Federal elections in Australia - that's precisely why the AEC keeps changing electoral boundaries to reflect changes in demographics, after all. I could even come at abolishing the Senate, but with the proviso that we move to multi-member electorates with proportional representation in the House of Reps or whatever it's to be called.

I agree that our electoral and political systems are in need of reform, but you're coming at it like a bull at a gate. As a former union delegate, I would have thought you'd have acquired better negotiation skills in your time. The Greens aren't going to go away, and those like you who simply refuse to negotiate with them have no future.

Look at what happened to Rudd :)

Belly, from Wiki.

>>Democratic socialism is a description used to emphasize the democratic character of their political orientation. Democratic socialism is contrasted with political movements that resort to authoritarian means to achieve a transition to socialism.<<

Belly I saw the Soviet Union as a totalitarian state working under the veil of socialism which was used as a central controlling ideology for the masses. The Ruskie plebs ability to choose “change” ended a week after the revolution, all evolving social and economic strategies were then centralised in the hands of the few, and opposition to that is the crux to my socialist political beliefs

Today the evolved Fabian movement is as totalitarian as Stalin’s Soviet Union. The difference is that they have to control a more sophisticated class of masses, so they contrived A 40 year plan of Political Correct notions with thousands of little legislations that white ant away at our ability to choose for ourselves, and this was coupled with UN charters to socially engineer away the masses right to self sovereignty. They stifled free speech by making many subjects socially taboo and therefore decided, giving an almost religious credence to their ideas, and the media follow, so the information chain is biased.
The astounding thing to me is that the Fabian movement is a puppet to the “money” but they are so full of ideology this is lost on them. Both the conservatives and Liberals of all first world nations are directed by the “money”. This bi partisan approach to social engineering in First World nations and the UN charters signed by the left and the right of all First World nations abundantly displays this. Cannot agree with anything domestically but unanimously agree with all that the UN and domestic lobby groups present to them.

The Australian Labor Party hierarchy is so far removed from all but the city branches that they have lost reality, not my type of socialism. Gillard and Rudd are Fabians, what more can I say.

Belly I forgot the Greens; the “money” hi jacked that movement twenty years ago, Rachel Carson would weep.

Belly I ran out of room, yes Irish extraction, and my comment was not about the people but the system of preferences. If it had any credence to democracy as understood by the free world surely more nations than Ireland and Malta would have adopted it. But without it Rudd would not have gotten up in 07, but at least he could form a government by mandate of the people, not by the lately effervescent Bob Brown, never seen Bob happier, not a good look.

sonofgloin, if the majority of voters in that electorate had prefered either of the two who got more primary votes than Wilke then that person would have been elected. That does not appear to have been the case. Surely that's a better outcome than the majority being represented by someone who was their least prefered candidate.

I do agree that preference deals result in some ugly choices. The party who get my primary vote don't ever have a hold over where my preferences go so their preference deal don't mean much to me.

R0bert

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/the-gradual-poisoning-of-our-democratic-system-20110705-1h0mg.html
Spin?
If it is over 80% of Australians spin with it.
Democracy? is it rule, or over representation of the number who vote greens in our every day life.
A question has Merritt here.
The 2010 election was historic, any one think not?
In such an election,with the very bottom falling out of Labors vote.
And Tony Abbott so distrusted.
The greens claim their votes represented a big win?
Right now, yes it is early, Brown is being interviewed in a replay.
This delusional person now in that show, claims to be the party of Liberalism.
He meant he thinks he can both replace Labor and the Liberals.
In this 50 years we hear of, this version of the greens will wither and die.
A party, any party,wanting to represent, only one section of this country has no future.
Both party's, right now, are poorly lead and fail the focus test.
Acting and reacting to the circus our information industry has become, failing to take head on those comic book producers.
But both party's, yes conservatives too are being pushed to be better by todays failures.
Better is around the corner.
Gillard thinks success in policy delivery will lift her Abbott thinks shouting longer lying more often will do the same.
Gardens need weeding and turning over before renewal but leap ahead after such, both will.

How to begin? I was for a short time a very Young Communist.
It always was the promise for the very hungry and marginalized.
It was is and always will be a tool to enslave people.
Socialism had true promise, it died in the hands of great numbers who used its name but not its foundations.
Give some thought to this.
Our country is , in part Socialist, in my view as much as we will ever see of Socialism, of should want to see.
I think I am on solid ground here, very few here had my hungry childhood my foundation for my beliefs.
It was not socialism, communism or any ism that came with me to this place.
I am solidly union welded on Labor, but it was my own hard work within those two things and Capitalism that fed me and paid for my home.
Morgonzola,I make No claim to your education , not to your wealth,but I challenge both you and SOG to look at my views from my eyes.
I lived every day of the ALPs exile.
I having come to understand my youthful groups kept my party on the wrong side of the house longed for change.
1972 till 1975 left me exhausted.
We changed so much, did so well, and too so bad.
I do not want to but am reliving it now,comic book self interest and assisted by my party AND ITS seeds, we are living in 1975 again.
more.

I within my movements am always in the excrement only the depth changes.
I was reminded of this yesterday on questioning a Union branch leaders parentage, so be it.
In saying these truths,I underline warts and all my ALP is better than ANY conservative.
ALP is infested with fools,branches are marginalized and *STARS* who are not even party members installed.howyagoing Mr pink bats?
While my 41 years of front line service was unrewarded as a result of my combative fight with a BULLYING boss, Unions Failures are rewarded with a seat in federal Parliament.
And they fail there too.
SOLIDARITY! a wonderful word? no a lie any attempt to install the best is countered with the lie SOLIDARITY.
Any concern that is activly farming the most popular/mates/another vote in caucus for themselves betrays the movement.
We have our fleas we have worms we need desperately to change.
And we will, not enough, not soon but from within the branches we will force change an end to self interest.
And an end to members looking for better in such as the greens, love me,loath me,only the middle ground in Australia grows governments.
Last, my proposal will still see independents win seats.
Rob Oakshot and Windsor won by massive first preferences in more than one election.
They did not win as conservatives and yesterdays SLANDERS from that silly man against them tells me my party's flees are well matched by the other sides grubs.

@ Belly:

It's becoming increasingly obvious that you just want to use this thread as a vehicle from which to slag off the Greens, rather than to debate Federal elections and preferences. Several people have tried to help you overcome errors in your understanding of our current voting system, but you arrogantly dismiss them. For example, you still seem to think that 'one vote, one value' means the same thing as 'first past the post' in voting.

It's not a question of education or lack thereof. I have never sought to get any mileage from the fact that you obviously didn't go too far at school - indeed, I have often admired you for overcoming your disadvantage. However, when it comes to the Greens your mind is worse than narrow. Rather, it is open to every lie, half-truth and negative misrepresentation that you can glean from the tabloid media and the far right of Labor, which you use to invent your version of Greens policies and philosophy.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that Labor is in its death throes, at least as a political party with a coherent philosophy and set of policies to enact them, and the ability and mandate to govern in its own right. The once-great ALP is destined, like the Liberals, to become a party that can only govern in coalition, under our current system.

I've mostly enjoyed debating with you, Belly, but lately it seems that a quite nasty tone has entered your posts, which are lately little more than ignorant tirades at the Greens and no consideration at all that you may not understand some things perfectly well. I might engage with you again if the Belly of old makes a reappearance, but frankly at the moment it's a waste of time and effort. Shame, really.

Morganzola:>> I've mostly enjoyed debating with you, Belly, but lately it seems that a quite nasty tone has entered your posts, which are lately little more than ignorant tirades at the Greens and no consideration at all that you may not understand some things perfectly well.<<

Morgan I seems that I have been "extremely nasty" to Belly, if your yardstick of Bellys response to you brings a "quite nasty" ranking. Morgan you are employing the passive aggressive tactic of questioning the tone of the delivery rather than the message itself.

As I said to Belly and yourself there are global agendas in play and our politicians (both sides) are not putting the interests of the Australian Commonwealth first, we are collateral to the big picture, a picture that they do not allow us to see, we would not understand as "they" understand, we are just dumb plebs.

son of a...quote...""Morgan I seems that I have been "extremely nasty" to Belly,..if your yardstick of Bellys response to you brings a "quite nasty" ranking...""

ie the quote..""Morganzola:>>I've mostly enjoyed debating with you, Belly,but lately it seems that a quite nasty tone..has entered your posts,..which are lately little more than ignorant tirades at the Greens and no consideration at all..that you may not understand some things perfectly well.<<""

i sort of had the same felings of late
just as a decided to say sorry 4 times

but back to sonof..quote..""Morgan you are employing the passive aggressive tactic..of questioning the tone of the delivery rather than the message itself.

which is egsactly how i felt when mr bell said this...""OUG what you are saying..would be shared by about one tenth of one percent of voters.""..ok give me a link..!

belly..""I am more than pleased with
that,the world you lay claim to never existed,
you have of late put your name...to things so weird..it stunned.""

well belly..just because you dont know
dont mean it cant be so[im not lying to you belly]

but lets let son of a quote..""As I said to Belly..and yourself
there are global agendas in play ..nd our politicians..(both sides) are not putting the interests of the Australian Commonwealth first,""

this is true
phycopaths dont like hearing the insanity
of the things..they clearly do

""we are collateral to the big picture,
a picture that they do not allow us to see,
we would not understand as "they" understand,

we are just dumb plebs.""

thats why i COULDNT BE BOTHERD
trying to explain more to you mr bell

any other time i would have asked
LIKE WHAT MR BELL?

please explain...
[i for one know how ignorant i can be]

if you really cared mr bell...you would specificly say what...

quote...""you have of late put your name...
to things so weird..it stunned.""

just cause you dont get it
dont mean its not true*

if you didnt...'get it'
im only too happy to give proof
you belly are one i know..who really does read
thats why when i read what you said..mate that hurt

demand proof
but dont generalise..wierdness...
others will believe you...or accept what you say

just like you swallow the tripe
from the morning papers as lol...'true'
as in gosple...[when its gossip]..

pap for the mmmmm-asses
spin so the blue collar slob..knows his station

work till you drop
income tax isnt wage tax..*

but the blue slobs..and greenie ratters
and not even the labratters and the blueblood libe-rat/chic

but are too sold on delusions
to ask me for proof

mate just cause you dont get it
dont mean i stop trying to explain
those who try to read...find i replied and explained stuff as i go

[unless i was suspended from posting]
a thing that won many debates..for those
who thought i was just too wierd..to be allowed to be heard

thier loss mate

Dear OUG (Johan),

I've never thought that you were "weird," - always interesting, unique, with a playful sense of humour.

Dear Belly,

I understand your passion for your party and what you feel is an infringement by the Greens. I watched Brown being interviewed on
Lateline and he made it quite clear that they are not in a position to dictate to anyone. They along with the Independents are part of
a team and they have to go along with the general consensus. He doesn't see the purpose of the Greens as dictating to the government.
Perhaps you're worrying needlessly?

Hi Belly,
I have been reading all of these posts with interest......at one time,in my younger days, I thought that the Politician elected for each individual seat was there to represent that electorate, mind you, I was only young when that thought came to mind. I still believe that elected Politicians SHOULD be representing their electorate, but no, life isn't like that, because these days, the major Parties indulge in more than a little arm bending to make these SHOULD BE representatives come around to their way of thinking....this does not make sense, country seats for example, require different things than those people who are City dwellers.....we in the bush, have to pay taxes to fund an express way in Perth, do we use it?, no.
City hospitals are thriving, Country hospitals are crumbling, yet we all pay the same tax. City pensioners get free bus and train travel, we in the bush don't have train travel unless we travel 400kms north a trip of 9hours, to catch a train to Perth. Thankfully the National Party's Brendon Grylls, sold himself to the State Liberal Premier, on the grounds that Huge Royalties from the Mining Industry (WA) were spend in the Regional Areas., we now have a $500 fuel card in place of free bus travel (for Pensioners ), and funds are fed into country areas, that they (the people) can enjoy many things that City people enjoy.
What re really need in Government is a benevolent Dictator who can see past the City and do what is best for ALL Australians.
Cheers Belly,
Noisy Scrub Bird :)
PS It was a Liberal Government which told WA folk to move to the country areas and help grow the regions !, we did that and now we are ignored to a degree. I know one thing for sure Belly, I might just come back to to this planet after I die, and enjoy life as a cat or a dog!

Thanks NSB Lexi as always I think the world of you but here you do me miss service.
And Morganzola,well breathless ,I see your pain, I see your defense of your party,you will not answer my questions.
But you are WELL AWARE MY INTENTION here is NO PREFERENTIAL VOTING.
That our first and intended vote, not be used to put third past the post in office.
LEXI history will show my charges are honest and true,rabble defecting from my party's extremes live in the greens
Brown just weeks ago, was confronted with this truth.
GET DOWN OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE. pass honest bills or face a double dissolution!
It is known Labor would not win, but he knew I know it would have reduced his senate representation to 3 or less.
I will not be stopped from being honest my claim AUSTRALIANS 4 to one or very near it, are afraid of the radical nature of the greens.
I have been diverted by the need to defend myself, my understanding.
But know, I honestly think, Australians are unhappy that without knowing it,their second or third preferences put such as Wilkie in Parliament.
Morganzola, has here,in this thread, told me its supports DEMOCRACY that he took a seat from two who finished in front of him?
No preferential voting let my vote be for ONLY the person I wish it too.
Morganzola, is it the policy of you or your party to silence views you do not like?

Belly, I'm not in pain, but your posts are becoming increasingly painful to read. Who said anything about silencing anybody's views? You're entitled to post whatever you like, and I'm entitled to point out when you're wrong.

Of course you're forced to defend yourself when you put forward ideas that are based on ignorance, flawed understanding and misrepresentation. Or aren't people allowed to disagree with you?

If anybody's getting extreme, it's you old ALP true believers publishing increasingly desperate confabulations about the Greens, in a misguided effort to protect your beloved party. Sorry mate, its time in the political sun and yours are over if this is your approach to the new political paradigm that is developing in Australia.

Morganzola:>>Belly, I'm not in pain, but your posts are becoming increasingly painful to read I Sorry mate, its time in the political sun and yours are over if this is your approach to the new political paradigm that is developing in Australia.<<

Sorry to bring you back from global domination Gorgonzola but the greens scraped together 12% nationally, 11-7% actually. You have the Senate for a while but your support will be decimated next Federal election. I know two mature greens that have had enough, they have families to support, so the disenchanted Labor pleb whose vote you got last time has bolted, they are going to be in a bind as to where to go, but they aint going back to green. I suggest you Heil Brown now, because in five years he will just be a dirty taste in someone’s mouth.

Oh come on, SOG. Global domination, Heil Brown? You can't expect to be taken seriously if you actually believe such fanciful, if not paranoid, drivel.

The Greens latest electoral success is no blip. At every level of government in Australia the Greens have been steadily increasing their proportion of the vote, and the number of elected representatives, over successive elections for 20 or so years now.

12% you say? If you were actually in favour of democracy you'd agree that they'd be entitled to 12% of the seats in parliament, ditto with Belly. The Greens don't want to rule Australia or the world - they just want fair representation in parliament, in order to try and achieve a socially just and ecologically sustainable Australia and planet.

Morganzola:>> Oh come on, SOG. Global domination, Heil Brown? You can't expect to be taken seriously if you actually believe such fanciful, if not paranoid, drivel.

Drivel perhaps or perhaps not, but definitely not paranoid, the view is a consideration of facts and events. The greens, conservatives, and liberals control nothing. I have mentioned the Lima Agreement a few times previously as the prognosticator of the 40 year period since it's signing, and it was spot on. That the entire economic and social future of the people and nations of on this vast earth could be altered so dramatically concerns me greatly. We do not need an alien invasion; we are under threat of servitude and dependence from a handful of bags of water such as ourselves, and the greens in particular are their naive yapping lap dogs.

This guy probably didn't go to uni, but he is perceptive, or perhaps he just looked.
http://wn.com/Australia_and_the_New_World_Order_The_Lima_Declaration

Oh dear, SOG. I just wasted 2 minutes of my life I won't get back watching the start of that paranoid rant - I switched off when he implicated virtually every international trade agreement as evidence of the 'New World Order'. You don't seriously buy that lunatic garbage, do you? It seems Belly's not the only one whose acumen I'd previously overestimated.

I agree that the anonymous author of your global conspiracy fantasy is very perceptive - so perceptive in fact that the can see stuff that nobody else can see! There's a word for that...

I am totally absorbed by politics and current affairs world news and events.
My views are mine,researched chewed over changing some times but mine.
I have read every word of the Greens policy's.
Found much not to like some good.
I distrust/dislike/ am appalled by SOME of their people policy's/ actions.
I stand against ending the use of coal in ten years.
I stand against the implications in their defense policy's.
I STAND against the FIXED immovable position Morgonzola takes, inferring my attitude to his party of the extreme is makes me unable to think clearly worse.
My intention was to talk about reforming our system of government.
Starting from a view honestly held, we should get rid of the senate.
That more AUSTRALIANS are offended by the greens than vote for them.
I wanted clearly! one value, no preferences, my vote as it can in NSW state elections, to die after it was counted ONCE.
I wanted to UNDERLINE my thoughts preferential voting, not even understood by far too many,put people in the house and senate Australian voters did not intend to.
My detractor belittles me, no worries bloke I can get over that.
For? saying what I think.
How many, tell me, think Andrew Wilie, who finished third in primary's, should have been put into the house on LABOR AND LIBERAL preferences?
Or that the green in the lower house should be there on Liberal preferences
Family first DLP many have entered Parliament on preferences.
The senate has a history of preferential system installing idiots!
Wilkie is in the house in front of two who between them more voters wanted but did not get and is holding this government to ransom on? poker machines!
Threatened by my refusal to hide my views I feel no hate pain or dislike for a good bloke but do not both over value your views and under value mine.
The Greens have peaked, Labor and conservative lay now on the bottom of the dam, but they will and are about to come back.
Heated insults will not see voters toe the line.

Belly not trying to pick on you but I think you are missing something basic here about preferential voting.

"That more AUSTRALIANS are offended by the greens than vote for them.
I wanted clearly! one value, no preferences, my vote as it can in NSW state elections, to die after it was counted ONCE."

In the case of Wilke which you mentioned it might be fair to say that more people were offended by either of the front runners than voted for him. The majority got a rep that they prefered to the alternative. If that wasn't the case then they could have given the number 2 spot to the other front runner.

If you don't like the green's or independents (and preferential voting is not optional) then give your number 2 vote to the coalition. We don't have to do what the party deal's tell us.

R0bert

Morganzola, if you had said to the Australian people in 1975 that within thirty years they would have only 20% of their manufacturing base left, that the economy would move from manufacturing to service industries. That in 40 years we would be a net importer of food, that countries such as China will be buying up our farmland to feed their people while we import food to satisfy Australia’s needs, and the remaining agricultural land was being purchased for coal seam gas extraction I expect that the response would have been as yours was to me, accuse the doomsayer of having a "paranoid rant".

All that I said has come to pass, and it is all in the Lima Protocols and that fact leaves me nothing except sovereignty deflated, suspicious and untrusting.

Belly, I'm not "belittling you", I'm disagreeing with your muddled ideas. What's with playing the victim here? The only "heated insults" I've seen in this thread have been coming from you.

You say you want "one vote, one value", when what you mean is 'first past the post' voting. If you were really in favour of one vote, one value you'd be arguing for proportional representation, but you simply ignored that possibility when I raised it earlier. You don't want to change the system to make it more democratic - you want to change it so no political parties other than the increasingly identical Labor and Liberals get a look-in.

Belly old mate, I'm certainly not threatened by your imperviousness to reason and civility, but I am disappointed that you've become obtuse and disingenuous in this argument.

@ Oin:

I'm not surprised that you're feeling "sovereignty deflated (whatever that means), suspicious and untrusting". To that list I'd have to add "credulous".

My son votes Green. He's concerned about the future of his children. I voted Labor, I was concerned about the future of my retirement. My parents voted Liberal because they were told that the communists were coming. I don't know what party in the future my grandson will support. It could be something new.

I watch Parliament in 'Question Time,' and we hear 'those on the other side.' Now if someone asked us for directions would we say,
'those on the other side, do not read maps, have no idea where they are going and have been lost since they started.' or would we be polite and tell them, 'this is the direction the sign is above your head.'

Don't forget that sooner or later they too will be on the 'other side,' and will not appreciate being there.

In Australia elections have too many candidates resulting in a split between left and right. Unfortunately, there is only one right wing party favoured by voters whereas those of the left persuasion are split between a number of candidates resulting with the right-wing usually winning. I live in an electorate where that is happening continuously. I believe that preferences are an attempt to equalise the voters choice and this can't be all that bad.

RObert you tickle me,yes you are a conservative, with a good sense of humor too.
My very point is, BECAUSE WE HAVE PREFERENTIAL VOTING.
My preference counts, how often would you put Labor second?
Knowing it becomes your only counting vote if they finish in front of your vote.
Mt rudeness, inability to reason, a host of wrongs, grows as my ideas seem, rightly so, to target the greens/family first Wilkie.
See I know my ideas threaten Greens, but still, rudely dumbly say that is my wish.
I want majority views via majority rule.
Party's, ALP and Conservative, in their own interests, tell voters how to preference,I never follow it.
I never want one more lost sole to enter any part of Parliament on preferences those giving them, DID NOT UNDERSTAND gave a seat to a fool.
Bob Brown openly says he does not want preference deals, lets help him for fairness and equity vote once only and rid our selves of a senate that forces 88% to run deal with 12% or fail .

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/on_putting_the_greens_last/
Posting a link from a paper I have no respect for is probably a weak thing for me to do.
Given however two people I actually like, make it 3, are questioning my balance shown in expressing my belief.
Given Morgan linked me with Shadow Minister,I confess I share his concerns, for different reasons about the greens.
Let this link if nothing else,prove I am not the inventor of these thoughts and,,, hard as it is,more share them than not.

hope im not on of the '3'

anyhow belly said...""I wanted to UNDERLINE my thoughts
preferential voting,..not even understood by far too many,
put people in the house..and senate
that...Australian voters did not intend to put into power""

so lets backtrack

*PREFERential voting*
means you the voter CAN vote twice
first vote is counted first...and the L0WEST vote number

drops out of the vote
and its preferance vote then gets taken over
according to the order number we chose

these votes get added to the other's
if again no one has the numbers
the last place looses their vote...

their preferences are given to the others..
again and again..till one has over half the votes

[if they voted for a number 2...
[or voted for the pary lines number two]
or anyother...not put last..others get your vote 'preferances'

its able to be exploited
like many dummies run..to get a protest vote
putting their preferance as number two...

so when they come last
the vote still goes to their cronies

anyhow thats sort of how it goes
you make a deal...SELL YOUR VOTE*
with preferances..the one you put last...wont get your vote

in the present time..both parties prefer giving their last vote to each other...[and the greens got in]...next time they both will be putting the greens last

and thats the end of the greens
[thats why you hate preferential voting belly]
you hate the greens..MORE than you hate tony*

preferntial voting is important
how the other way [one vote one value]..cheats
is the most votes wins...[ie if three candidates...ie lab/lib/green]

then the greens can get in with 34%..of the vote
if 6 candidates...22%..would do it
if 20..then as little as 5% could rule it over you

beware listening to the bell ring his warning
we got the best voting system...[once we outlaw the parties]

Yes it is as you say One Under God.
But I think you know, many do not understand the system.
I have gone back to the page I linked to, and read every post in reply.
About 3 supported greens, 4 maybe 5 thought the conservatives should use the system, for that matter they, and The ALP do.
In NSW the lower chamber, we can just vote one, or give our preferences.
For just this debate, think with me on this, you and I are in the seat Andrew Wilkie won.
I am a sports man type,play poker machines so am unlikely to vote for him and vote surprise! ALP.
You swallow your dislike of party's and vote conservative.
Both your vote, and mine, HAD TO FILL IN ALL THE BOXES OR NOT BE COUNTED.
We both backed party's with more primary [first choice] votes than Wilkie.
Yet he won?
Can we agree many,maybe a lot, did not understand, their first choice vote was not the vote that counted, it became,via a system I dislike, the second choice that put someone in a seat over the one we both voted for.
Democracy?

Belly I do agree the preferences should be optional.

Which ever way you come at it though, preferences or not in a seat where no one person get's more than 50% of the primary vote the majority will have a rep who was not their first choice. At least with prefererences the rep is someone the majority chose over the other alternatives.

3 people like Jane, detest Bill and Peta and don't mind Sam.
3 people like Bill, detest Jane and Peta but don't mind Sam.
2 people like Sam, detest Jane and Bill and don't mind Peta
1 person likes Peta, does not mind Bill and detests Sam and Jane

3 people are Ok or happy if Jane is elected
4 people are Ok or happy if Bill is elected
8 people are Ok or happy if Sam is elected
3 people are Ok ir happy if Peta is elected

Who should win? Take your preference out if you like but leave me mine thanks. BTW I voted for Jane with my 2nd preference going to Sam.
I've not tried to work through 3rd and 4th preferences, just complicates things.

R0bert

RObert I have not challenged your right to think as you wish.
For that matter any one Else's.
I feeling the need to support my views are widely held posted links.
They seem to support the view I have put,that they are seemingly majority views.
Now you, and I are well schooled in the use of the system WE KNOW THE POWER OF OUR VOTES.
Have you ever Scutineered?
I have often.
Quite clearly many do not under stand what happens with preferences.
Some do just silly things making their vote not count.
Such as ticking first choice then refusing to tick the rest.
Say in written comments the rest are not worth it.
RObert I do understand, I do target the greens I do not trust/like/want them to have power, that is not an unusual thought in this country.
Back to the link, my party if we must vote in every square should put yours in front of greens.
Or as said in an answer to that story run a party to dump preferences called say preference party.
My sin? I am openly afraid of any radicalism in politics.

Nice one R0bert - you tried. So have I, but I've had enough talking to a brick wall on this topic. I'll just shake my head again in bemusement that a former union official and active ALP member so fundamentally misconstrues preferencing in elections.

If that's the understanding of a politically-engaged person, what hope for the average elector? Are they teaching Civics in school yet?

Morgan:>> I'm not surprised that you're feeling "sovereignty deflated (whatever that means), suspicious and untrusting". To that list I'd have to add "credulous".<<

Morgan I disagree, credulous implies naivety, I may be wrong in my assumptions, but I always use facts as the basis for my assumptions, such as:
The earth has warmed by 05 to 07 degrees in the past 100 Years, a fact, and the earth has cooled in the last 10 years, a fact, and on the back of that the climate magicians are predicting the garbage that suits their master’s POLITICAL agenda. They get the daily weather wrong regularly and simple souls such as yourself buy their prognostications of 50 and 100 years as being science proved, sadly for Australia you’re not too bright but you are opinionated, and that sums up most greens of today.

Re the “sovereignty deflated” if you had a grasp on the issue rather than just the want to regurgitate the spin that you have absorbed you would have understood from the post that the Lima Protocol, sponsored by the UN and those that control the stronger nations took away our national sovereign right to decide what goods come into our country, to decide whether a tariff to protect our local economy is required, to decide who we should accept as immigrants and a load of other less important personal freedoms.

But perhaps you think the legislations changed by magic, or perhaps we just on mass decided to do these destructive things, the UN can take us to the World Court if we do not comply, it is law, it is the Lima Protocol that our politicians were signatories to without the knowledge of the average bloke down the pub, or the professional in his office, the Lima agreement Morgan, have you read it? The modern structure of nations and the world economy are based on its protocols.

Credulous, that’s a laugh; did you have to look it up? Morgan please only respond with insults or personal slurs as everything else you say is someone elses opinion.

@sonofgloin:

Apologies, no offence intended. In all honesty, it was the least impolite term I could think of. I haven't "regurgitated" any spin in this thread. Rather, I've been trying very hard to make sense of what Belly's really on about, so your introduction of uber-conspiracy humbug was an annoying diversion from the ostensible thread topic. My ad hominem was undoubtedly prompted by that, so please forgive me.

What I should have said is that crackpot theories about global conspiracies to create "One World Order" have no place in a sane and civil discussion about voting systems in Australia. After your last comment, I'll add that global warming denialism has no place in it either.

Please try and stick to the topic. I've given up on my old mate Belly, but perhaps you can explain to us how the 'first past the post' voting method that you advocate is more democratic than a system which takes voters' preferences into account?

Thanks in advance :)

Belly I have not challenged your right to think as you wish either.

You did start a thread on the topic and have promoted the idea that a preferential system is less than democratic.

I disagree and am contributing to the debate on that basis. Oddly enough it seems that you are more bothered by the Greens and Wilke than I am. Still pondering that. Maybe I've not read enough of their policies but on the other hand Brown does seem more upfront than most others currently heading up political parties. I can disagree with him but still respect his honesty, not something that I can do for the other two.

"my party if we must vote in every square should put yours in front of greens." - just to clarify that. I vote mostly for the coalition because I tend to find myslef in agreement with them than the alternatives. I don't consider them "my party" or have any emotional passion for them, I wish I had a better alternative. A party with a much stronger stand on personal liberty and responsibility. None that I've seen and I have better things to do with my life than to try and start one so I go for the least bothersome option.

R0bert

Morgan:>> What I should have said is that crackpot theories about global conspiracies to create "One World Order" have no place in a sane and civil discussion about voting systems in Australia. After your last comment, I'll add that global warming denialism has no place in it either.

Fair enough, point taken Morgan

Morgan re the voting, there is a mathematical validity to the preference system, but that is all there is to it. As I said the only other two nations that preference are Ireland and Malta, the rest of the world give one citizen one vote. Adding the preference system degrades the validity of that vote. Here is the difficult part for you, it comes to reasoning, the preferential system allows the majorities first choice to be usurped by the majorities last choice, if you consider that valid so be it, nothing left to say really.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/labor-and-liberals-both-to-blame-for-the-meteoric-rise-of-the-greens/story-e6frgd0x-1226090126080
Yes with no doubt this link is from a one nation supporter.
And I am no follower of that group.
It however is informative and Representative of voters from every party.
In this forum, any forum in this country, my party is subject to open discussion.
Both for and against.
Indeed I also launch in to it,and to Conservatives too.
This link, as are the others I have and will continue to post, is not evidence of my bias, I give that freely here now again I distrust Browns greens.
I leave this question for my detractors.
Are the greens any less subject to scrutiny/ criticism/accountability than any other party.

RObert this much has always been clear to me, you are a conservative,Morgan a green,our other currently active combatant, in my view is from the right of American tea party.
If my thread was badly named.
If I did not make it clear, if Morganzola is right, I seemingly do not understand the subject and am a bit lost here.
Then let me start again, the most recent link, seemingly if you both read it and the three related links on the page it takes you to.
Will show moves by both sides, to isolate the greens, do preference deals or set up party's to isolate them.
FORGIVE ME! this thread is about my understanding, my truly held belief and view, the current system, in my view,is wrong.
I see no reason a green sits in our lower house on conservative preferences.
None for the senate constantly, seeing such as this DLP, family first, and very minor unrepresentative party finding a seat and sometimes power of veto.
Do you, can any one, not see, many voters quite unaware they voted in both houses for other than the tick or number in box of choice.
Is that fair.
I KNOW! Morganzola is displeased with me, understand driven by the understating my wanted out comes while ensuring majority's get the seats,kills his party's control.
I happen to think that term * unrepresentative swill* best describes our upper house.
Get you boots on Morgan, but for my views not the bleating that I am uniformed
WHEN mate WHEN will you confront my question, is it TRUE more Australians at least dislike the greens than will ever VOTE FOR THEM!

Oh come on, Belly. So John Pasquarelli, former key adviser to the Pauline Hanson, Is now "representative of voters from every party"? You've got to be joking.

Yes, Adam Bandt flirted with far left politics as a uni student. So did many, many others, but most of them went on to become ALP members and voters. You do realise that exactly the same is true of Julia Gillard? Does that mean that the ALP is riddled with Trotskyist socialists plotting to create a New World Order? Of course not. It means they were politically engaged young people who were exploring competing political ideologies in order to form their own political position. That's what many, many people do while they're at uni, including every ALP leader since Caldwell.

All that nonsense aside, your citation of Pasquarelli's predictable supports my earlier contention. The problem isn't that our voting system takes into account the preferences voters have if their preferred candidate doesn't get an absolute majority. It's the grubby back room preferencing deals so beloved of Labor's 'faceless men' and Liberal plotters.

The Greens have stated publicly and repeatedly that they would rather not engage in preference deals at all, while your cronies and the Libs plot secretly to make deals with their supposed enemies. Indeed, your unethical proposal for a 'Preferencing Party' is entirely consistent with the corrupt practices employed by your party's 'faceless men' in order to hang on to power. It sounds like you've lifted it straight from Richo's black book - whatever it takes, eh?

Preferences of voters aren't the problem with democracy in Australia. Rather, it's grubby tactics employed by the 'major' parties like your cronies and Pasquarelli for their own perceived advantage that ultimately produce the occasional odd outcome.

@ Belly:

Our posts crossed. If If I'd read your stupid insult earlier I wouldn't have done you the courtesy of a response. You've lost the plot, mate.

I'll leave you to babble on to the conspiracy nutters.

Belly I'm not enjoying the level of angst that seems to have arrived in this discussion. Can I make it clear that while I disagree with you I'm not trying to be personal about it.

I do agree with the point's that morganzola makes in his second last post. One of the things I admired about Brown was some commentary he made about the process around preference deal prior to the last election.

The political reality for the Greens is that they have to go along with the process but Brown was very upfront in encouraging voters to vote as they wanted rather than according to backroom preference deals.

I don't much like the term conservative, that imples a mindset that I don't think I've got. If it wasn't the name of a party that for too long has been run by the religious right I'd say liberal. A moderate libertarian maybe.

The far left and far right both show little respect for peoples right to choose for themselves on most matters, both seem to have categories of people they think should be able to choose and those they don't.

R0bert

RObert you may well see benefits to your team in the greens, it may well be you just think I am wrong.
It is your right, judge me, on my links here in this thread.
Morganzola, I lost too my liking you, see you know just as well as I do, and I thought much better from you, my charges are the ones you ignore, majority ones.
Run hide hold your breath stamp your feet, let those on the side revel in our falling out but know, I know, why you avoid my question.
The answer, the truth, the inevitability of both sides taking you on, hurts
Half on hour, less ago Christian Milne's fronted TV cameras, made an announcement about greens achievements, the ALP looks very weak as it is wagged by the radicals.

I see a former ALP Victorian Secretary, Steve Newnham, (Belly may know him) is saying there is a likelyhood of Labor and Libs agreeing to Put Greens last on their 'How to Vote' info.

All parties did this to stop One Nation getting up.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/greens-plan-to-shut-down-coal-industry-to-cost-australia-200000-jobs-36b-a-year-in-gdp/story-e6freqmx-1226086761615
Yes Banjo it is in two links already posted, do not know that bloke
I do know the fool, who is in charge of electrical trades in that state very much far left dill.
This link too will be rebutted,me insulted and ignored but truth will continue to be truth.
Note while bile runs freely my point more Australians distrust the greens than vote for them is not going to be addressed.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-gradual-poisoning-of-our-democratic-system-20110705-1h0mg.html
I post yet another link in support of my views.
Yesterday, I posted one from a person who had been a candidate for the Liberal party.
He also had been an independent candidate.
And an adviser to Pauline Hanson.
I have ,for that sin.
For my truly held view the electoral system in this country allowed unrepresentative groups to be elected.
That they weld too much power.
That that power is of a parasitic form.
Can only be used by encroaching the will and wishes of people who had no intention they be able to do so.
While I target/fear the greens,this thread highlights a number who gained seats and undue influence because of our system.
I can not back away from my beliefs and am under a form of the Coventry thing.
Consider reading these links in this thread, and agree or not tell me those posters not ignoring my version of the truth are my fears shared?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/boom-or-bust-for-alps-ideology/story-e6frgd0x-1226090999278
Yes I am not unaware this link is from a newspaper that in my view is tainted.
It is my view ,firmly held, history may hold a great number of news papers this one included, owned by the people who gave us the news of the world guilty.
Of deliberately manipulating public opinion and farming the truth poorly.
But currently 55% to 45% my party is in the hands of voters who share a great deal of the views expressed here in this link.
Only the most uncharitable reader will not see the views I express are shared by many.
Of special note, people who joined me, in defending the center left here, now stand opposed to me,strongly, because I share views, and will continue, shared by big numbers of my country men and women.

As I lay this thread to rest I want to say a few things.
I will not be around in ten years but my words, these may be.
We live in interesting times.
On my birth we did not have satellites we communicated via under the sea hard line cables.
Modern Communications have changed the world.
The impacts are not fully understood, but the changes are massive and the speed to.
Even if the Arab Spring turns out to be just a Sun beam on the way back to winter, I doubt that, we change faster than ever.
England's Water Gate has just started to flower, it will grow and bloom like one of those giant stinking flowers we hear of from the jungle.
Remind us from the first ever hand written pamphlet, the forerunner to news papers, power profit and the need to sell thoughts and ideas, even if untrue are the reasons we have media.
And that always,in our present and past at least, lie miss true self interest drives us all, few confront their own vision in the mirror and know the truth in what they see.
Communication will change our world, I hope, even believe, it will be for the better.
NOW scandal, is just a very small seed it is about to grow in to a monster that will change our world.
continued

If I was to say what part communications will play in our future it would be no easy task.
I think it will be positive, in time, humanity will in my view come together.
Standing in the way is mans, self interest our need to see our wants and needs not others.
But as single family's holding whole nations slaves weary of the wests ignorance to their pain, via world wide communication have their springs,we will see a better world.
On the fall of horrible people in North Korea it will be mass communications that plays the biggest role in setting people free.
Here in OLO IF YOU LOOK, you will see views of every type from folk of every type.
And we handle them differently.
I wounder why we come, why we return time after time to have our say.
And after seeing thoughts in print expressed by others repeated I see some come to post not read others thoughts.

We all remember a few who seemed to need help.
And in truth,true held view folks, few of us truly understand politics, the impacts of every issue or the reasons for them.
I have seen views from folk here that are the very opposite of those the party they vote for hold.
I however note the increasing devisions , bordering on open war because of different views.
Once it played no part in our politics.
What will communications, the ability to put views right wrong or deliberately made up lies out in Milli seconds do.
My generation ,the next three ,are not PC literate, you will see little of their views here.
But those views exist, are strongly held and who are we to say wrong.
I have this to say,Belly you see/saw here is me in real life.
It was always my job as unionist to say, to bosses, the things my workmates/members wanted to but feared to.
I say it as it is always.
Now it brings trouble, only the depth varied, and SOMETIMES I AM WRONG.
But Sometime those opposed to my views are wrong.
I

Today Gillard hands down the carbon tax/ETS policy's, behind the scenes, not yet but soon to be made public, force had to be used.
To remind Bob Brown he, alone, is the reason we do not already have one.
He bent and now thanks to him, and that force we have or are getting a Carbon tax.
Just minutes after,in my view,the worst leader of the Liberal party In my life will address us.
He will spin lie and neglect to tell us the costs and the impacts of his carbon scheme.
His followers,even here in OLO will not really understand, due to his it is crap/it is real/it may be /may not be statements not fully understand Tony Abbott is committed, yes he is to the very same cuts as Labor.
But taxpayers pay the costs.
Bob Brown will mount his stage, no need exists for me to say this, OH YES THERE IS!he will push his greens barrow show the separatism between him and me Australia and him.
The Crows council will form around me, backs turned lips pursed my education intelligence reasons will be questioned.
I speak on behalf of those who clean the streets of middle class greens who cannot afford to send their kids to private schools .
Condemn me burn those books on the extremists fires, but know.
I see Bob Brown as my mates do as big a danger to middle Australia as Abbott.
I think with passion 12% is your peak that such numbers should not rule.

Belly

Your posts flowed like liquid prose, an enjoyable and passionate read until CLANG!, Bob Brown, there we must part ways. That you even place Bob Brown into the intellectual vicinity of Tony Abbott is disturbing. Bob Brown is not bound by an anachronistic religion, he is passionate about maintaining the environment which sustains us, he is truly liberal by his acceptance of others different to him. In short he is everything that Abbott is not and the Greens is all that our federal government has as a conscience, since Labor sold its soul to economics and power.

He is certainly not perfect, but as a nation we have no hope if only Labor and Liberals are our choices.

Belly,

What Ammonite said.

@ Belly:

I've already said my bit, but I'll just add that the door's always open, if and when you come to your senses. You're a good bloke, and I feel sure you'll eventually man up and admit you're wrong.

Cheers :)

I offer this link, and make the claim it is the single most important Link/post I ever put here in OLO.
It may inform some, unaware of how truly DISGUSTING my party had become, my thoughts and demands for better are shared, from within the heart of my party.
It too points to our position on that March day,we sank to the very bottom of a septic tank we hand made for our selves.
To ignore that, say it is not true,is to betray my party.
Delivered by our new good determined leader.
To the once driver of the ALP nationwide it took courage.
It marks our lowest point it reminds me not again will we sink that low.
Not straying away from Labors roots not following the voters, but criminals, thieves and self interested slugs did this to my party.
Trapped by fear another change will kill us,the dream Gillard can turn this around, understand Abbott will implode soon, every thing but acting.
Labor is forcing us to look to rebuilding after a defeat not doing it now.
But my party is up for the challenge we rise from our slumber on the bottom in 30 minutes.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/alp-deserved-flogging/story-fn7q4q9f-1226091470348

I too have always thought well of you Morgan and indeed Piriot.
stunning stuff however.
Can it truly be you think my thoughts are based on hate/dislike/failure to under stand?
Folks in time every claim I made here in this single thread will be proven if you three are that frail then do as you wish.
I am not contemplating leaving.
But if I did it would be forever and at your hands I truly never thought book burning was a thing any of you wanted to do.
If I take leave for a while do not be concerned I am more put out by greens not wanting me to have opinions they do not like than Tony Abbott.
Ammonite you came in late we could/should have been Friends you lecture push and shove in every post, I dislike intensely closed minds and those who over value their own views and sideline others.

Belly

Because we disagree on the Greens policies you accuse me of being "close-minded" and "lecturing" in tone?

Ever thought of putting forward some evidence for your opinion of the Greens instead of simply repeating anti-Green rhetoric?

bellyquote...""But my party is up for the challenge
we rise from our slumber on the bottom..in 30 minutes.""

just dont take it personally belly

is there a topic
where we can talk of julias platitudes?
[the great white/heard bleach bottle redheaded hope?]

mate please dont be disappointed

there are types..in life..politics
that look/sound like they play a good game
and actually do deliver...but julia aint one of them

how can i point out her lies
without hurting you

mate its only that her lies are going to hurt others
that i must go turn on my tv

[did you watch meet the press?
so sad watching the spin

he was repeatedly asked the same question
[re tonies quoting govt predictions re petrol]
and mutterd arround it both times...

slanging off at phony tony
and still not replying paul bon-journo's question..

thats a par for the course

[is anyone going to note how many mentions
re toney and the libs..holocaust deniers
she slips her slippers into?]

and hopw many tim,es she chucks in how wise you lot are

how were not leading..yet we are leading

mate ask her what is black
she wil say its off white

now i go to watch her proove me right

se ya soon
me before you..cause your head will still be spinning
from all her focus group spin/platitudes

the only leather she wears out is her tongue
on ruperts bottum

Belly, perhaps there is still a flicker of light, my only hesitation is that JR watched NSW Labor become the Sussex St Caliphet. Keating and Costa hate him so he can't be all bad.

hi belly [again i feel i might have been too hard on you
[we now have the topic to dis-cuss that other topic]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4577&page=0

but belly...re the 'prefereances'..issue
think of all them so called 'marginal seats'

where alp has 45.0000 %...
and lib has 45.000001...%
a deal with the green preferances
and you win

it all hinges on who do you hate least

voting is either /or
ie a choice..[of who we like most
as much as..who do we hate least]

now liking tony..means you put the greens last
or hating bob a little less...and you put phoney tony last

one gets you govt
the other puts you into opposition

think belly..do you love the alp enough
to love the system alp loves..
to love who your party loves?

who your party needs..[now]

and who tony needs to get rid of..
to do work choices mark 2...[im with tony only to stop this tax]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4577&page=0

alp wants this liberal/greenie tax
for the green's to get more green funds

[i heard some solar expert to say
solar is going on steroids...]

so guess what the price
of power WILL BE..

to pay them....[extra solar sell out leeches]..
GETTING double* what its really worth]

to the libs..
its all only a sceme
to kill off the alp
with the green knife

JOHN HOWARD SET-UP THIS SCEME
[from juliars own mouth]..

dont that wake you up?

i hope that your ok belly
i miss how much you love/care

wish you were here
mate its only elect-ions
its only about party..you love one

i hate them all

if i seem harsh..its because
they MAKE good people like you...
do things i see are morally wrong..or motivated by fear

its only my opinion ol son
im missing yours

Dear Belly,

Where are you? I haven't seen you posting for sometime now.
I trust that you're OK? Please even if you're having a bit
of a break - let us know that you're fine. I'm worried about
you and pray that all's well with you.
Please, let us know.

Lexi, belly posted on Saturday http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=22795

» 16/07/2011 12:57:25 PM Antiseptic you will be aware I remain ALP, and that I once considered Morgan a mate. I onc.....
» 16/07/2011 5:12:49 AM No need for me to get involved in the last two posts. Both are generated by self interest,.....

Hope that helps.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

Thanks for that.
I'm relieved that he's still posting.

Lexi my pleasure. After reading your post I was relieved to find recent posts from belly.

R0bert

Lexi this might help http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12330#213252

I disagree with Belly on his views about what's happening here but am saddened that it's getting too him like that.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

Thanks for the links. I had no idea that things were getting to Belly so badly. I'm sure that no one meant to insult him or hurt his feelings. And I trust that he'll get over all this mish mash and come
back to posting. At least I hope so. We don't have to agree with each
other's opinions but who on earth would deliberately want to cause another poster serious grief? Gee Whiz.

Hi Lexi & R0bert,

I'm concerned about Belly too. Clearly I'm some sort of object of his angst, but I certainly bear him no personal ill-will and want to see him posting normally again. I didn't start this stoush, but it seems as if he's been trying to pick a fight with me since he started this thread, for some reason known only to himself.

Nobody's attempted to silence him or prevent his views being aired, but he's claiming so on other threads. Apparently for Belly disagreement is equivalent to censorship these days, which is obviously ridiculous. Last time I held out the olive branch he accused me of trying to bribe him or some such rot, so my strategy is to disengage with him until he comes to his senses - which I sincerely hope he does ASAP.

Peace :)

morganzola if it's any consolation I've not understood the level of angst belly has apparently felt here.

I too hope that we can all move beyond this.

Loved the point you made elsewhere "There are some people who are capable of self-reflection, learning and personal growth, even at a quite advanced age. They are the people with whom it is possible to have constructive debates, even when they disagree"

Cheers
R0bert

Dear Morganzola and RObert,

Thanks to you both for caring. We can only hope that
Belly will read what we've posted and whatever's
troubling him will pass before too long. He may be
going through some personal issues and those may be
affecting his responses on this forum. We can't do much
about that, all we can do is hope that he'll be back to
his usual cheery self before long. After all these are
only discussions to us, - although I suspect they may be
much more than that to him. (Politics to him - is a passion).

Oooooh, group hug everyone.

Yep, hoping the real Belly will return to us, once the aliens have stopped with the probing which would upset anyone.