Next week I will be in Sydney as part of a protest against the actions of the NSW Government.
I think, with the information I have, that government could cut costs and still pay fair wages to its own employees.
I firmly think Governments and extremely poor management , over generations and every form of government, is the only reason governments privatize its own needed departments.
Now that the extremes are howling at me, my thread is about the right to govern.
Few are not aware Liberal/Nationals won the biggest Victory in the history of NSW.
Even less do not know a Labor party infested with filth got what it had coming, a flogging.
A third of us ALP foot soldiers, put our party first, by not voting for them not manning the booths.
So all Clear for the incoming government?
Not so.
Labor and the greens do not control the upper house.
Two shooters party and a Christian Fundamentalist have got their way and changed government legislation twice.
Who rules us.
Can it be that it is worth the risk to get rid of houses of review?
QLD did we have the option of chucking bad governments out but why can so few of us,give so much power to three on a vote so small.
I am a sporting shooting supporter, but in schools?
Can put up with Christians, but must they intrude in our politics.
Why not abolish every senate and upper house,do we not trust those we elect to rule?

I understand we have touched on this subject before.
In a thread I started.
But this issue is growing.
The Victory in NSW while historic, surely also said voters wanted big Barry O,Farrel to govern?
The upper house is in NSW at least a place never do wells can find a place to sit and fat wage check, its history proves that.
Shooters and fishers party first made threats,nothing else describes it.
They wanted quite a lot, including school lessons in shooting.
Our Fred Nile is not regarded in the community at large as much of a Christian.
Both he and his wife rode in to the house on Gods back.
Better men represent God in NSW.
A massive landslide victory, as is likely for conservatives federally, and government hings on.
Marginal party with marginal views and followers.
Do we need upper houses?

belly we got too many levels of politics
its not nessisary to have the state level of govt

our sevices...are done by local councils
and feds do the other stuff

the state level is a total waste of money
so its not as simple as getting rid of the senet
[and i resist getting rid of the federal level of the senet]

but its ttime both houses[and the burdensom beurocracy of state]
at the state level..were abolished

the corruption of the joe years[in qld]..mate
was perfected during the godss beaty and blight years
who now have made official malfeasence an art

[dont even think of peter beatup for pm]..
that guy is really a bad crook..as bent as they come
who will beat you to death...sell out the state..with his smile intact...[to say he is only corrupt is being nice]

OUG we have no choice we live in the system we have.
And that system stinks.
I understand this, it was time for change in my state.
And that stagnation turned my party from the one Wran and Carr lead to a lost shambles.
Wran gave us Darling Harbor, the very heart and sole of our City.
Conservatives in the style of todays lost tribe said it would kill our City.
Carr? it is possible he was our greatest ever leader, he lead what was to become, after he left, a cess pool of self interested rabble.
And gave this state the national parks system that future generation will bless him for.
But voters/me/Labor said its time for a new broom.
Not every thing O Farrel is doing is wrong, he won the right to rule.
I have no fear of him ruling,in time ,it has started, Labor will be better for its near death.
But how can any one think upper houses have the right to over rule an elected government, and the voters who put them there.
Watch, learn,only an Abbott implosion, and that could happen!
Will see other than big lower house majority in Canberra,for him, but stymied in the upper house.
An elected government should not suffer at the hands of so few votes the indignity of not being able to govern.

the system ISNT MEANT TO BE PERFECT

you wrote..""how can any one think
upper houses have the right to over rule an elected government,""

mate..they are selected[elected]..too

elected as oversight
[the only oversight we got..]

to take away those PAID to check
removes all the checks and balances

yes we might hate the fred niles of the world
but they only got ONE vote[and thus NEED one of the other main parties..to help them do the vile they would want tio do]

by them selves the greens got what...5 or 6 votes
what if BOTH parties hated unions
you would be glad you got a fred voting
and thats where the senet is needed..just in case

be honest yabby
the unionists are what 20%
why should they hold 50%
what about the xtians..or buddists or jews
they dont get any vote?

recall your own words>>""and the voters who put them there.""
mate someone THOUGHT what they heard needed hearing
thus voted on a topic rather than a party line run by a party elite

""stymied in the upper house.""
is because they CANT make laws
all legislation must origonate in the lower rate
ie the house RAN by the 2 parties

the parties SHOULD Be banned from the upper house COMPLETLY
let there be a full representation of the many OTHER intrests..and let these reflect the intrests..of ALL OF US

ie some punk kid..some junkie..some lawyer..some docter..some metakl worker some sports person..etc etc..till we ALL got a voice

then if those dispirited voices agree with the new law
it is more fair..than the 2 party machine man law

""An elected government should not suffer
at the hands of so few votes""

yes too much partyy loyalty
not enough representation

""the indignity of not being able to govern.""

yes we got no one caring for the same things we do
thus the party machine...*ABSOLUTE power..has CORRUPTED absolutly

The thread is not going to make it.
OK I can take rejection.
It is related to one that bought pain and anger as I expressed my view we should be able to vote with out distributing any preferences.
Just vote one.
To work in an upper house it would need ONLY THOSE getting a full quota without preferences , an odd number with extra votes expelled.
Too many, do not understand our system, England however is looking at using ours.
Now Greens do not even like me talking about it, I lost Friends over it.
But they too have every chance,in our current system of winning seats.
Labor, clearly, will run third in many seats, Wilkie will be returned on Liberal preferences.
But how do we justify, even except, upper houses with so few voters haveing more representation than the vast majority?
I want party's elected to govern.
The thread is about NSW soon it will be about Canberra.
Love to see a referendum next election about abolishing the senate.