And, what about multicultural ideology, thats important?

Hi all,
Just a quick note to say I'll try to respond to these tomorrow, had power out etc today & no charge on the battery...
Cheers,
Roger

Roger Brisbane, love your name, reminds me of “Flying High”.

As for your technocrats-on-steroids party, sounds like my worst Orwellian nightmare come to life.

It's the Democrats, only the comfy sofas has been replaced with steel pews.

“If you're willing to submit a policy, I'll ask the lawyers, accountants & economist members”

Shockadelic has left the building.

Since there's already another “Free” party, you may have difficulty registering the name. Might want to rethink that one.

I myself am attempting to start a party.
I know it's futile, but I feel I must at least try.

It's classical liberal (not “progressive”), pro-direct democracy, moderately ethnic nationalist (yes, you can be moderate).

It's very “right” (but *not* authoritarian/fascist), so diehard lefties needn't apply.

http://takeitoffaustralia.blogspot.com.au/

Jay Of Melbourne, I respect your opinions, so please take a look and tell me what kind of “fake” Take It Off is.

Belly, only the Sharia Law Party will “do a great deal more harem than good.”

Dear Shockadelic,

I am no nationalist, but in practical terms, from the little I could read, your new party looks better than what any other Australian party currently has to offer.

Ruling over others without their consent is violence.
Your new party will not uproot violence altogether,
but it will to some degree reduce the government's violence against the people of the land.

Come elections, I may be voting for you.

---
A technical point:

Do you actually mean that voters on issues will be selected at random? A statistocratia?

That is unfair, but with existing technology, nothing prevents direct democracy where everyone who wants can vote - either in person, online, or through a proxy-tree (should one fail to vote by the deadline).

Axing compulsory voting would be a good starting point, as that would them mean this who care would have the say, while those who don't care, which is many, wouldn't bother.
rehctub,
I think exactly the opposite would ensue. Why ? Because those who don't care are actually the ones with the most to lose & would therefore ensure they keep getting their way.
Just look at your average Labor voter. They don't or don't know how to care about others & how much they ruin the country yet they are vehement in their defence of the Labor Party. They are out in full force at every election more so than any other.

To be an extreme right wing party there are 3 things you must have. Firstly some kind of 'insignia' a symbol for the faithful to rally around, the swastika worked well for some, but its a bit on the nose theses days, so design your own.
Then to be a true blue extreme right wing party, you need to deny you are a extreme right wing party, by stating:
"Take It Off supports nationalism, and even a moderate ethnocentrism, we will inevitably be labelled "fascists" and "Nazis". then go on to deny the obvious, we are not "fascists" and "Nazis". Out of power these people like to paint themselves as 'moderate'. When in power and given half a chance you would see how 'moderate' they really are, when its too late.
Oh! the third thing you need, 500 members to form a political party, this usually puts the kibosh on them.