"Get real, the undisputable fact is 54.45%, a majority of voters didn’t want the current mob." says Producer.

Pray tell how many did not want Labor, or just what huge percentage did not want Greens. Even more interesting is how many did not want Labor in Western Australia.

You folk are going to have to stop lying some time. Most importantly you are going to have to stop lying to yourselves. Comforting yourselves with these twisted statistics you tend to use, will only extend the pain.

You have to recognise you are on the nose, realise this & evaluate why, before you can ever come back. You have been relying on the Richardson system of buying groups of voters with crazy policies for too long now. Yes it did work, you gained more votes than you lost. However the voters have got sick of it, & it has become counter productive. You are loosing more than you gain.

I can't believe you can not see the Carbon tax cost you most of the reputation you had left. Keeping it now is just so counterproductive, I can't believe you can do it.

So please no more twisted contorted & abused statistics, better to try something productive.

Has been

STOP THE PRESS

I don’t know if you realise, you actually for the first time acknowledged a majority of Australian voters (54.45%) did not want the coalition.

Well done.

You also point out quite correctly that only a minority of Australian voters wanted the other parties also.

Well done too!

Two gold stars, then I’m afraid you lost it and started to Rabbott on again.

Why is it that the coalition has non-democratic 60%, 90 seat majority in the house of non-representatives.

Producer, "majority of voters didn’t want the current mob"

What an odd statement by someone who questions the representativeness of the current system!

They didn't want the last mob either.

Paul1405, Hanson still got a million votes for her party.
But she wasn't exactly fit to wear the crown, being thrust into the spotlight by accident.

But there doesn't even need to be some exceptional leader/spokesperson emerge.
The internal flaws/contradictions in your own utopian lunacy will put an end to itself one day.

Only that end will be very destructive and depressing.
If you would listen now, that could be avoided.

This isn't about "white supremacy".
(However, the evidence (Human Development index, GDP-per-capita) shows Whites are the gold medalists in the human "race".)

It's simply about us, Australians (the ethnic group) *being* White.
We were always White.

We should have the same rights as a "people", with our own culture/morphology, as the Thai, Zulus or Egyptians.

Thai don't look or live like Zulus.
Zulus don't look or live like Egyptians.
Australians don't look or live like the above.

We never hear the end of how Europeans invaded the territories of native peoples around the world.

But when it's *us* being displaced and disrespected, somehow that's something to *celebrate*!

Even if we were demonstrably INFERIOR, we should still have the right to maintain our distinct ethnic (i.e. bio-cultural) character.

How can we do that, when most of our population growth is from immigration, and 80% of immigrants are obviously dissimilar/unrelated to us, biologically and/or culturally?

People who were similar (other Europeans) could eventually be adsorbed invisibly into the general population.
Not so with non-Europeans.

"a progressive is willing to embrace change for the perceived good of society"

Yes, not change for the sake of change.

What is the "perceived good" in the fragmentation caused by introducing 6000 alien cultures into Australia?

"I much prefer the terms "progressive" and "conservative""

More accurate still would be "idealist" and "realist".

It is quite clear it is primarily (but not exclusively) people who could be labelled Leftist who are behind this reckless social experiment.

Shocka – I had to read it twice and I still don’t believe it.

You said:

<<It's simply about us, Australians (the ethnic group) *being* White. We were always White.>>

Might I suggest that you are mixing up fact with the fiction of “Terra Nullius”

The other undisputable fact is 45.55% is still a minority.

Shocker,

"(However, the evidence (Human Development index, GDP-per-capita) shows Whites are the gold medalists in the human "race"."
Didn't Jesse Owens disproved that for you in 1936, and The Fuhrer marched out of the stadium? Bad choice of words "gold medal" for that one.

"It's simply about us, Australians (the ethnic group) *being* White.
We were always White." You forgot to tell that to the likes of Galmahra or Truganini. this sounds like the return of the Aryan's to me.
Shocker is 'One Nation' still in existence? and I'm sure you were one of the 1 million in 1998, or one of the 617 in 2013, providing you are old enough to vote.

Producer,

The "democratic" system in Australia, like in other western countries, is designed to ensure power only oscillate in a narrow band between two like parties. There is far more similarity between Labor and the Coalition than what could be defined as differences. Some prattle on as if there is some yawning chasm in policy between the major parties when there is none. Both parties support the status quo which ensures business as usual regardless of which one occupies the government benches in Canberra. All the political debate centers around emphases and degree, there is no discussion about fundamental changes to society. Australians are far too comfortable with their present situation both economically and politically to contemplate any kind of radicalism. Even my party The Greens is not radical but still politically very much "main stream" supportive of the present system.
As to what you said about the vote and the final outcome, much of the inequality would be addressed by proportional representation, but for our system to work "efficiently", it requires one party to dominate for a period and then the other to do likewise, always moving backwards and forwards in a narrow band. The recent aberration of a slightly minority government shows that the system will become inefficient if pure democracy was to prevail. Can you imagine if our parliament of 150 representatives was made up of 67 competing voices. The government commanding the loyalty of say 20, and relying on the vote of 56 from a collection of all sorts, it would simply become unworkable.
Even when one side proposes minor changes, like a tax for example, it is met with strenuous opposition and great debate takes place from all quarters. Image if the government of the day advocated a real fundamental change like nationalise the means of production, if a proposed small tax change invokes hysteria image what nationalisation would invoke, riots in the streets, calls for the army to intervene.