I was a little stunned to hear a friend of mine this morning express support for Jacqui Lambie because of her stance on pay for the armed forces.

I have no time for Lambie, not least because she went to Clive Palmer when she was in trouble, took $600K from him for her campaign, and then abandoned his party when she was barely in the parliament.

It seemed ungrateful, to say the least. Not that I'm a Clive supporter, and it's easy to see what he's like, but she should have known that before she signed-up.

She certainly didn't get elected because she was Jacqui Lambie, so it's not just Clive she's abandoned, but the Tasmanians who voted for her because she was the PUP candidate.

But my friend's position made me wonder how others viewed Lambie.

I don't care much for Ms Lambies childish tantrums and silly tactics when she doesn't get her own way, and I am embarrassed that someone like her was actually voted in to our parliament, but I certainly don't feel sorry for Clive.

If she was stupid enough to hitch her wagon to a strange character like Clive in order to get into parliament, then she deserves everything she gets.

She could easily play most of us off a break and come out on top. Clive and his myriad of expensive advisers were solidly outclassed by animal cunning.

Hate to say it, but the 'system' is made for the 'Lambies' to take advantage of. She will fit in well in the Senate. Fortunately for the taxpayers she thinks small beer and so far has not cost us (taxpayers) as much as some.

Think of the savings if the Australian Senate was towed to the continental shelf off NSW and sunk. It would need that depth so none of them could still have a hand out after.

I think the ones that need towing out to sea are the prescent federal govt.
Someone like Lambie show more strength than Clive palmer, who is there for what he can get.

The Chinese claim Big Clive took them for $12 mill to get elected, and now Jacqui's taken Big Clive to the cleaners for $600k. The burning question. Where is the other $11,400,000? Clive could spend a bit of it on Jenny Craig and a new suit, that one he's wearing looks like something he borrowed from the undertaker.
All being well, Jacqui's landed herself a well paying job for six years, all being well that is. Clive only got 3, bad deal Clive, 56 votes is a very thin margin indeed. I remember Senator Albert Field, and he didn't even get a vote, except one from Joh.

Lambie is the proof the electoral system is seriously flawed. Only 6.6% Tasmanians voted for her.

Good question, Graham,

My initial response to the advent of Lambie as a Senator was that she was pretty dense....but who am I to say a straight talking muggins from Tassy can't make an impact?

It seems to me that Clive Palmer, despite all his bluster to the contrary, is only in Parliament to feather his own nest. I've lost count of the number of times he's stood up to the govt only to roll over when he's achieved concessions - concessions usually amenable to his business interests. His attendance record in the HoR is woefully inadequate - as his main strength is in PUP's Senate numbers...so the fact that Lambie jumped ship was mildly entertaining for me.

Also it's difficult not to be impressed with Lambie sticking to her principles regarding the ADF....and her request for someone to fetch Pyne a box of Kleenex when she was instrumental in nixing his higher education reform bill recently shows she's not cowed by her relative inexperience in the lion's den of federal politics.

In general, she reminds one of Pauline Hanson, limited intellectually (who could forget her cringe-worthy and vacuous interview with Barrie Cassidy at the height of the Govt's "terror hysteria")....yet she seems to grasp the inherent unfairness underpinning much of the govts reform agenda - and understands also her power to halt it where she can.

So, addressing Graham's point that she was elected as a PUP representative - and now she's not. There are many aspects of this parliament that presented themselves as one thing - and subsequently turned out to be not like that at all. The govt itself is the best example of that - and Palmer and PUP another.

Dear OnTheBeach,

<<Think of the savings if the Australian Senate was towed to the continental shelf off NSW and sunk. It would need that depth so none of them could still have a hand out after.>>

But the Senate is only there in order to balance the greater evil of Parliament, so your suggestion should instead be applied to the root cause of the problem.

Regarding Lambie, I like seeing *real* people in parliament/senate, making havoc and replacing the regular zombies. But what a pity, however, that unlike say Ricky Muir, Lambie seems to be just an ordinary thief, soon to swap her seat for the cold prison bench, for cheating on the welfare-system and receiving disability pension while also receiving a salary from PUP.

Yuyutsu,

You make a very solid point that the ordinary, principled citizen should be in Parliament and not just the polished poseurs (L'il Willie Shorten is a perfect example) who are out for themselves anyhow and are the marionnettes of unelected, unrepresentative faceless figures and interests lurking in the shadows.

As for the Senate being some sort of balance when both houses are inflicted with similar lack decency, right again.

Agreed too that Lambie may play it close to the edge. More on the senator,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqui_Lambie

Enjoyed your straight remarks. Have a good day.

poirot: Clive Palmer, is only in Parliament to feather his own nest.

Something I said at the very start, but if he does some good for Australians while he is there, well & good.

poirot: Also it's difficult not to be impressed with Lambie sticking to her principles regarding the ADF.

The others that can be persuaded to sell out. A rare quality indeed. Abbotts not impressed. He said, "She doesn't know how Politicians/Parliament operate." Meaning, you put on a brave face then give in.

poirot: In general, she reminds one of Pauline Hanson, limited yet she seems to grasp the inherent unfairness underpinning much of the govts reform agenda.

Exactly & she's not selling Australians out for her own gain. If more of the Independents had the guts to do the same then the Government would be forced to put forward good Legislation.

poirot: There are many aspects of this parliament that presented themselves as one thing - and subsequently turned out to be not like that at all.

Oh, Duh!

GrahamY: but the Tasmanians who voted for her because she was the PUP candidate.

I bet she gets a bigger slice of the pie next time though if she keeps to her digs.

Suseonline: I don't care much for Ms Lambies childish tantrums and silly tactics when she doesn't get her own way, and I am embarrassed that someone like her was actually voted in to our parliament,

You must be very embarrassed by the entire Government then. Why just pick on her. She is no different to any of them. At least she hasn't been bought yet, like the others have been.

579: Someone like Lambie show more strength than Clive palmer, who is there for what he can get.

She sure does.

CH: Lambie is the proof the electoral system is seriously flawed. Only 6.6% Tasmanians voted for her.

So you want a system that rubber stamps everything at the expense of ordinary Australians. Then why have a Voting System at all. Oh, I forgot you would like an Anarchy System, as from your previous post.

Dear Graham,

I admire Lambie's stance to try and make a difference.
If more politicians did the same - perhaps we would get
better results all round.

cont'd ...

Peter Coleman summed things up rather well in
the Preface to "The Costello Memoirs," when he
wrote about politicians in general that -

"Whatever they may say, most of them do not go into
Parliament to bring about particular reforms: they
go in because they find the life irresistible.
They want to be in it all their lives. They enjoy
its exhilarating highs and take its miserable (and
tedious) lows in their stride. They take for granted
the slander of fools. They also believe that the
voters will get it right in the end. Their day will
come. They are politicians in the way others are poets.
They can't help themselves."

We have to wait and see whether Lambie fits into this
description or whether she isn't like that. It's still
early days - however, from what we've seen thus far -
it would appear that she's not a seat-warmer, or a hack,
or a careerist. It appears as I stated earlier - that
she did go into Parliament to make changes.
And that can't be a bad thing - surely?

It takes a lot of gall to grandstand on populist single issues when the dogs are barking that the federal government's revenue base is shrinking and it faces increasing payouts for (to take a couple of examples) the aged and for a dramatically increased population through record migration past and present (and future it seems).

Enough of the cargo cult. Someone has to pay eventually. Any young workers reading this should realise that any lost belt-tightening opportunities right now - particularly where Labor left so many swinging from the guvvy teats - will rebound on the young workers very, very, soon indeed and will affect their standard of living for decades, perhaps for life. Say goodbye to that family you were thinking of and it will be even more migrants instead - that you pay for.

Emmmmm ? I harbour certain suspicions concerning Ms LAMBIE'S motives for her 'impressive' stance on pay increases for the ADF ? From what I've observed, she wasn't particularly well regarded when she served, herself ? A person of limited reasoning, and with little grasp on the more important issues confronting our nation, but a bucket load of pure animal cunning.

I really wonder whether or not it's a case of an unremarkable, relatively uneducated individual, with a limited intellect, who wishes to be regarded as a vitally important cog. Notwithstanding how destructive her stance may be on any of the government's fiscal policies ?

A clear matter of Ms LAMBIE first, second, and last ! A very selfish, self-centred, narcissistic individual I think ! Who wishes to elevate her own profile at any cost, in the governance of this great Nation of ours.

Whatever criticism you choose to make of Lambie should go to Clive Palmer. He is a knowledgeable businessman who has hired and fired many people and accumulated a large amount of money while doing so. He presumably chose her because he thought she would be as malleable as Lazarus. I doubt that any election will be fought in Australia with armed forces' pay as a key issue. Her boundaries are limited to a minor issue and Palmer's to his financial well-being. As inadequate as Abbott and Shorten are I prefer either of them to Lambie and Clive.

Jayb to CH = "So you want a system that rubber stamps everything at the expense of ordinary Australians. Then why have a Voting System at all. Oh, I forgot you would like an Anarchy System, as from your previous post."

I have no idea what you are talking about or the previous post you are referring to. Never have I said anything that even remotely promotes anarchy. And I would be opposed to a system that rubber stamps everything at the expense of ordinary Australian. I'm totally baffled as to how you came to these conclusions about me.

My sincere apologies CH, it was Yutsie.

"I am one of those who oppose the very idea of democracy. I do not agree that a majority has a right to impose its decisions over minorities and individuals (neither a minority over the majority of course)." Yuyutsu

Sorry once again.

Dear David,

<<As inadequate as Abbott and Shorten are I prefer either of them to Lambie and Clive.>>

I disagree. The war is lost and save for a major tsunami wiping Australian cities, foreign invasion, monetary collapse or an Ebola pandemic, Australian politics will remain dominated for any foreseeable future by the two dinosaurs, Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Given this sad fact, the only remaining chance by which a citizen can save themselves from the worse of the worse of government decrees, is to form a minor party which will concentrate only on fighting to repeal that one statute which afflict them most, then hope that the dinosaurs will be more-or-less even between them to need that party.

You may be aware that early elections were called in Israel. The reason is that the coalition-parties could no longer sustain their in-fighting. Until the latest elections, the Ultra-Orthodox parties, but especially the older of the two, the "Torah Judaism" party, were always part of the coalition, Left or Right. The "Torah Judaism" party was always a stabilising factor which allowed most coalitions to stay for the full term: they were easy to deal with because they weren't interested in ministries, in the economy or in Israel's relations with the Palestinians - they only demanded one thing: "Keep our sons out of the army". At the last elections, the new meteoric "Yesh Atid" party vowed to crush Ultra-Orthodox people and force their children into the army - well they now are in disarray and it's doubtful they will get enough votes to survive the coming March elections, when the Ultra-Orthodox will be back in coalition well before the major parties had time to harm any of their children.

So I believe that this is how it should be - as many cross-benchers as possible each with one simple single goal which on its own is not too hard to satisfy, each protecting the pupil of the eye of their electors, but leaving the major parties to mess around as they please with the perennial but less-important tasks (such as economy, immigration and defence).

Dear Yuyutsu,

I wrote: <<As inadequate as Abbott and Shorten are I prefer either of them to Lambie and Clive.>>

you wrote: "I disagree."

Are you saying I don't prefer Abbott and Shorten to Lambie and Clive?

Have you taken to reading my mind?

Possibly, you prefer Lambie and Clive to Abbott and Shorten, but that's not what you wrote.

As far as Israel goes if other people's sons have to serve in the army why shouldn't sons of the ultra-orthodox? Why should they be free of the obligations of other citizens? there are a great many issues in Australia, Israel and every other country. I am very much against chaplains in public schools. However, if a party made that that the main issue above other issues I would not vote for it because there are many other issues to be considered. The stabilising factor that a single issue party in government provides is purchased at a great cost. The cost is that a blank check is given to the government to do what it will in other areas. That is a negation of democracy. I think Israel would do better without the "Torah Judaism" party in government.

On TV there is a series about the National Party. It was torn apart by the "Joh for Canberra" push. Outside of a demand for a flat tax rather than a graduated income tax Joh had no other proposals besides getting power for himself. Australia rightfully rejected such a party.

Labor, the Libs, the Nats and the Greens all have platforms. PUP and Lambie have only the particular interest they are pushing.

David f: PUP and Lambie have only the particular interest they are pushing.

Actually that is no different to what the other parties are doing anyway. Except with the two Major Partys it all about, "One upmanship." They really don't have the welfare of the Australian people at heart.

That's why I support Minor Partys & Independents in the Senate. They can force the two Major Parties to make decent Legislation or risk getting the Legislation knocked back.

Dear David,

You are correct, it is I who prefer Lambie and Clive over Abbott and Shorten, not you. This is what I was trying to convey.

The difference between us is that you are still an optimistic, as you seem to believe that any good may come out of the major parties, whereas I do not hold any such hopes and therefore only believe in damage-control.

It's not even that either Clive or Lambie represent me, but I like the trend of breaking the back of the big parties.

Regarding Israel, of course nobody should be forced into the army - there could be no blot worse than conscription and a state that does it should not continue to exist. For some, however, conscription is even more painful than for others, so I see the "Torah Judaism" party as a role-model for standing for the freedom of its people. I even know a youth who was not from an orthodox home, but managed to avoid the army by joining an orthodox Yeshivah. I can only hope that following the failure of the acrimonious "Yesh Atid" party and with "Torah Judaism" again in coalition, Israelis will get the sense to equalise by lifting themselves out of the water rather than by trying to drown the Ultra-Orthodox along with themselves.

You claim that "That is a negation of democracy", but the existing electoral system was never democratic to begin with (not that I believe in democracy, but that's beside as we don't even have a democracy in Australia), hence all I can hope for is damage-control.

Jayb,
That's how UKIP in the UK and FN in France operate, they are pressure groups who are pushing the major parties to adopt their policies or face losing seats. Having MP's defect or losing by-elections and local council seats is hitting the majors where it hurts as holding the balance of power and keeping their jobs are the only concerns of mainstream politicians, the bulk of whom stand as candidates to serve themselves and their clique or caste, not the electors.

It’s coming up on nine years since we had a lower house that controlled the upper house, and because of it we have rule by single digit percentages......what do we do?....we (collectively) voted for it.
Does the “average” voter understand what the upper house does, and that their vote for the lower house can be neutered by their vote in the upper........probably not.
We elected Lambie, who is exactly the type of politician we ask for, one from “the masses” rather than a house trained political animal from the big two, and we crucify her for sticking it to Palmer and the “ can’t believe a word I say, unless it is in writing” Abbott.

The big two have to educate their suppoerters on relevance of one house to the other.

Sonofgloin,
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."- Winston Churchill
The only way a democracy can work is if suffrage is limited, the young, the thick and the mentally feeble should not be allowed near a polling booth.
The best way to limit suffrage is to end compulsory voting, the undesirable voters will simply not turn out and the undesirable candidates will not be nominated.

"The best way to limit suffrage is to end compulsory voting, the undesirable voters will simply not turn out and the undesirable candidates will not be nominated."

Good in theory but not in practice if we look at the USA, where the undesirable candidates just keep on coming. The voter turn out in the USA hardly ever gets above 50% which means getting 26% of the general population's support is enough to be elected.

Let's face it there is an inherit problem with all candidates. The desire to be a politician is almost a guarantee the person lacks any common sense. To get nominated usually requires years of arse kissing the 'right people.'

The independents tend to be either extremists, crackpots or in it for themselves. A candidate with integrity is rare breed.

Once an MP or senator is elected, they are essentially their own people. The only thing keeping them in the party is loyalty to the values of the party.

The problem with PUP is that its values are the interests of Clive, and these vary from day to day. His two present senators know which side their bread is buttered, Lambie has suddenly realized that people are listening to her and has become an attention whore, and with an IQ that would make Kim Kardashian look smart, has decided to focus on the only subject she has any understanding of.

Limiting suffrage only makes things more unfair. And the Senate, in difficult circumstances, is actually doing a very good job of limiting the damage of the Abbott government. Minor party senators are generally a good thing, and independents even better. I wouldn't vote for Lambie* and I wouldn't vote for Leyonhjelm either*, but at least they represent different Australian views and can hold the government to account. Their real power is very limited except on issues that the government and opposition disagree on.

* Our upper house voting system makes that claim technically inaccurate, but if I lived in a state where either of them was standing, I'd be unlikely to put them in the top 40.

And party loyalty is not a good thing – indeed IMO it's the worst aspect of the ALP. Politicians' loyalty should be to the country, not the party. Lambie's quitting the Puppies may be unfair to Clive Palmer, but he's big enough to look after himself.

First of all Jacqui Lambie primary job is to represent Tasmania regardless of the fact that initially she was selected by the pups as a candidates for the senate.
I think it is somewhat premature to make any judgment on her metal capacity, but she has certainly showed she is prepared to stick up for what she believes in and it is refreshing to see a politician get up and say sorry I got it wrong.
The criticism I would make is this she should not threaten to vote against all other legislation even when it has some merit, such a policy is disruptive and is not in the interests of either good government or Tasmania.

Aidan, Conservative Hippie,
America and Australia are two very different societies, we might as well talk about Indonesia in the same context, voting is voluntary there and they had a 70% voter turnout in the most recent election.
The Indian election just gone saw 66% voter turnout and participation in political activity and voting is on the rise, given that we're rapidly becoming an Asian society more relevant comparisons can be found in Asia rather than in North America.
What would happen if compulsory voting were to be scrapped here is that the Labor party vote would collapse and because the voting public are mostly conservative the Green and Coalition parties would become the duopoly.

The voting public are mostly concervative, how would you work that out.
The voting public must change their mind quite regularly. The critisism by SM is out of order, labelling Lambie a whore, she is a representative of Tasmania, such a label is not good at all.

Jay of Melb>> Winston Churchill
The only way a democracy can work is if suffrage is limited, the young, the thick and the mentally feeble should not be allowed near a polling booth.<<

Jay another quote attributed to Churchill.....but probably comes from Georges Clemenceau is:

"Any man who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart. Any man who is still a socialist at age 40 has no head."

Either way Jay, it has some currency.

JoM: the Green and Coalition parties would become the duopoly.

Heaven forbid.

Counterfeit currency, sonofgloin — there's no truth to it whatsoever, but it's frequently used to discredit socialist viewpoints.

Sonofgloin,
Most of the older people who support the Greens are conservatives in the left wing authoritarian vein, it was remarked upon the terrible events at Utoya in Norway that Breivik by targeting leftists had actually killed the next generation of Norwegian social conservatives due to the fact that while kids are attracted to socialist idealism almost all those who were murdered that day would have become conservatives in their thirties.

Dear Graham,

I have been a supporter of Jackie Lambie from the get go much to the chagrin of many of my friends and relatives. I don't have much time for many of her policies and her ignorance on some subjects can be disconcerting, but she represents a section of Australia whose voices and concerns are not often aired.

If we believe as I do that the Senate should be a house where a wide representation of views can break free of the constraints of party politics, then she epitomises that ethic.

In the very least Jackie forces those in power to justify their actions to the Australia people.

What people see in her is a deep sense of right and wrong. Her right and wrong may well be different to mine but it is certainly reflective of a healthy number of Australians. She is their voice and on occasion she is mine. But regardless, every time I see her I think 'You go girl!'

In theory Australia votes for candidates and not political parties, Lambie's vote in Tasmania was relatively good compared to Leyonhjelm in NSW and Muir vote in Victoria, both got elected. The Senate works on a quota system with six to be elected from each state. A quota being 14.28% of the vote. With the preferential voting system its possible for a candidate with a very low primary vote to gain a quota, the for mentioned did exactly that. The quota system sometimes works in favor of the major parties as well, the Liberal/Nationals gained 3 positions in NSW even though their third candidate only had 0.6 of a quota and relied on others preferences to get elected.
Lambie's not the first politician to resign from a party and remain in parliament. I prefer what Lambie did to a liar like Kristina Keneally who asked the people to vote for her, giving an assurance that if elected, but defeated as Premier, would remain for 4 years to represent her electorate, 18 months later she resigned, forcing a by-election.

SteeleRedux,

I have to admit that it was refreshing to hear Lambie apologise for initially supporting the Government's proposed financial advice changes, adding that she was now better informed.

"I'm proud to say I'm going to vote with like-minded senators - the coalition of common sense - to fix an injustice that I helped create just a few months ago," she told the chamber.

It's such a rare occurrence to come across a political representative who's willing to admit such a thing - especially in time to undo it - and it's possibly only the relative naivety and openness of Lambie that allows such an admission.

It is rare to hear an apology from a politician, but it has happened.

Kennedy apologised for the Bay of Pigs. Fiorello La Guardia, mayor of New York, apologised for his mistakes. Kevin Rudd apologised to the Aborigines. Obama in his Cairo speech admitted that the US had sometimes done the wrong thing. Perry, governor of Texas, admitted being arrogant.

Some politicians leave public office rather than support what they think is wrong. Michael Foot resigned at UK ambassador to the UN rather than support British colonialism. William Jennings Bryan resigned as Secretary of State when Wilson led the US into WW1.

The above were all honorable acts, and Lambie has joined that select circle.

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon has announced he will launch a new national political party with candidates in all states and territories at the next federal election.
I am an admirer of Nick X but, is he being a bit of an opportunists with this latest move of his. Considering the disarray of the hard right Abbott regime, and given the lackluster performance by the Labor Party is that just political opportunism with Nick trying to raise his political profile, with him virtually unknown to the average voter outside South Australia.
With the failure of PUP, there is fertile ground for a center center party to pick up 5% plus of the vote. The problem is to achieve the desired result, which is generally to win senate seats, a party needs enough active support, and money, to stand candidates in all the lower house seats, to maximise the Senate vote. Other that the big two, The Greens is the only party to have consistently achieved that, and now holds 10 Senate seats.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-07/independent-senator-nick-xenophon-to-launch-political-party/5949534

p/s According to Nick, no Lambie's allowed.

Lambie has been on a steep learning ramp .and has done very well,as soon as she gets some good support she will do better .

hope her colleague Muir gets himself up to speed he might surprise us as well.

both come across a lot better then "the Pain" from SA

ben

Ben, I can only assume the pain you refer to is Xenophon, but it would seem the voters of SA do not feel the same way. In 2013 Nick X ran a very close second to the Liberal Party with the primary vote, and out polled Labor state wide, quite an achievement. The motor man from Melbourne Muir got about 0.5% of the vote and was elected, by preferences from people who didn't even know he was a candidate, he has no policies, no platform, except maybe a free grease and oil change for all. You said about Muir "he might surprise us" yes he might, if he does more than front a rev heads convention and eat a cold pie!
p/s Welcome to the forum, and no I'm not from SA and I'm not a Nick Xenophon sycophant, although I think he has made a positive contribution to Australian politics. Fully paid up member of The Greens.

Lambie might have jumped ship at the right time, with voter support for PUP slipping 60% in the latest poll, down from 5% to 2%. PUP wouldn't win a prize in a chook raffle with that level of support, even if they held the only ticket.

Paul1405, "I think he [Independent Senator Nick Xenophon] has made a positive contribution to Australian politics. Fully paid up member of The Greens"

LOL, are you sure? Nick Xenophon isn't so keen on the cynical, hypocritical Greens 'Protest Party'. See here,

<Greens roll out Bob Brown to do a hatchet job on Nick Xenophon in the Senate

WE know the Greens are big on recycling but this is ridiculous.

Using former leader Bob Brown to front election campaign ads more than a year after he quit parliament doesn't say much for their current team.

Apparently the Greens don't want to abate just carbon emissions but their new leader, Christine Milne, as well.

The TV spot targeting Nick Xenophon is desperate stuff. Brown offers no policies, instead urging South Australians to protest against the major parties by voting for Sarah Hanson-Young.

Deceptively, Brown suggests a vote for Xenophon helps the Liberals, when the independent senator is actually splitting his preferences evenly between the Coalition and Labor.

So we have a former leader pushing aside the current leader to spruik for a sitting senator on spurious grounds.

This desperation shows the pressure on the Greens. This has every prospect of being a bad election for the third force in Australian politics.

But that could be a good thing for the country and, especially, for South Australia.

The Greens high-water mark came after the 2010 election. They won a lower house seat for the first time and, holding the balance of power in the senate, signed a formal government alliance with Julia Gillard.

It has been all downhill since then. Their focus on the carbon tax, media regulation and weak border protection helped drag Labor away from the mainstream and into a political vortex.

Brown was wise to get out>
http://www.nickxenophon.com.au/blog/article-about-greens-preferencing-by-chris-kenny/

Dear paul1405,

At a first glance at NXT I was put off that Nick would name a party after himself. This quote from the launch speech eased that a little;

“While I'm a little uneasy about using my name for this new choice, I’ve been convinced by others that it’ll make it easier to find NXT on a ballot paper.”

But I am unsure this was a decent enough reason and smacks a little of 'doing what it takes' which is exactly what the minor parties like the Motoring Enthusiasts are about.

The second thing was the seemingly centralized policy prescriptions. Without a mechanism to drive policy debate within a party like this it is doomed to struggle because without a membership who feels invested in the project interest will quickly wane.

However I did like this;

“NXT will also be running potential candidate training sessions in the first half of 2015 for those who are considering running as independent candidates, or would like to be considered as NXT candidates. If you are considering standing as an independent candidate, or would like to be considered for a NXT candidate position, click here to complete the first step.”

The fact that he and NXT are prepared to extend a hand to those who wish to run a independent is certainly a tick in the right column.

Beach, I was talking to another poster, Ben not you. "Fully paid up member of The Greens." I was referring to myself not Nick X, and unlike you I am quite willing to publicly identify with The Greens, the party I am a member of. 2010 was the low water make for your Australia First Party and its been down hill ever since.
I can only speak for NSW Greens, although the party did well in the recent Victorian State election. Now winning two lower house seats.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria-state-election-2014/victorian-election-2014-greens-claim-second-seat-as-sam-hibbins-wins-prahran/story-fnocxssc-1227150424268

In my home state I expect at the March 2015 election we will win the new seat of Newtown and also pick up a anther seat in the LC. So I don't see any down hill as you claim's exists, I think more what you wish for than reality.

SteeleRedux, as I pointed out the big problem for Nick X nationally, is his profile although great in SA, he's not well known in the other states. Then on the practical side its down to money, and as I said to win numerous senate seats can be difficult if you don't run candidates in all the lower house seats. Also there is a need to develop policy, it should not just be what Nick thinks, a bit like Clive.
I am a great believer in policy and you support the party with conviction. Nick talks of a center, center party. I think a big failing of the Democrats was in the end they tried too hard to please everyone, and ended up pleasing no one. To be successful a party has to be broad based, but still retain its conviction, populism which around the Hawke time, Labor indulged in, worked for a time, but then people started to question what Labor stood for, they seemed to have no conviction, a party must have conviction.

There are some seats the greens will never win until the sky falls in. They will one day win a term in Victoria.
Nick X is a good trier and a moderate and i hope he does well, at least makes far more sense than Clive.
Lambie with a little more experience would be an asset to any team. She has commitment for right and wrong.

Paul, there's a direct co-relation of socio economic status to Greens support.
Median house price in Prahran $975,000, City Of Melbourne $935,000, Newtown $975,000.
The Greens are a lifestyle party supported by the inner city social elites, people vote for and support the party to signal their social status.

Broadmeadows, median house price $345,000, Green vote 5.6%.
Werribee, median house price $310,000, Green vote 9%
Bendigo, median house price $375,000, Green vote 9%
Morwell, median house price $154,000, Green vote 4.7%

Jay the 60% plus vote for The Liberal Party in Toorak and Vaucluse is that also indicating the city social elites, people vote for and support the party to signal their social status. As well as self interest. Why is The Green vote higher in Melbourne than Sydney where median house prices are higher, according to your theory it should be the other way around. In Sydney, in Balmain and Newtown there is a very high percentage of renters, the Green voters do not own those expensive properties, I would think that could also be true of Melbourne as well.
Could the Green vote actually be down to educated voters who think. Many rusted on Liberal and Labor voters simply support the party without giving it much thought at all. I find from personal experience Green voters are more aware of the issues and polices than the typical Labor or Liberal voter.
The basic one issue parties like The Shooters fall in a hole at election time with around 0.03% of the vote, where were all those hunters in Victoria a couple of weeks back? Extreme parties like Australia First, fail to gain any worthwhile support at all, with their simple blind hate polices.
I have long argued that The Greens need to tune their policies in some areas, without compromising core principles to increase our voter appeal. On some issues like climate change I believe we are absolutely right and time and opinion will shift more and more in our favor. On asylum seekers we are also right, but need to do a lot more to articulate our policy and justify that policy. We need to push the bread and butter issues more, health, education, transport etc which are winners for us, while giving some of the philosophical stuff a rest. On the issue of gay rights The Greens was the first major party to strongly support and copped a fair bit of flak initially over the issue, but public opinion is now shifting very much in our direction.

Toorak isn't representative of Prahran, it's only one small pocket covering four blocks in the area between the river, Malvern Rd in the south, Williams Rd in the West and Kooyong Rd in the East and since many of the blocks are very large I'd guess there are only a few thousand people living there.
The suburbs where the Greens are dominating are well heeled, to say the least, the reason that working class people don't vote Green is that they don't agree with their policies and do agree with Labor or the Liberals.
You've said it yourself, "educated" people who "think" vote Green, if that's not an elitist attitude I don't know what is.
The Greens are slaved to a narrative rather than committed to a policy platform, it breaks that narrative to address the real world problems faced by people in low socio economic circumstances.

Jay I fail to see how it is elitists to say that Green voters are educated people who think about issues. Where there is a body of support among both Labor and Liberal voters of people who simply vote for that particular party simply because they always support that party, rusted on voters. The perception, rightly or wrongly, among working class people is Labor will serve their short term interest better that the other mob. Business people in the main see the Liberals as serving their narrow short term interest.
Who's interest does your party serve? With a minuscule vote I can't see them serving anyone's interests except the bigoted lunatic fringe dwellers.

Totally agree, Jay.

The elitists (social climbing narcissists) are always telling us how educated they are.