Hello All,
Not too into elections because, No matter what certain people get a helping hand and others don't.. in my research either way you choose lib or lab they are they same..

would it hurt if we picked someone outside the box?
maybe the less off people in our great country might get a voice again.

Kind regards

<<would it hurt if we picked someone outside the box?>>

Yes, it would render your ballot paper informal.

But where there are boxes, place the numbers 1-2-3-... next to the boxes of small parties and independents, then comes the tricky bit:

On the Senate paper, leave empty the Lib/Lab boxes, but for the lower house you still need despite the nausea (vomit first if you need) to mark one of them with the second-to-last number and the other with the last number.

I recommend using the following page as guide: http://bicycleaustralia.org/politics.php#vote

The 2 big parties will not like it they do not want independents or minor parties.

Dear Philip,

Yes, I know very well that they won't like it: is this supposed to be kind of a threat?

As long as no one is stupid enough to suggest the green's 1950s ideology.

A stupid ideology is better than the pure power-hungry cynicism that we currently have: let's take it a step at a time and first kick out the two dinosaurs.

If you are looking for a proof for the afterlife, you will still hear their screams all the way from hell to planet earth as they continue to pull each other's hair even there.

Yuyutsu - Quote "is this supposed to be kind of a threat?"

What are you smoking, I don't know how anyone could arrive at that conclusion from my original post, which was Quote "The 2 big parties will not like it they do not want independents or minor parties."

Dear Philip,

I am glad this is not the case.

Your single sentence appeared on its own, immediately following my previous suggestion to dump the two big parties. That they wouldn't like it is obvious as the sun at midday, so as we rarely find someone posting here a short message like "Wow, I have 5 fingers in my hand", it made me wonder what urged you to write that which is so obvious to all. One possible interpretation, which I'm happy to see discarded, could be "if you continue writing such things that the regime doesn't like, you might soon find yourself beaten up in a dark cell". In many countries that would be commonplace.

When an inward thinking negative, arch conservative party supporter, with no new ideas like Shadow Minister finds it necessary to warn against a vote for a progressive party like The Greens, one should take a closer look at Greens policies before passing judgement.
A vote for one issue parties and independents is generally a wasted vote. However there are exceptions like Nick Xenophon, Andrew Wilkie or even the conservative Bob Katter, have proved to be worthwhile.
Those who rushed to vote for PUP last time around can see how voting for Big Clive was a total loss. as much value as voting for the likes of the No Parking Meters Party. or some such one issue drop kicks.

I read the greens "policies" but all I could find was a wishy washy list of populist aspirations, by a bunch of arch regressive socialists.

Greens open door refugee policy, we would be flooded as they would stop the navy turning them back.

Absolutely would never get my vote with that policy.

Where would they get the money to support them in the lifestyle they would expect, gee higher taxes.

Greens NO WAY!

Why do the left pervert language. The Greens are regressive leading us back to Sodom and Gomorrah. How anyone considers that 'progressive' defies belief.

I will be voting for the loose cannons and micro parties simply because as unpredictable as they are, they are the only real hope for democracy there is.

At least some of them make all the right noises about restoring and or delivering a greater level of democracy through more referendums or even direct democracy and, even obeying the constitution.

How many people here are aware that the "COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA" is a private company registered on the New York Securities and Exchange commission?

Don't believe me? do a search on it. Don't be surprised if your state is registered there too.

Notice how many federal govt departments have ABNs?

ever wonder why?

Personally, I refuse to vote at all because to do so is to legitimise the filthy, parasitic, child abusers of mainstream, ugly Australian politics.

Better in my book to abstain on that basis and claim either "religious duty" or pay a $20 fine.

Now, how does it go? Oh yes .. the filth in Canberra say that in order to save one or more children drowning at sea, that they must abuse one or more other children by locking them up, without charge or trial, indefinitely, in a situation known to produce adverse medical outcomes.

But of course, once these unfortunates have been supposedly "saved" they too then get abused until their poor little minds are broken beyond repair, and at best any "good health" thereafter can only be purchased at great expense in the form of specialist attention and medication.

It's not a game. And whatever it is you may be thinking at this very point in time as you read this, however great your confidence and pride in the mechanations of your own consciousness, know that that very place in your mind can be defiled, "raped" and shattered asunder by the ravages of mental illness.

To do this knowingly and willingly to minors is a great crime against humanity and there is only one fitting punishment for the offenders.

DreamOn - How would you stop the boats, knowing if you start letting children in the parents will send them on mass knowing that they will soon follow via family reunification?

Just look at the whole situation in Germany and the EU do you want that in Australia?

You might but I don't.

Referundemdrivensocienty,
I'm going to have to go with you on this one.
Any power to the minors, is power the majors won't get.
And that suits me fine.

I don't think we even have democracy at all.
We'd have to make the rules for them, just as they make the rules for us and not let them make the rules for themselves.

While I'm at it, (kind of unrelated) I don't like being labelled, not that I think I ever have been, come to think of it.
You know the 'right-wing, lefty, conservative, progressive' type labels etc.
The second anyone does this they make you a part of a 'gang'.
Some people like being part of a gang, others not so.

The big political parties, in some way can be likened to gangs, not too much different to asking whether you support the Rebels, the Banditos or the Finks.
Its all the same basic my gang V's your gang childish mentality.
I argue the issues themselves not gang mentality.

Did anyone else catch the Tony Abbott comment the other day, when he refereed to the government as The ABBOTT/turnbull Government. Even though Abbott has declared "no ambitions" for the top job, is he still pulling the strings in the background? Will a vote for the Coalition be a vote for three more years of Abbottism? It may well be,

Paul,

While you have a reputation for jumping to nonsensical conclusions, this time you have outdone yourself.

2007 to 2010 was known as the Rudd Gillard government, not because they co governed, but because they both were PM in the same term of government.

Shadow, was there really an Abbott government, I thought it was all just a bad dream, and Australia had woken up from the nightmare.

Paul,

I don't think that you have ever woken up.

Shadow,

How long did it take you to come up with that bit of sharp witted repartee.

Please try harder in the future, your attempts at humor and satire are somewhat atrocious, even boarder line abysmal.

Just as your man Tone seen himself as a serious political player in the mold of a Winston Churhill or a Franklin Roosevelt, unfortunately the budgie smugglers and clumsy mouth made more for a political Ronald McDonald than anyone else. Some had expectations that his replacement would be the new Karl Marx, unfortunate he is turning out to be the new Harpo Marx, but with less to say on policy.

Posted by Philip S, Friday, 13 May 2016 4:12:27 PM

" ... DreamOn - How would you stop the boats, knowing if you start letting children in the parents will send them on mass knowing that they will soon follow via family reunification? ... "

Stopping the boats does not concern me *Phillip S* but rather providing safe, assisted passage does.

The next thing you do is remove the banner that attracts Asylum Seekers everywhere and that is Australia's "membership" of the Convention. It is a most vile thing that persecutors of Asylum Seekers are permitted to pretend that they are upstanding members when clearly, to me at least, they are not.

As for your comment re:parents and others ensuring to bring a kid, any kid in the hopes of using them as a bargaining chip to ensure a meal ticket for life, I quite agree that desperate people will in all likelihood do exactly that. But here again, this does not concern me, as ever has it been thus.

Where I part with the Greens and others on this is is in the nature of the support and assistance that is provided. That is to say, I do not expect Australia to immediately offer residency to these people. Temporary protection is fine (with basic shelter, food and medicine)

The reason for that is I am not convinced the economy as it is can stand anything other, with entrenched disadvantage for existing citizens only likely to get worse, and also it is I believe as much as we can expect of the scum of the crown to discontinue their centuries long child abusing fettish. I do not think that they are capable of any greater compassion. It is enough for now that they willingly choose to discontinue abusing these people.

My preference is for camps, which can double for those fleeing climate disaster, natural disaster and the like, in geographically isolated areas if you must, in "special economic zones," with a nationalsised approach (at least to start with)

As for family reunion, in the instance of temporary protection it is not relevant.

..

I am not opposed to "lock ward" provisions (providing it is humane, transparent and subjected to peer review) until such time as the medical and security checks are complete, and if I do not misrecall, the last we heard from A.S.I.O. on that is that it generally only takes a month to do this.

And for sure there are a small minority of people amongst the Asylum Seekers that are criminal, whether they be rapists, extremists or otherwise. Those individuals can be detained pending rehabilitation.

Thereafter, much good can come from temporary protection. You see, i.m.o. to prepare an individual who has only ever known a 3rd world into a country like Australia takes a considerable amount of time and resources. This view is one that I have formed following personal experience, as I am now onto my 2nd exotic wife. An extensive orientation program is terribly important. This can be done in the camps with only successful graduates being considered for anything further.

Further, there are a number of areas in the Australian economy which are desperately in need of more workers. Certain of the rural sector industries comes to mind. Once these people have been screened, cleared and trained, you may than care to afford them a "tour of duty" if you like, (to locations where Australians generally do not wish to go let alone work,) much like being drafted, into something more than mere "temporary protection" as and when the economy requires it, and no I am not talking about creating an underclass.

And importantly, then they will really be earning their stripes, in recompense for the protection that they have been afforded.

The reason I think that that will work is one there is an economic need, and two, if you are other than abusive to these people, you will then in a majority of cases earn their respect and also a fierce loyalty.

Paul,

If the snide sarcasm that you parade is your benchmark of humour, then certainly I never intend to match it, as most of us are laughing at you not with you.

Don't give up your day job,

Shadow,

Are you such a loser, a Nigel No Friends, that you crave the adulation of complete strangers on an internet public forum like this. Do you think I care what you or anyone else thinks of me. Should I be hurt to think that some mysterious persons may think ill of me.
When you say "as most of us are laughing at you not with you." You demonstrate your need for belonging, even if it is with complete strangers the use of the word "us" to make you inclusive, when no inclusiveness exists. You crave the security of the group "most of us" putting yourself into the group, you then isolate me from that group with "laughing at you" that I should feel rejected whilst you feel wanted. No.
You say much more about yourself with you one line than what you actually write, as we all do. But I still love you.

Has little Paulie has had his feelings hurt?

No Shadow, not at all, I just find it interesting what makes people tick. I harbor no feelings of animosity, or goodwill towards you, my feeling for those on this forum including you are neutral.
You try to be condescending with the use of the word Paulie, you feel you have had a victory, you have been vindicated in some way and are now in a superior position to celerbrate. I am sure thousands of forum contributors are silently applauding you at this very moment. Fell good, you deserve it.

Abbott sticking his nose into QLD councils stacking the deck, funding his preferences.