What from reading newspapers, watching TV programs,
taking part in social media, it appears that people
are voicing their dis-satisfaction
with the current state of our political affairs.
Especially young people are becoming more and more
vocal. We have a Senate that seems like an unusual
mix of talent. Major parties appear to be
fracturing with certain politicians leaving the
major parties to try their luck elsewhere.
All in all political
skills don't seem to matter as much as the ability to
direct the emotional energy of the crowd.

I was watching a TV program the other night when It
dawned on me - there are so many good talented people
on both sides of our current two party system - yet
they are forced to play along party lines rather than
what's good for the nation. And then it occurred to me -
wouldn't it be great if the talented people from both
sides joined forces? What if we had a government that
put politics aside, and actually did what was good for
the nation? What if there were no divisions along
party lines, only along good policy lines that everyone
supported?

Perhaps I'm just dreaming. But wouldn't it be nice?

What do others think?

My tip, or wish I should say is for Abbott to join forces with Benardi and Latham to lead the new ship.

The past decade of polotics has plunged us into a finacial hole that I doubt I will see us return from in my life, if at all.

Picture us if we lost our miners, our multi national companies at the centre of the tax grab, and the banks.

About our only saving grace is that other countries display comon sense in that they realise that coal fired power is a must, and that our coal is of the highest grade.

Lets hope someone see the light here.

Of cause the other option is to let labor back in so they can finnish what they started a decade ago because once we find where the bottom is, perhaps then our governments will be forced to conceed thier short commings with the likes of our welfare, immigration and foriegn aid policies.

Of cause they (former leaders) dont care because they get rewarded regardless of the job they do and remain totally unacountable for the mess they leave behind.

The difference between grandkids born in 2007, and those born in 2017, is that those in 07 were born debt free. How disgusting is that!

Australia needs a republic and a restart.
Howard sold everything including his backside, and left forward estimates in the multi billions of $.
Abbott to lead a party of radical aliens is laughable. After what he did you are joking.
Lets concentrate on the last 3 years instead of the last decade. Our debt has doubled, so what does that tell you. Abbott came in and immediately changed his election promises to his own agenda, and a massive dumbing down of economy and uncertainty was the result.
Turnbull was hamstrung by the Conservative faction to continue the same agenda.
We were headed in the exact opposite direction to what was needed.
Morrison changed tact to shift to the center of politics, which was a much needed relief. Doesn't that tell you something.
In times of downturn we do not need austerity we need stimulus.
Your mob say we can't afford stimulus as we do not have the money.
Well they found billions to increase the debt with.
Morrison with some kindergarten style of bookkeeping has cut the debt in half if you can believe that.
This term of Govt; has been a complete disaster, with Turnbull playing the tune of the hard right, making funding leaner and the economy becoming more and more protective it has not worked.
Every-time funding decreases so to does the economy.
Lets not worry about the banks as they have nowhere to go, banks are asked to pay more everywhere in the world.
Coal is finished, it has lost it's appeal if it ever had any.

"What if there were no divisions along party lines, only along good policy lines that everyone supported?"

Political elitism. The path to totalitarianism. What do you have in mind when you propose the 'one way'? Obviously you have your own concept of what is good policy. However it is a democracy and each person has his/own version too.

I suggest that what is at odds here is something entirely different to what you imagine. The real problem is that the parties themselves may not be operating democratically internally. Otherwise for example, there would not be the spectacle of Bill Shorten being negative on all proposals form the other side in the Parliament.

What Shorten should be doing instead, is insisting on democracy within the Labor Party. That means that the factions need to be identified, their leaders elected (internal) and their policies published for membership and public consumption.

I might add here that others have tried to do that and their bones, those of Kevin Rudd for example, are bleaching in the sun. It is worth mentioning at this stage that it was Shorten and others of his ilk (union bosses) who rolled the logs in the way.

Proper arrangements set up what is referred to as intra-democracy within the political parties. It is sorely needed. For convenience, I referred to the Party with the most obvious factions, but ALL others have similar internal flaws in their internal democracy arrangements.

The Business Insider has an interesting article on
the problem with Australia's two party voting system.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/this-is-the-problem-with-australias-two-party-voting-system-2016-7

We're told that "Over the past 20 years there has been a
steady decline in support for the major parties, neither
of which is able to win a majority of support in its own
right. As long as preferences flow to the two major parties
the current system can provide majority governments. "

"But the past few elections have shown the capacity of strong
locally based independents to defeat the major parties.
Interestingly they come from a range of electorates, from
inner-city Hobart (Andrew Wilkie) to outback Queensland
(Bob Katter).

There's more on the link provided that makes for interesting
reading.

Foxy,

If that link and the actual intention of your OP is to spruik for the proportional representation, as is the hope of the Greens, why don't you just come out and say that first off, giving your reasons? It saves the leading with Googled links, the apparent blindsiding and the inevitable guessing game.

However you should be aware that the existing electoral system is in place and will continue. It can be further improved for the electors by implementing the changes towards intra-democracy that I have suggested and others might care to discuss seeing your interest appears to be elsewhere inclined.

Well Foxy, I think if you read doog's post you will see the difficulty.
Proportional voting seems to be cursed with coalition governments that
cannot agree on anything. Holland comes to mind and does Italy have
proportional voting ?
Our senate's problems seem to be a result of proportional voting.

Your idea of government with no firm economic/political manifesto but
just going after good ideas I do not think is practical.
It would be torn apart by the factions.
The brain washing that is going on in our schools is also working against
your ideas and we are presently seeing the result of that as teenagers reach 18.
This is pushing more mature voters to the right of the political spectrum.

As tempting as your proposal is I am afraid it is doomed.

Dear Bazz,

Thank You so much for your well reasoned response.

That is exactly the type of logical argument that I
was hoping for.

I've come across an interesting link that's worth
looking at. It's a few years old but is quite
relevant to what's happening on our political front
at present. We're told that politics in Australia is
in the midst of a great transition. While the two
major parties continue to dominate we are seeing
independents and small parties emerge as voters grope
for alternatives. We're told why this is currently
happening and where the major parties are failing.
What worked in the past is not working in the 21st
century. It seems that the major parties are
struggling to articulate a meaningful program of
national development that addresses our long term
problems and rallies anything like grassroots support.

It will be interesting therefore to see where the future of
Australian electoral politics lies.

The question being asked is whether those alternatives will
cleave to the top-down model built around one person, or to
the bottom up model that emerged in Indi with the election of
Cathy McGowan?

Here is the link from which I cited:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-24/dunlop-future-of-politics/5041314

Personally Foxy I think that citizens initiative referendum is by far the most democratic form of Government. Both major parties would hate it. Labour/Greens has shown how bigoted they are by refusing people and even their own party a vote on changing the marriage act. Imagine letting the people have a say on death penalty immigration and other touchy subjects. I am sure some decisions would go against what I would like however I would feel a lot better about the people deciding after open debate than the political elite who by and large have trashed this country.

Foxy,
A lot of the problem with politics is that politicians do not
take serious notice of people who are telling them there is a problem.
The NSW coal mine proposals in some parts of NSW is an example.
The way they ignored the warnings on natural gas supply.
The warnings they were given on the way the alternative energy system was structured.
The warning they were given about the peaking of oil production.
I know, I know it didn't happen !
Well it did in 2005 and has been hidden since.
They have since not listened to the warning of how risky our petrol & diesel supply has become.
The warnings on buying diesel submarine while we import 100% of our diesel.
Pouring money into aviation when it will inevitably decline.
One politician to whom I repeated Shell Oils statement that they are
planning on how to get out of the oil industry over the next 10+ years or so.
His eyes just glazed over and did not comment, not even to say RUBBISH !
In the senate enquiry into liquid fuel reliability someone I know
made a submission on just that & was told he was in the wrong enquiry.

Is it any wonder people are getting fed up and looking elsewhere.

Foxy,

It would be more worthwhile if you could cut directly to the chase and say outright that both you and that similarly faux left columnist you are 'discovering' do not believe that the mainstream parties that are capable of forming government would ever be 'Progressive' enough for you.

That is where you would both define that 'good' policy you say you are about encouraging as 'Progressive' and is focussed on gay marriage, republic, global warming, 'Open Door' immigration and the few other hipster things that register in the coffee shops of inner 'burbs of Sydney and Melbourne. I would add, and where idiotic time-wasting parallels and predictions are made with US politics. Attentions spans that rival the flickering light of a firefly but are nowhere near as illuminating.

Challenging a line from that article you linked to, if the major parties are falling in favour because of the (hugely understandable) difficulty in planning nationally, how might the independents and minors do any better?

Internal democracy ie intra-democracy in the political parties would be of most benefit to the present and future relevance of the parties, and would greatly benefit the members and the public generally. There may be some small limitations to it, but some politicians and lobbyists over-rate the difficulty and inconveniences, while protecting their own unnecessary secrecy and their behinds. As a comment, teamwork is impossible at present and backbenchers have always been under-used and fooling around with travel and entitlements (and making silly, uninformed comments).

Dear rehctub, doog, runner, Bazz,

Thank You for all your comments.

They've all helped. I raised this topic because I am
looking for answers. I was hoping that some of you
might provide them for me. You've made an excellent
start. I do appreciate it.

I hope more posters will respond and raise issues
(as you've done) that did not occur to me.

If we are going to base our democracy on a party system, then proportional representation is a must, otherwise there is no true democracy. The argument that for the sake of stability of government there has to be a bias in favor of the two major parties is nonsense.

All political parties are factionalized, none more so than The Labor and Liberal parties. In government strong leaders have for the most part tamed the factions within, and managed to deliver reasonably good government most of the time. The Liberals have had the added headache of dealing with a demanding junior partner in the form of the Nationals, but generally they have seen eye to eye on most issues, and with no great philosophical differences delivered reasonably good government, most of the time. Labor has generally done much the same, managing its factions reasonably well, and delivering mostly good government as well. Three cheers for the two major parties.

Unfortunately all the above went out the window with the Coalition government, following the downfall of Abbott and the election of Turnbull. The hard core conservative faction within cried fowl, and virtually declared war on Turnbull and his liberal philosophy. The result has seen Turnbull continually pandering to the minority hard right faction, on a broad range of issues, trying to curry favor. All this fisticuffs has resulted in the governments credibility with the electorate nose diving, and Turnbull being seen as a unpopular do nothing leader of an unstable bad government. No cheering from me for that one.

Dear Paul,

Thank You for your summations. I agree with most
of what you've stated. What changes do you think will
have to take place within the government prior to
the next election? Should Mr Turnbull try to convince
the voters that he is a strong leader in his own right?
And of course that also goes for Mr Shorten.

One never knows where to start when the Greens bookends get going, misleading themselves even further and proud of it.

The Senate is proportional representation. It was meant to be and obviously is, undemocratic. It is bicameral (undemocratic!). The federalism is problematic in a number of ways, with the main undemocratic issues, apart from it even existing, are differences in the size of electorates and the unusual terms that again were designed to frustrate government by having long terms, thus slowing change.

It bears repeating that it was put there to put a brake on democratically agreed change. Repeat, to slow or block the will of the people.

From the number of proportionally-elected, exasperating, unrepresentative dills in the Senate (and thinking of types like Greens' SHY in particular), and observing the ridiculous and time-wasting grandstanding bastardry that occurs there (remembering such foolishness as the Greens frustrating and voting down Labor green legislation), the undemocratic Senate is doing a rather superlative job of making the working of the lower, representatives house as difficult as possible (preferably impossible if the lunar leftists had their way).

That is precisely where most of the problems that Foxy says she is concerned about are originating and have done so before for other PMs.

At this juncture it is difficult to control the mirth at the ignorance of leftists who have been tub-thumping their political knowledge and acumen for years (how long?) on OLO. And they would be the first to opine that change is a good thing, not realising that the Senate is there to slow and block change by democratic means (and passed by the lower House).

tbc..

contd..
So lets call a spade a spade and acknowledge the rather obvious fact that it is Keating's swill, the Senate, that is the problem ATM. And within it, it is the chaotic, bloodyminded usual suspects who are so often wasting the time of both houses on such things as gay marriage and otherwise stuffing everyone else around.

I will not bother to go into the concept and subtlety of the Prime Minister's role and its vital contributions to democracy. Frankly, it is like reading the graffiti of schoolboys when the leftists get going on their favourite subject. Suffice it to say that even at the best of times the role necessitates balancing competing interests to retain the confidence of the Parliament (which should only be the lower house if it was a democratic unicameral system).

I believe that more internal democracy can help the major parties (Labor has to get rid of that cynical Shorten though). But Greens leader Dr Richard Di Natale has his work before him with the Greens factions, particularly the NSW mob.

Foxy,

I oppose changing our electoral system (apart from a minor change to the senate voting system to prevent votes passively exhausting) and I'm surprised that anyone wants to copy the dog's breakfast they have in NZ.

But the sooner more Aussies abandon the major parties, the better. Far too many people have fallen for the meme that good government means strong government which means government works better with a large majority. But in reality, good government means accountable government, which means they should have to justify every decision they make - which is only likely to happen when independents hold the balance of power.

Foxy,

The problem is that the senate is a wildly undemocratic institution that was originally designed to prevent the large states from riding roughshod over the others, but now it has just become a chamber where laws go to die.

Reforming this moribund institution should include seats proportional to the population of the state and/or allowing the senate to delay and suggest changes to legislation not block it indefinitely as per the UK upper house.

Hi Foxy,

I am not a great fan of Shorten, but at the moment he and Labor appear to be the only viable alternative to the rabble that is the Coalition now. The conservative side of politics is badly fragmented. There is open warfare between Abbott and his supporters, and Turnbull and his. That cannot give good government.

How does Turnbull turn things around before the next election? That is the $64 question, I find it hard to believe he can. At least Labor appear to be fairly united, that is a plus for Shorten.

The Hansonite LeoW, shoots his mouth off with his usual anti Green rant, nothing new in that. We could discuss the ifs and buts of the Senate until the cows come home. It was the brainchild of the men who formulated the Constitution. It would take a referendum to change it.

I've grown up with a two party system in a Liberal voting
family. My parents looked at the Labor Party with suspicion.
They lived during the times when the fear of communism was
very strong and having fled from the Soviet regime - they
of course could only support the Liberal Party.

I voted along the lines of my parents for most of my life
until Tony Abbott came into power. I won't say any more.
I've been accused of being a "Leftie". Perhaps I am. I
like to think that I tend to go for policies rather than
along party lines. I also like people that I think are
competent. People like Julie Bishop, Kelly O'Dwyer,
Josh Frydenberg, and I also liked Malcolm Turnbull. (Now
I'm not so sure). But then I also like Penny Wong,
Tanya Plibersek, Chris Bowen, Larisa Waters, and Jacqui Lambie.
I find Scott Morrison a competent politician.

As for Bill Shorten? I haven't made up my mind about him.
I would prefer someone like Chris Bowen as leader of the
Labor Party. He seems to know what he's talking about.

So you see, my loyalties are not set in concrete. I tend to
lean towards what Aidan has stated in his post thus far.
Independent, competent people should be given a chance to
shine in the future. However, realistically whether this
can happen I'm not so sure. Party loyalties seem to be a
priority.

Foxy, interesting to read your examination of your politics !

Re the senate, remember when the construction of the constitution
started, in the late 19th century.
Radio was a VLF (very low frequency) experiment that was just starting.
Telegrams could be sent interstate, but it was a four week return trip
to Western Australia.
The states were somewhat suspicious of Federation.
They wanted an upper house that was elected by equal vote for states
that could veto legislation that they did not like.

Now everything has changed, video conferencing around the world.
Western Australia is a five hour trip away.
Mind you that might not last all that long, except for politicians !
It is now time to discuss removing the senate.

Egos do bloom in the Senate. Some egos are puffed to monstrous proportions. Especially where Senators and one minor protest party in particular reckon they are there as a ginger group and have no obligation to take any notice of the will of the people for a coherent set of policies, an mandate, being brought to fruition by the government in the House of Representatives.

Here is the arrogant Greens' Sarah Hanson Young confusing a TV series with the Australian Defence Force (ADF),

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-tp2TkRgJ8

However, some small parties and independents do demonstrate a more mature understanding of the Senate's role. That is where the Senate can attempt to understand the more subtle, unanticipated negative effects of legislation in greater depth and to make constructive suggestions.

There is the example of David Leyonhjelm, a Liberal Democrat Senator for NSW, who regularly contributes thought provoking articles to this forum. Agree or disagree with him, he is putting on his thinking cap to earn his Senator remuneration,

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=6583

Now I will expect the Jackasses who play lets pretend as astroturfing Greens, to cat call me as a 'Leyonhelmite' or some other silly name.

To repeat, when considering the federal Parliament it is necessary to understand it in a mature way, to comprehend the rather finely balanced controls and balances that make it work so well in general. That is, if only some Senators would not be wasting Parliament's time strutting their egos and trying to drum up headlines through protests.

As an example of the last-mentioned, what might the respectable watching public think of that Greens Senator Larissa 'the lights are on but there is no-one at home' Waters who appeared to encourage protesters interrupting the ABC Q&A program that she herself was on!
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/young-people-are-being-targeted-protesters-fury-disrupts-qa-debate/news-story/7875124e0d244a08d3e3375084118878

Maybe that is the significant finding for this thread, that some Senators do not not fully appreciate their role. But they are likely incompetent anyhow. They are a dead weight and disruptive, but they still walk away with their golden handshake.

Peter Costello wrote in his Memoirs:

"My eighteen years in Parliament - in Opposition and in
Government - have confirmed me in the conviction, formed in
my youth, that politics, for all its rough edges, is a
civilised and civilising calling. Despite all the obloquy
shovelled on the head of politicians, they are men and women
who work the machinery of our liberal, democratic way of
life. They reflect public opinion - and at their best lead
public opinion - and transmute it into laws that shape our
society and our country... I have no doubt we can find solutions
that suit us, provided we do not succumb to the siren calls of
demagogues, charlatans and ideologues."

He goes on to say - "We now have opportunities we never
had before in Australia's history. The best years for our
country are still in front of us."

That was written in 2008. I wonder how many today would agree
with those sentiments?

I do. However, times have changed, elections have been lost,
and barely won, and federal electoral failure should lead
to serious critical reflection. Plainly something is going
wrong as more and more voters are becoming more vocal.
They are worried about their own future and the future of
their children.

Political parties must enunciate the values that define them.
And they need to apply these values to issues that concern
wider groups in the community. It by addressing these issues
that they can widen their constituencies.

There is an audience ready to listen to those who have the
courage to address their concerns. This means communicating the
values that motivate a party's political approach to the
issues of the day, and convincing voters this will improve
their lot and improve the fortunes of those they care about.
It also means showing what this will do for the nation.

Proportional representation is a recipe for even greater disaster than the current senate, where the idiots gather.

Paul is right for once, Turnbull could make a great contribution to the wellbeing of the country, he just is suggesting the wrong actions.

Firstly Turnbull could resign. This would be a good contribution, getting red of the second worst PM in living memory, after Gillard of course.

However, a swan dive from the top of his home would be a better idea. He needs to remove himself from not only the parliament, but from the public consciousness. While he is still around, dills may still consider him prime ministerial material, & that alone makes him dangerous to good government.

Dear Hassie,

I don't know what to make of Malcolm Turnbull.
I had such high hopes for him initially because
he treated voters like adults and I thought he
stood for good things. Now I don't know whether
he's changed, or is being forced to toe the
party line in order to keep his job.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what sort of
policies he presents to us prior to the next
election. I'm not fond of Bill Shorten.

Foxy I don't think it would matter what policies Turnbull presented at the next election. If he is still there to present policies the Libs are finished. Most of the people who might vote liberal either find him disgusting, or totally untrustworthy.

He only survived the last election because Abbott had supplied him with a huge majority, & because some long term voters could not bring themselves to vote against "their" party.

None of that is or will be there to save him again.

He is a dead man walking, he's killed his political career, & should have the decency to finish the job.

Dear Hassie,

The Australian newspaper reminds us that Malcolm
Turnbull won the partyroom ballot to become leader
and Prime Minister-designate in a ballot of 54 votes
to 44, after almost half of the Liberal frontbenchers
turned against Tony Abbott to vote for change.

Senior Ministers, Christopher Pyne, George Brandis,
Ian Macfarlane and Julie Bishop were among 14 of the
35 Liberal frontbenchers who backed the leadership spill
to install Mr Turnbull as the country's new Prime
Minister.

There's even more information given by The Australian
if you want to Google it. So, I'm not sure how
accurate your predictions are of Mr Turnbull not being
the leader of the Liberal Party at the next election.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Whatever you do, don't mention ABBOTT.

Now there will be the machine gun sounding, phut, phut, phut (thousands of them) , as the gravy train riders spit out the guvvy nipple to which they are permanently attached and exclaim, 'It's Abbott, Abbott, Abbott!'.

Then it is back to sucking away on those automatic supply nipples, only pausing to enjoy a good whinge, before re-attaching themselves with great gusto, 'Hey, I'm entitled!'.

How long can the taxpayer survive?

Damn! Wouldn't you know it, any warning is always too late.

The dreaded Hansonite pauses long enough from his Green bashing to warn us "Whatever you do, don't mention ABBOTT." Throwing out one of his usual silly old lines about one of his favorite hates the so called "gravy train riders" who he liken to a baby attached to a teat, probably a long time recipient of government welfare himself, but he does have that spiteful perceptions of certain others.

In n leach like fashion the extremists Hansonite, who pretends to be a phony moderate, tries to attach himself to the views of a perceived moderate, the phony Liberal Democrat, the 'angry white man' himself Senator David Leyonhjelm,. After fooling enough voters that he was both liberal and democratic, which by actions shows he is clearly not, Leyonhjelm used his unrepresentative privileged position in Parliament to force the government to hand over prime public land, which had been previously promised as open space for the entire community to a minority, the extreme gun happy brigade.

One phony attached to another phony, not to be unexpected.

Abbott's home-coming to the shores of England, what does that tell you.
Abbott's huge majority was the result of untruths fed to the Au public.
I do not see any change in the two party politics. Liberal needs cleaning up their radical impostor status.
There will be a surge of splinter groups, but i see that as short lived.
The world is turning away from the radical side of politics.
Climate change will be the biggest item on the list. Pacific islands will be wiped out. Creating a population shift.

There's quite a few people that we don't need to
mention. People who have disgraced themselves
in the political arena. We all know who they are.
Some have been kicked out of politics, some are
still around. Reforms need to take place. We
need to look at the perks and entitlements that
politicians are currently getting. That would
be a good place to start in these tough economic
times. Salaries and benefits need to be more realistic.
And their retirement benefits need also to be examined
and brought into line.

Doog said;
Pacific islands will be wiped out. Creating a population shift.

Then why is it that 60% of islands are larger, 25% no change and the rest smaller ?
Source, New Zealand Coastal Institute.

Hasbeen,

Now see what you have done. Just the merest mention of Tony Abbott and they are off, frothing at the mouth and lashing about.

So many seats on that Guvvy Gravy Train and always too many of the forever-entitled, 'What about Moi!', sucking greedily from the Guvvy boobs, along with the networking* professional advocates and public bureaucrats who are fattened fleas on the victim industry, that taxpayers have been bowed over double by the extra weight.

*networking, feminist Emily's Lister double speak, 'Nudge, nudge, wink, wink', for favouritism. There is another, far more apt word for this immoral and unethical behaviour.

Ghosts from the Past
Not being mentioned are the big spending inheritances from the long dark years that the International Socialist comrades, the self-titled 'Progressives' (Regressives), Rudd&Gillard and the perennially disloyal, back-stabbing Greens, were in government.

There's a very interesting article written by Peter
van Onselen on the Liberal Party that's worth a
read:

http://www.themonthly.com.au/future-liberal-party-what-s-right-peter-van-onselen-3287

Here is a link on the Labor Party that's also
worth a read:

http://theconversation.com/the-australian-labor-party-and-the-pitfalls-of-the-politics-of-avoidance-25326

Dear Bazz,

New Zealand Coastal Institute?

Making things up once more?

No such body.

Care to try again?

This prestigious body I would imagine,

Institute of Natural and Mathematical Sciences (INMS) at Massey University, Albany, New Zealand.

Under it,
http://www.coastalmarineresearchgroup.com/

Here is a link from the Greens on the issue
of the two party system that is also worth a read:

http://www.greens.org.au/news/vic/beyond-two-party-system

Well I think I've covered the major parties.
Now back to the government and its budget.
Michelle Grattan has written an interesting
analysis:

http://thecoversation.com/the-budget-is-the-governments-plan-b-but-whats-plan-c-if-polls-stay-bad-77755

cont'd ...

Sorry for the typo.

Here is the link again:

http://theconversation.com/the-budget-is-the-governments-plan-b-but-whats-plan-c-if-polls-stay-bad-77755

@Foxy, Friday, 19 May 2017 6:51:43 PM, "Here is a link from the Greens on the issue of the two party system.."

Isn't that what you meant as your first post? It would have saved all of the beating around the bush.

Foxy, why don't you copy the link address from the target page and
just copy it in to your post ?
For long ones use Tiny url.

leoj,

I'm responsible for what I say, not for how
you interpret it.

This discussion is not about the Greens.

You need to get over your obvious obsession with that
party.

Dear Bazz,

I guess I do what I'm comfortable with.

Thanks for your suggestion.

Now back to the topic.

It will be interesting to see what happens at the next
election. Ultimately voters will decide the outcomes.
Ultimately for the parties this means communicating
the values that motivate a party's political
approach to the issues of the day, and convincing
voters this will improve their lot and improve the
fortunes of those they care about. It also means
showing what this will do for the nation.

Foxy,

You introduced Greens policy and I quoted you, here,

@Foxy, Friday, 19 May 2017 6:51:43 PM, "Here is a link from the Greens on the issue of the two party system.."

A cunning stunt to be sure, to have posters beating about the bush for 7 pages with you trying to lead them by the nose, only to finally be obliged to throw the parcel in the back door (reminiscent somehow of Greens) to magically reveal what the thread is all about, which is spruiking Greens 'policy'.

So that is what it was all about, all of that 'Oh my goodness those two MAJOR parties' and the other tosh.

Obviously it is far too much to expect of you that you might address the comments posters have already put forward. Although you could start with the many valid criticisms of proportional representation where the Senate is a prime example. Proportional is Greens 'policy', isn't it?

Here is another link that may be of interest:

http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-disadvantage-of-the-two-party-system-in-Australia.

It also lists the advantages. There's also more on the
web for those interested in keeping this discussion
going.

leoj,

I have introduced many links in this discussion.
Including ones of the Liberal Party, the Labor
Party, as well as quoting from a wide variety
of sources on the topic. I have also responded
to posters as best as I can. This discussion is
not about the Greens as you seem to want to believe.
I have no control over your interpretation of things.
Perhaps you need to talk to someone about your
fixations. They do appear to be rather unhealthy.

The problem of the two party system is it isn't.

Dear Bazz,

Again, well said!

cont'd ...

Here's another link (a bit dated but still rleevant)
on how Australia's politics can be improved:

http://theconversation.com/how-can-australias-politics-be-improved-2996

I sometimes think the two-party system (majoritarianism) gets unfairly dumped on.

If there's one thing we can all seem to agree on, regardless of our political persuasion, it's that majoritarianism (preferential voting) sucks and that it needs to be replaced by the consensus system (proportional voting) which most European countries have, yet I never see anyone weigh up the pros and cons of each, and there are many!

The amount of pros and cons of both systems is so even that I have no strong preference for either one. Some often-overlooked benefits to majoritarianism, however, are: the predictability which it offers, greater accountability for the governing party, and the need to appeal to the moderate-middle.

The last one I listed there is what has people feeling like the two major parties are too similar. However, I think any similarity the two major parties share is a small price to pay to have them fight over who can please the moderate-middle the most.

They are, after all, moderate.

Dear AJ,

Well put.

Peter Costello once stated that:

"What the Liberal Party should remember is that it
is the centre-right tradition and opinion in Australia.
By all means the party should reach out to people of
progressive opinion, just as it reaches out to
blue-colour labour. But it will never defeat Labor by
outflanking it from the left. Nor will it win
Government if it swings too far to the right. Most state
divisions are trying to strike an effective balance.
But in New South Wales the left-right split has
seriously weakened the party. Restoring the balance in
the state remains a major issue of unfinished business.
It will come only with a renewed awareness of the
give-and-take in the centre-right tradition."

I am very much in favour of preferential voting.
The major advantage is that it prevents the person most not wanted from
being elected.
The more candidates the bigger the advantage.

Dear Bazz,

Preferential voting is more complicated to
administer and count. It can produce a higher
level of informal voting and it promotes a two
party system to the detriment of minor parties
and independents. It may also force people to
vote for a candidate they don't want.

However, it does ensure as you pointed out that
only a candidate with the support of an absolute
majority of the electorate can win and it allows
parties of like-minded policies to exchange
preferences in order to assist each other to win.
And it promotes a strong two-party system, ensuring
stability in the parliamentary process.

cont'd ...

Ben Eltham argues that:

"Minority parties and independents have the ability to
reframe political debate and enable issues that have been
shut down by a two-party system to be discussed."

He tells us that, "It can be more representative when
minority parties represent a genuine minority of the
electorate. But when a majority party is able to capture
an absolute majority of the vote then we can truly say that
the majority of the electorate is behind a particular
government's mandate."

He finishes with, "As the majority party system erodes,
and we have more minor parties in coalition, its
increasingly harder to say that's the case."

Interesting times ahead.

Hi Foxy,

As someone who for over 40 years has mixed in politics, meeting countless numbers of party members, from all parties, large and small. Met so many political candidates. and more importantly meeting the active members who make up the parties. For me, there is little difference between those of the Liberal Party, and those of the Labor Party, there is no typical party member, and that applies to the minor parties as well. Having said that, the diversity of types in political parties is astounding, as much as there is in the general society. Given the diversity of the membership, and therefore the candidates as well, it would be impossible for a political party, such as Labor and Liberal who have so many elected, to have people of homogeneous political thinking within the parliaments, not possible.

Unfortunately, the system does not always see the best person for the job get elected. To be fair and unbiased that applies, in my opinion, to some from all the parties. Some candidates tick all the boxes for ability and job skills, only to receive a miserable vote on the day, seeing some wacko elected in their place. But that's the system we have, and we can't come up anything better.

Dear Paul,

Who knows what the future will bring as minor parties
and independents are beginning to wield a stronger
influence in the electorates and people are becoming
dissatisfied with the choice of leadership in the
major parties. Most of us tend to stick with what we
grew up with and what we know. Younger people are the
ones to watch. Interesting times ahead.

Hi Foxy,

I an skeptical of micro parties and independents. Often masquerading as something they are not. Earlier, on the forum I was critical of the so called Liberal Democrat, now Senator David Leyonhjelm, I criticized him as not being what he claims, liberal and democratic, I suspect he is more of Shooters and Hooters than anything else. I find it hard to trust "Named" parties like Palmer and Xenophon parties, although Nick had a track record to look at before going all out. I am also put off by one issue parties, like The 'No Parking Meters Party' which once did exists in NSW. I have been critical at times of my own party, for being too environmentally focused, and not doing enough to develop broader based policies. Although that has changed somewhat in recent years with polices that consider both the well being of the environment and the equity of the issue at the same time.

As for Independents, as such, they are a mixed bag, you never know what you are getting. Some are a real mystery at election time, never seen, never heard from. Others are high profile with resources to fund a decent campaign.

One vote one value, & first past the post is the only truly democratic voting system. To fix Australia's problems, or even improve them, we must apply this to the house & the senate. Until we do we are bound for the swamp, which will drown us.

This gets rid of the ratbag element, & the special issue element, & keeps the crazies out of parliament. Just a few seconds looking at the dogs breakfast our senate has recently become will convince anyone with the best interests of Oz of this.

In the same way we need a senate which has only the power of review, not the ability to completely block government bills. Electing a parliament to govern, then electing another house to stop them governing in the way they were elected to govern is nothing but mass Schizophrenia.

It is only this mass Schizophrenia that allows the crazies to get into the senate & disrupt proper government.

Oh look, dear old Hasbeen wanting careerer politicians to have even more power.

As much as I don't agree with much of her politics the fact that we have a system that allows the Jackie Lambys of this word a voice is a big plus in my book. She often speaks the truth to power and I think we are better off because of her passion for ordinary Australians.

Hasbeen wants to silence voices like hers, to have disastrously unfair budgets like Abbott's 2014 effort to go unchallenged. I personally would love to see a Senate made up of people who had no party affiliations whatsoever. A citizen jury doing deliberative democracy, what a marvellous idea.

Thanks for all of your comments thus far.
What I am seeing is that politics in Australia is
in the midst of a transition. While the two major
parties continue to dominate we are seeing independents
and small parties emerge as voters grope for alternatives.

What will be of interest is whether those alternatives will
provide voters models that will win their support. Models
that offer meaningful programs of national development that
address our long term problems. I do admire voices like
Jacqui Lambi's but her platforms tend to be somewhat limited
in their scope with most of the emphasis being on the
Australian Defence Force personnel. She needs to broaden her
platform. I can't see myself voting for an independent though.
At least - not yet.

Hasbeen, FPTP is an abomination.

Do you really want an electoral system where standing for parliament is more likely to harm your cause (by reducing the chance your supporters will determine who gets elected) than help it?

Foxy, "What I am seeing is that politics in Australia is in the midst of a transition"

No it isn't. The public do NOT want change.

There is no way in hell that the public would allow leftist 'Progressives to interfere with the electoral system.

What you and other leftists are now seeing and are fretting about is that riding the gay politics bandwagon is almost at and end for you. Where else will the Greens and others be able to protest and get headlines? Where else can the same serial protesters get their kicks out of bullying individuals and even holding companies to ransom?

The always cynical, protesting Greens need new protest fodder. However if you are more patient, doubtless 'your' ABC will provide leads for you.

leoj,

Whatever is eating you must be suffering terribly.

leoj,
"Where else will the Greens and others be able to protest and get headlines?"
The Great Barrier Reef, of course!

Back to topic.

We're told that:

"Between them the Coalition parties won just over 42%
of primary votes. Labor just over 35%. That Labor seemed
to peg level with the government is due to a heavy flow
of preferences from the nearly 10% of Green votes. This
is now established as a consistent factor in national
elections."

"As long as preferences flow to the two major parties the
current system can provide majority governments."

The following link explains further. It's worth a read:

http://theconversation.com/election-2016-reveals-the-end-of-the-rusted-on-voter-and-the-death-of-the-two-party-system-61373

I am perfectly happy with the Jackie Lambys of this world being heard, hell I don't even mind the ratbag greens being heard. The problem arises when the ratbag fringe get some balance of power, & force their ratbaggery on the rest of us.

Dear Hassie,

I somehow doubt whether the minor parties will be able
to hold power in their own right. They don't have the
expertise, the training, or the knowledge to put together platforms
that will appeal to the majority of voters.

Aidan, "The Great Barrier Reef, of course"

As Kevin Rudd discovered to his great cost, the 'environmentalism' of the disloyal Greens (ask Julia Gillard too!) is just camouflage to conceal social activism.

There's a very interesting article in the Sydney
Morning Herald by Andrew P. Street on why isn't
Bill Shorten more popular if Malcolm Turnbull is
down in the polls?

One of the arguments presented states:

"Maybe the chocking truth is that nobody even notices
that Shorten is the leader of the Labor Party at all."

We're then told that "It may not matter - unless you're
voting in his electorate (Maribyrnong). You're not going
to vote for or against him in any case. Also, the Coalition
won in 2013 with Tony Abbott on an unusually tepid
approval rating, so its clear that a party can still romp it
in even if the public have reservations about the leader
and that's especially true if the government of the day is in
a period of policy problems marked by factional self-harm."

"And if Shorten doesn't appear to be a man of inspirational
vision, maybe we've had enough of those for a while."

"Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, and Malcolm Turnbull all had strong
personal vision for Australia. Maybe Australia needs a
competent bureaucrat that can actually, y'know, get stuff done."

"Shorten might not be the leader Australia especially wants - but
after five years of not very much, he might just be the one
we need."

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/view-from-the-street/why-isnt-bill-shorten-more-popular-if-malcolm-turnbull-is-down-in-the-polls-20170328-gv8p22.html

Foxy,

Bill Shorten is a goner. You shouldn't be deliberately ignoring the criticism from his colleagues. 'Look at Trump instead, puhlease' doesn't work.

The criticism has been building. It goes much deeper than his wretched lack of ideas and policy. Shorten is the archetypal 'hollow man' who stands for everything (maybe, he says) and nothing.

There is nothing going on inside, not intellectually and no soul. No passion for anything, just'Whatever she says' and undercutting and blocking.

Any wonder some of Labor's senior women (not the weather vane Penny Wong, of course. There is no passion and no ideas there!) are breaking ranks, exasperated by the stuffed shirts and BS of Shorten and 'Albo'.

Kristina Keneally is right, it is only a question of time. But Kristine was being politically diplomatic and astute too, because it isn't a gentle wave for change of Labor leadership, there is a gathering tsunami that will likely sweep Plibersek into the leadership.

The senate is one example of how the proportional system can go wrong. The porn star being elected in Italy is another.

A proportional system ends up with parties allocated seats, and the voters not voting for their representatives directly.

What we have is not perfect and can be improved, but also could be a lot worse.

leoj,

I agree with you about Shorten.
However, I really can't see Labor electing another
woman as their leader after their last experience.
Of course I could be wrong.

Dear Shadow Minister,

It will be interesting to see what develops further
closer to our elections and who the key players will
be. I predicted earlier on after Malcolm Turnbull
beat Tony Abbott for the Prime Ministership that
Mr Turnbull will win the next election. And the
one after that. Again, I could be wrong. But that's
my prediction.

Foxy,

I would like to see internal democracy legislated for, for all parties. It would reinvigorate the Labor party. It would foster continuous improvement in it and the other parties.

Turnbull will probably prevail for as long as he wants to. I agree with that. My disappointment is that we have not witnessed as yet what he should be capable of, considering his intellect and other qualities.

I sense that he is growing tired of the novelty of being PM. That is unfortunate where PMs need plenty of time in the job to finally be able to make a lasting contribution.

I reiterate my opinion that the PM is the lynchpin of the federal parliament and a good PM knows how to cater for all of the smaller interests to retain the confidence of the House that he needs.

In typical Hassy fashion he wants to get rid of the "ratbag element", of course that is simply a euphemism for getting rid of the opposition. Hassy, if there was no Pauline Ratbag running for parliament who would you and Leo vote for, the fuhrer is dead, and The Donald is too busy making a complete goose of himself. Well, there is always Corny Banana, the ideal choice for you two,

Poor Leo over indulged on a diet of greens, now he is suffering from a severe case of verbal diarrhea and political dyspepsia. Leo, I see your darling is up to her old tricks of trying to rip off the taxpayer, again. There was the Lovely Pauline, listening intentlyto one of your parties favorite pin up boys, James Ashby telling the faithful how they could milk the taxpayer, and how they had done it before. Were you at the meeting? How about a comment from you on the govve teat suckers now! Hanson is as phony as your 'angry white man' Senator Dave Whatshisname.

Jacqui Lambie, when she first entered the parliament, I could see she was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but who is. thought she was a bit of a wacko. All I knew was she had been in the army, I thought, what rank, Artillery Shell, but now like The mad hatter, Bob Katter I have warmed to her, and that simple brand pf homespun politics. Not that i would vote for either.

The problem with having a parliament made up of 100% independents, is next thing you know Mal and Bill would be having a drink together in the parliamentary bar, then sitting together in the house, then voting together, sleeping together, and before you know it they would be calling themselves The Bobby Party.

Your right Foxy, there has been a steady decline in the vote for the big two parties since the 1950's 95% then.

Shadow, if we can elect a Mad Monk to lead the country , surly there is room there for a porn star or two?

Not much chat about Abbott's misdemeanors. that is a closed debate.
It's all about the opposition without anybody even mentioning them. I can't understand how Abbott can go uncountable by his own party. He has done the unthinkable and yet they do not care.
He should be publicly lynched.
Splinter parties will pop up all over the place and Hanson will be there if they can survive till then, no guarantees.

I've just come across an interesting article in
the Herald Sun written by the former Premier of
Victoria, Jeff Kennett. I wonder if Mr Kennett
would still agree with his summation today of
Mr Turnbull?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/jeff-kennett-on-malcolm-turnbulls-first-year-as-prime-minister/news-story/60939260fe8360c721090b91467b8428

cont'd ...

Again I made a typo - my apologies I'll try again.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/jeff-kennett-on-malcolm-turnbulls-first-year-as-prime-minister/news-story/60939260fe83b0c721090b91467b8428

Of far greater significance and damned spot-on too,

"Former Labor leader Mark Latham slammed his party's obsession with gay marriage saying it should focus on the nation's 'Struggle Streets'".

But you could go to any group anywhere and someone might have a criticism, often with some basis. Sometimes they want the top job or are just cussed too. Greens leaders Bob Brown and Richard Di Natale have always been undermined by the Greens NSW 'Watermelon' faction and the awful Lee Rhiannon, now seat-polishing as a federal Senator. Richard do Natale has already endured seven years of Rhiannon, who has her blockades against Israel and other outrageous activism. The Greens leader must figure he broke a mirror.

The ridiculousness of amateur funnyman Paul1405 is representative of the randomness of the NSW Trots faction of the Greens.

So much for small protest parties that use the Parliament for grandstanding to get an elite into Senate seats (and those golden entitlements forever!).

Any wonder the Greens elite favour proportional 'representation'. Where they are concerned it is anything but representation, think Lee Rhiannon and NSW Sh**bridge, the boy who swings from her coat tails.

'Not much chat about Abbott's misdemeanors. that is a closed debate.'

you mean by the stopping the boats (said impossible by every regressive) and ridding us of the cancer of a breathing tax. Pretty good repair for a man in Government for only a short period of time. Yes he did fail by not defunding the terrorist promoting abc.

LeoW, no comment on your gal Pauline and her attempt to suck the taxpayer dry with what she does best, play the electorate for fools, whilst lining her pockets with public money. You sure can pick em'... Boy!

Paul1405,

You are imaginative, to put it politely.

But you avoid the factionalism that you must be party to, since you claim to be great mates with 'Aunty' (your familiarity) Lee Rhiannon and the boy hanging off her coat tails, Sh**bridge.

But I should have added that the Greens leaders have had SHY, the loose cannon who confused a TV series with the operations of the ADF, to contend with too (and more lunar modules like her!),

SMH 27Jan2017
"Greens factionalism threatens the party as Lee Rhiannon and Bob Brown trade blows

..As one Labor Cabinet Minister told me during the Gillard years, the Greens barely talk about the environment anymore. At that time, the Greens key messages were courtesy of the internally unpopular Senator Sarah Hanson-Young on her favoured issues of asylum-seekers and same-sex marriage.

The Minister noted how with the Greens distracted, it was much easier for a Labor government to talk about the environment which is an issue of broader concern to more voters than refugees or gay marriage.

Today, NSW Senator Lee Rhiannon says the party is at a crossroads and needs to channel Bernie Sanders to reinvigorate the party. That's bald criticism of the leader"

- That is proportional representation for you! It gets lunar modules into Senate seats and on the taxpayer-funded golden handshake forever.

Just for interest's sake here is the 2016 election results -
a historical comparison:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-03/election-results-historical-comparison/7560888

Is this the trajectory for the future? I really don't know.

cont'd ...

I agree with Jeff Kennett's earlier summation that

"Australia needs a period of political stability.
It also needs economic leadership and a style of
leadership that respect's people's intelligence."

I'm not sure about his statement of :

"There appears to be no plan for where the government
or the opposition for that matter want to take
Australia by 2050."

However the following statement does make sense:

"It is not enough to have some very competent ministers if
the focus of public and media attention on the leader of
the team, the Prime Minister is not providing the leadership
of the position."

I would also include the leader of the opposition in this
statement as well.

My personal feeling however is that I don't see an alternative
to Mr Turnbull as Prime Minister for the next election. But
again, what do I know?

LeoW, you as always are fast and loose with the truth when it comes to The Greens. Once more trying to throw up a smoke screen of old fake news to divert attention from the actions of your One Nation Party leadership. Now being investigated for what may prove to be criminality. You would think after spending time in jail, the Lovely Pauline would have learned the value of keeping on the right side of the law.

Any comment? I don't expect you will.

Foxy,

It is fun trying to get some speculative gossip going against Turnbull.

BUT the big stories are:

- the festering sores of SHY, Lee Rhiannon and the NSW 'Watermelons' or Eastern Bloc faction of the Greens that Dr Bob Brown couldn't treat and Dr di Natale is being similarly unsuccessful in treating; and,

- the challenges to Bill Shorten's leadership by Albanese and ors, now Plibersek as well, with Shorten very poor, negative, Parliamentary record; his woeful Budget opposition and reply, and his return at the Labor conference to the unsuccessful Class War of Gillard.

Will Shorten the turkey have his head lopped soon? He would be an embarrassment in an election campaign.

leoj,

I'm not sure about your statement regarding
"speculative gossip" and Mr Turnbull. But
leaving that aside. It is interesting to read
the many changes that have taken place in our
political arena over the past years. And it
will be equally interesting to see what develops
further in the future. It does not help of course
if the focus of the public and the media centers
on the leader of the team rather than the team's
achievements. It also does not help if the team
does not present a united front.

Dear Paul,

I'm curious. I know that you're a Greens supporter.
Can you tell us what attracts you to the Greens
and why you vote for them?

leoj,

If you're a supporter of Pauline Hanson.
Can you also explain why? Or if you're not,
who do you support and why?

Foxy,

I have never been and nor will I ever be a supporter of any political party or lobby group.

That is very, very obvious from my posts. I am wedded forever to freedom of speech. Obvious try to make me the subject, but the thread awaits.

- Where there is yet to be any evidence to support proportional representation, but plenty to prove how it is damaging to democracy where protest parties and single interest groups lob in the Senate and blackmail and frustrate the elected, representative government.

leoj,

Not at all. Just trying to figure out your consistent
attacks on the Greens, "Progressives," Lefties,
Emily-listers, and many others.
It's perfectly natural to wonder therefore just who you do
support. We all know from your posts who you're
against.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion.
I don't think that I have anything further to say on
this subject so for me this discussion has now run its
course. I look forward to our next topic.

Have a nice day.

It was dreadfully one-sided as usual. As was said, it sure must be a lark trying to get some speculative gossip going against Turnbull.

Do continue to ignore those elephants in the room. But the stories are in the news anyhow, even if your look the other way:

- the festering sores of SHY, Lee Rhiannon and the NSW 'Watermelons' or Eastern Bloc faction of the Greens that Dr Bob Brown couldn't treat and Dr di Natale is being similarly unsuccessful in treating; and,

- the challenges to Bill Shorten's leadership by Albanese and ors, now Plibersek as well, with Shorten very poor, negative, Parliamentary record; his woeful Budget opposition and reply, and his return at the Labor conference to the unsuccessful Class War of Gillard.

leoj,

What was dreadfully one-sided?

If you mean me and this discussion - how so?

All sorts of views have been presented here
(even yours). However, if you don't like what's
been said - you can always start your own thread.

Oh wait --- looks like you have.

Have fun.

Cheers.

We are told that Peter Costello criticised the proportionally elected Senate as 'irresponsible'. History repeats - the present Senate has the same problems.

"Costello criticises 'irresponsible' Senate

Treasurer Peter Costello has attacked the Senate for threatening to refuse passing some of his budget reforms.
..[Mr Costello] called Labor and the Senate's minor parties "irresponsible", for twice blocking his cuts to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme in the last budget."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2003-05-14/costello-criticises-irresponsible-senate/1853670

That is much the same feedback that you have been given in this thread and which you apparently ignored.

So, Foxy, what did you in fact learn about the downsides of proportional representation and the difficulties faced by any representative government that has to deal with a hostile, bloody-minded Senate with independents throwing their weight around? Or as it appears was the thread just a clumsy selling exercise for a party political script?

leoj,

You just can't help yourself can you?

I could say that "a good discussion is like
a balloon one little prick is all it takes to
ruin it." But I won't play your game.

Instead I will politely tell you to go back
and read my posts.

Or not.

Frankly I really don't care.

Foxy,

You mean you only like Peter Costello when you can out your own spin on cherry-picked bits?

But Peter Costello's view of the Senate is no different from Paul Keating's, excepting that Keating was less kind.

There needs to be balance. And it is a simple, incontrovertible fact that the Senate they were criticising was obstructive as is the present one. That is what proportional voting does. That is the proof of the pudding.

Now you can try to take it out on the humble messenger (as you are rudely doing), but the evidence plainly is that it hasn't got much to do with the 'two party system', but with the opportunism of the Greens protest party, other independents and the obstructive Labor as it is at present (and Labor leadership is being criticised for that from within Labor).

If you really wanted improvement you would be seconding the call for some internal democracy in the Labor Party and for the Greens to wake up to themselves and do some work.

leoj,

Yes there does need to be a balance.

When you're able to provide us with one
in your discussions on any issue without
your attacks, condemnations and finger-pointing
at others I may engage with you. For now -
See'ya.

Enjoy your evening.

Hi Foxy, I am actually a paid up member of The Greens, I make no secret of that. Why did I quit the Labor Party and joint The Greens, considering I am not an overly committed environmentalist, although I respect those who are, and I respect the environment and the issues it presents . The Greens offered alternative policies, particularly on social justice, which I strongly support. At the time the ALP was, under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, and in NSW with Bob Carr they were becoming less committed to social justice, and more to populists polices with an eye to their electability. Something I was not overly enthusiastic about, abandoning Labor principles for the sake of short term power grabbing. .

At the grass roots level The Greens are far more democratic than both the Labor Party and the Conservatives. The membership have the voice when it comes to policy formulation through the Delegates Council, and are also responsible for the nomination of all candidates seeking electoral endorsement, something you do not find in other political parties.

http://nsw.greens.org.au/structure-constitution

Leo, pull the other leg! You claim to be an supporter of "freedom of speech" and a moderate, yet you want to deny millions of Australian who did not vote for the big two parties a voice through representation, a strange paradox indeed. You strenuously avoid criticizing the far right of Australian politics, like the lovely Pauline Hanson. So where do you stand?

Paul1405,

I reckon you would be far better off not giving Hanson publicity.

leoj,
The senate refusing to pass bad legislation is evidence of responsibility, not irresponsibility.