The media cannot have it both ways. Kim Beazley and Simon Crean were supposed to have no policies and be too similar to John Howard. There wasn't enough difference between the leaders and the parties. Beazley was too careful and cautious. Ironically, Latham was presented as too impetuous and erratic. He took too many chances and fell into the PM's traps too easily. He took radical positions such as the forests policy which were not vote winners. Presumably they want Kevin Rudd to commit political suicide.

Now even Howard is joining the tweedledee/tweedledum critics. On the one hand, he rants that we face the apocalypse with "madness" and "chaos" ahead of us if Labor's Industrial Relations policies are implemented. On the other we will have a Rudd government which will not change the fundamentals of the Australian consensus. Is Howard arguing that Rudd is just as sneaky as him? It is a dangerous game as Howard could add to the perception that Rudd is a safe alternative.

My plog post "It's Overtime for a change" at http://laborview.blogspot.com/ argued that the ALP has clear policies which not only differentiate it, but are the reasons why many of us do not want to stuff up this chance to elect a Labor government:

* The Iraq war
* Industrial Relations
* Global Warming
* Health
* Education
* Indigenous Affairs

This election is not about who can take the most tumbles or forget the most names.

Kevin Rennie
Broome

get tweedledee to tell the world why the alp took citizen initiative off the policy. too much democracy for the plebs?

get tweedledee to explain that he really knows the difference betwen civil liberties and a police state, he's just backing der fueher coz he's an old man with a weak heart.

explain to a disbelieving world how it's ok to log old growth forests,as long as the libs do.

get tweedle (for short) to explain why he can stick his head up bush's arse just as easily as howard, since he wants to be on america's side when they are carving up world trade.

in short, yes there are differences- it's the similarities that are going to put a smile on saint bob the brown's face.

DEMOS THANKS! you give me great joy mate, you are so wrong!
Do you understand the green vote is not as strong across the board now? that it is most unlikely it will improve in this election?
Labor will with ease win, the very reason you dislike so much is the reason Rudd has it under control.
Howard has had the ALP firmly on his side! yes that is what I intended to say, for ten long painful years.
Wrong leaders wrong policy's that turned true believers into new conservatives.
Blind idiotic internal fighting, that lead to the wast of Crean and Latham, wast!
Now a true leader is in place matching Howard move for move.
Australia can now afford to remember they do not like the man.
And they can for the first time in years see a man they trust on my side.
DEMOS your dream world will never exist but 2 years into Rudd's leadership of this country you may see a good leader well liked and his name is Rudd.

belly, i'm almost happy for you, entering heaven beside saint kevin. well, not beside, more behind, well behind. enjoy, mate.

For goodness sake, there is absolutely stuff-all difference between them. It would be really nice if there was a tweedledee, but there ain’t, only tweedledumbarse and tweedleeversoslightlydumberarse. Now, which one is which, I don’t know….or care!! !!

It doesn’t matter. Both of them are going to continue to take us rapidly away from a safe and secure sustainable future, and that’s what counts above all else.

Neither of ‘em deserve my vote, nor do they deserve anyone’s vote. So yet another election will come where I won’t be able to exercise my democratic right to vote, because no candidate or party deserves it.

[Demos, please see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=831#14545]

Ludwig.. there is a HUGE difference mate.

That difference is this:

"Which consultants will now benefit from all the government initiatives"

If Labor wins, they will be in the labor camp, if the coalition wins, they will continue in that camp.

As for the issues from Kevin Rennie

* The Iraq war
* Industrial Relations
* Global Warming
* Health
* Education
* Indigenous Affairs

Simply meaningless sound bites.

IRAQ. "leave now, chaos ensues, stay a while, consolidate,=friendly country"

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Oh yes.. we need more 'union' power and the likes of Dean Mighell like another hole in the head.

GLOBAL WARMING.... yep..Kev Rudd and Labor can fix this, it will take him at least 10 minutes.

HEALTH. Ah..on this one they can make a difference, DENTAL scheme back please.

EDUCATION. No thanx.. I've had enough of lefty socialist, anti God 'education'

INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS. Newsflash.."no" they are not political footballs,(for either side) Labor only helped entrench clanish cronyism, now the Coalition has dismantled that, and is replacing it with overt paternalism. Both are wrong

Let us for a time pause and review how we elect governments, and how party's are formed in Australia.
Even my party has trouble getting interested people to branch meetings.
The few self interested who control some Branch's are too much to handle even for me.
Why if we so desperately need it are new party's not forming? not attracting voters?
Howard has told more lies than any leader in my life.
Rudd is no saint, but he like Howard was pre workchoices, Iraq, Tampa ext is a politician.
Of the choices we have can you promise other than danger for us all from all the wasted votes in the one issue party's?
Gentlemen and women you can not plant spuds and expect to harvest water melons.
This election we have few choices no bright shining candidate for another path is standing.
Yes even I have my concerns, in no way do I want to hide that but even if unions , the good ones , do not get every thing we want from Rudd we know a better Australia not build on devision is coming.
In truth not until Bill Shorten becomes Prime Minister will I be at ease.
We only have to look here and see closely the hand full of new party's talked of here and any understanding of politics must show us dreams often are not shared by the only people who matter, voters.

Further to my last post….

And neither of them deserves anyone’s vote for as long as they uphold the totally disgraceful compulsory preferential voting system, which basically steels votes from anyone who wishes to not vote for either of the dinosaur parties and obligates them to effectively vote for one of them – whichever they put second last on their ballot paper.

This is a hell of thing when you think about it. Just antidemocratic to the core!

Sorry David you’ve lost me. I’m feeling a little bit tweedledumbish. Are you writing with tongue in cheek or not? I can’t figure it out.

Um...... STEALS votes!

no, lud, you give it.

if we all wrote democracy on our ballots, we'd get it. takes patience. takes enough brains to see the futility of backing these vermin.

but they don't steal, or steel, they just lie and lie and lie. you mugs swallow and swallow.

direct election of ministers would get us better planners and administrators instead of musical-chair hoppers. citizen initiative would get us long term policies about resource use and population. it would keep us out of wars that are clearly criminal.

i'm damned if i can see how anyone would defend this current state structure.

Direct election is no garauntee of quality, just look at what happens in the states, where judges and district attorneys are elected instead of appointed.

DEMOS how truly likely are we ever to see your stated wishes come to pass?
If we send the ALP and both coalition party's to the sin bin, hold a federal election that sees them unable to stand what do you think the result will be?
Factions all over the place, ten family first policy's last party's and a new government coalition every few months.
It is a fact of life we , all of us, will never be content with what ever party rules us, what ever system we use.
Of the choices God not Howard! Rudd is the best, not until after he rules for a while will we know for sure.
I value one vote one value but you may find conservative Australia fears it.

No Demos. The compulsory system STEALS your vote, if you wish to specifically not vote one for the major candidates.

You have to mark every box. Your vote must end up counting for one of the two major candidates, even if you want to make sure that it doesn’t count for either of them, and you put them last and second last.

Compelling a vote to officially count where the voter does not want it to is the absolute antithesis of voting in the first place. It is now a long-standing huge and blatant dilution of democracy.

I have mentioned this quite a few times on this forum and gone into it in detail. Other posters agree. But the amount of interest shown is always small.

For years now, ever since I ran as a state candidate in 1995, I have been just completely blown away by this rort of a voting system, and how the community can accept it. It indicates to me that the general populace really doesn’t care too much about the quality of our governance or the principles and rules therein.

Now this is where I can agree with you – us “mugs just swallow and swallow”. We cop the most absurd bullsh.t with hardly a whimper.

But for as long as this country has such a disinterested majority, the direct election of ministers and implementation of citizen-initiated referenda is not likely to improve things. I like these ideas. But a voter base with a bit of nous and broad interest in our nation and future has got to be there first.

I detest the poor quality of our political process. But I detest much more the terrible lack of responsibility in the general community as far as ordinary people meaningfully doing their bit for our governance goes.

The first line of m' last post shoulduv read;

"...if you wish to specifically not vote FOR ONE of the major candidates."

Ludwig, I'm quite certain there are many people who have a great desire to see massive reform on the political front. I'm one of them, Demos is another, but we're not just "stand alone" enterties. There are many small political parties in Australia all trying to change the system, but without coercion, their ideas will never see reality. If you could join some of them together for the greater good...... ah, but I dream!

I envision a National Peoples Party where all the major horrors that await our future are dealt with in a practical and timely way. Resource depletion, unsustainable population, an unsustainable economy, the injustices to the ordinary person on the street (and "out on the street")and those who struggle to achieve a semblance of a lifestyle enjoyed by previous generations. I could go on and on, but alas! It's only a dream, a dream that will never come to fruition whilst those with the power to implement change are too distracted by all the worldly toys huge corporations throw at them like lollies in a playground.

If only, in my youth, I'd had the fire and passion that my aging heart now possesses. If only I'd had the charisma to attract and retain a force of equally determined people, but I spent my youth in rebellion and indulgence just like much of our youth today. Yep! Even in my day, the corporations knew how to sway young minds.

Aime, I had a fire in the belly. I tried over a period of many years to get people involved in just the sorts of things that you and I are most concerned about. But it failed.

I have been the president of three non-government organisations, given lots of presentations, produced and presented a radio program, etc. But is has all been to no avail.

I come to the conclusion that the number of people who give a damn is pretty damn small overall. Sure there are plenty of us around, but as a percentage of the whole community, it is tiny.

Be thankful that you didn’t have this passion in your youth….and end up as bitter and twisted as me.

Ludwig, you haven't failed to reach the people and I don't think the "fire in your belly" has died. Smothered a lot, but not "out." That shows in the fact that you still care enough to continuing posting at this site. You still have a message that needs to be heard. Because it hasn't been herd in the past, doesn't meant it won't be in the future.

Our world is heading for a massive brick wall that includes diminishing resources, over population and technological boundaries. Already, I see few heads that were, not long ago, buried in the sand, beginning to take a cautious look around and their once closed eyes are starting to see a very different world to that which they once were promised would go on forever.

No matter how disappointing our crusade is at present Ludwig, we must go on until we get enough people on board to make a difference to the corrupt Governments that are currently hell bent on removing our children's future by their association to corporations and the ridiculous notion of an ever upwardly expanding economy. The only thing that will defeat us, those who are like minded and those who will join us, is to sit back and do nothing. These are issues I feel strongly about and I'll preach them to the grave.

Thanks Aime. Much appreciated.

You are right. The fire has been smothered to little more than a flicker. But it is still there, ready to roar again. And I’m sure it will.

Belly

You really worry me with your high expectations from the Milky Bar Kid.

Still cant see him as PM but so long as the National Party get what they deserve i dont really care that much.

The National Party are traitors to the farmers flooding the country with cheap imports and mainly entertaining their old boys club.

Well Belly. Good Luck to you and The Milk Bar Kid on election night.

Your dedication is to be admired if nothing else.

PS If your child wonder does get in perhaps you could help advertise for some staff for him.
Perhaps you would beso kind the name just "one advisor' you feel shows leadship .
Please

Agreed:Aime/Ludwig/DEMOS!

And I agree with you Belly. I do not believe there is much difference at all!........but I would vote in my Aunty Nellie's cat to be rid of Howard.

I have never seen anything like this Regime, outside of Thatcher and her mob;...Howard is even worse!

Ludwig, the voting system here is as bent as a two bob watch, but it is all we bl**dy well have.

VOTE BELOW THE LINE. IT IS BETTER THAN NOTHING.

Ludwig, I don't understand your pre-occupation with the compulsory aspect of of the compulsory preferential system, above all else.

Could you please explain where you think it is likely to make any practical difference in any Australian lower house electorate if voters are forced to choose between either of the two major parties, rather than not make that choice? Where do you imagine that it could possibly result in a candidate from a smaller party or an independent winning rather than a candidate from the major party?

(I agree that the Senate 'above the line' voting system is a rort, but that is more to do with the fact that parties are allowed to allocate their preferences, effectively behind closed doors, leaving voters unaware, for example, for example that in Victoria their preferences would be directed by the Labor Party towards Family First rather than to the Greens.)

Personally, I would prefer that voters were not compelled to fully express their preferences. I think it is counterproductive for them not to, but that should be their right if they choose.

However, I am far more concerned by other aspects of our system of democracy which have far greater impact on electoral outcomes:

* the closing of voter registration only 24 hours after the poll date is announced.

* newsmedia bias in favour of pro-business political organisations (and, within that, Liberal over Labor)

* restrictions on free speech posed by Australia's defamation laws.

* government abuse of its incumbent position, in particular, its use of the pork-barrel in election year and taxpayer funded political advertising such as all the WorkChoices propaganda and the "Strengthening MediCare" lie of 2004.

Why you seem to have so little to say about any of this is a mystery to me.

In spite of Kevin Rudd's obviously grave and inexcusable deficiencies, the choice between him and Howard is still a vitally important one. In the former case, electors can, at some future point, consider voting for an alternative that is better than either Labor or Liberal should Rudd not meet their expectations (as I expect he won't).

However, a vote for Howard will almost certainly be taken as a vote to keep things going just as they are, and the changes in Australian political leadership, which I believe are urgently necessary if Australia is to hope to confront the grave social, economic and environmental threats it faces, will be put back yet again.

If those, who maintain that the choice between the two major parties is not important, could point to any other possible path out of the political rut that this country has been in since at least 1996, please let me know.

I think they need to contemplate why the pro-business, pro-developer, pro-population-growth, Beattie 'Labor' Government, which is digging up and exporting Australian fossil fuels at an ever accelerating rate (see http://candobetter.org/about#coal), now seems bent on destroying Federal Labor's election chances with his antics in forcing Queensland councils to amalgamate.

Do they truly believe that Howard and Beattie are such mortal political foes given all their other points of political convergence?

I don't.

I don't believe Howard cares any more about democracy in Queensland than Beattie cares about Labor principles, but I do believe that both of them, for their own selfish reasons, don't want Federal Labor to win in 2007. (I have had something to say about this at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=884 and http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1981 )

If those, who consider themselves too pure and virtuous to dirty their hands by actually making a choice between either of the two major political parties in the coming Federal elections, could just reconsider this attitude, they might actually begin to understand what is going on in this country, and begin to make a positive contribution.

“Ludwig, the voting system here is as bent as a two bob watch, but it is all we bl**dy well have.”

Yes it is bent Ginx. But it is not all we have. The optional preferential system is used in some states and there should be no reason why it can’t be used federally.

Daggett, I don’t have a “pre-occupation with the compulsory aspect of the compulsory preferential system, above all else.”

It is just one aspect of the whole sordid story of perversions to democracy in this country. I have mentioned compulsory preferential voting on this and other threads because it really is the most blatantly antidemocratic aspect of our whole system and hence the one that I find the most offensive.

It may not be something that is hugely important in practical terms, but it is highly important as far as the principles of democracy are concerned. And it is something that is easily fixed, as it was in Queensland in ~1990 by Wayne Goss who installed the optional preferential system.

“Could you please explain …. rather than not make that choice?”

It could easily make a difference in a close contest where a minor-party or independent candidate and a major-party candidate are the front-runners, but where the major-party candidate scores many more preferences, that they wouldn’t have got under the optional preferential system.

“* the closing of voter registration only 24 hours after the poll date is announced.”

I don’t see a significant issue here. We have had a great deal of advertising for months, telling people that they need to register to vote. Voters have all the time in the world to do this.

Continued

“* newsmedia bias in favour of pro-business political organisations (and, within that, Liberal over Labor)”

Absolutely! I’ve mentioned this many times on this forum.

“* restrictions on free speech posed by Australia's defamation laws.”

I disagree that the new laws are a significant reduction to our freedom of speech, which is already highly compromised. Again, I have had plenty to say about this on this forum.

“* government abuse of its incumbent position, in particular, its use of the pork-barrel in election year and taxpayer funded political advertising…”

Yes, pork-barrelling is a real issue. But taxpayer-funded political advertising is not IMO. Receiving donations from big business is far worse. I think it should be banned outright and that all funding political funding should be neutral, ie, from the tax base…with equal funding for the government and opposition, and some form of proportional funding for minor parties and independents to put their points of view forward.

Again, I have entertained this discussion to some extent on OLO.

Ludwig, some of the content of your recent posts is breathtaking, not to mention self-contradictory (more below). It seems to me that you can't be bothered properly reading my posts and can't be bothered thinking through these issues.

Again, how can you possible be so enraged at such a relatively inconsequential issue as to whether or not voters are required to fully express their preferences for all candidates listed on the ballot form (more below), yet be so indifferent to, or, indeed, in favour of, other aspects of our system which are far more damaging to democracy including our libel laws, pork barreling and the totally unnecessary new restrictions on the rights of eligible voters to register to change their addresses?

So, you don't see as 'significant' the fact that almost certainly, even with the best efforts of those now urging members of the public to enrol, that least tens of thousands of eligible new voters or voters who have changed address will miss out? Yes, of course everyone should enrol to vote as soon as they can, but the fact is that many do not, being human and having other concerns and complications in life to deal with.

What almost certainly motivates such people to enrol will not be the announcement of the election date. So, what possible sense does it make for the Government to have after all these years, with no problems with existing practices having become apparent to anybody, to have suddenly changed the laws in order to reduce the existing 7 day period of grace to only 24 hours in the case of voters who have not registered and three days for those who have but who may have changed their address?

The only possible motive I can see is a cynical calculated measure designed to ensure that large numbers of eligible voters, likely to vote against the Howard Government do not get the chance to do so. Given that the outcome of the forthcoming election could be decided by a handful of votes, this may well decide the its outcome.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

I am truly puzzled as to why you fail to share the outrage that I and many tens of thousands of other concerned and informed Australians feel about this. Is it only a coincidence that elsewhere you go out of your way to make lame excuses for many of the other examples I gave of inexcusable behavior on the part of the Howard Government? :

"Where would we be if we completely mistrusted our government? Do you really think so poorly of them as to think that they could be pursuing a policy direction that 'could be used to imprison at will almost any individual that this government feels threatened by'. Don't you think this is taking it just a bit too far?" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=830#14341)

It seems to me that, in spite of your avowed adherence to democratic ideals that are more pure than those that most of the rest of us adhere to, you are, in fact, comfortable with the prospect of the Howard Government's re-election. To be sure, you don't like its high population and high immigration policies, but you choose to rationalise your effective support for John Howard by pointing to Labor's current support of those same policies. What you fail to do is show me how you think we can move out of the situation we are in to where we need to be.

In my view, where voters should not wait until they are presented with a choice between what is bad and what is clearly good. If they did, they will be waiting until hell freezes over. What we have to do is make the choice based on what is now on offer. The choice should be a no-brainer, even given the many serious flaws of Kevin Rudd.

---

Ludwig, you wrote: I don't have a "pre-occupation with the compulsory aspect of the compulsory preferential system, above all else."

Then two sentences later, you wrote: "... it really is the most blatantly anti-democratic aspect of our whole system and hence the one that I find the most offensive."

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Then in the very next sentence you contradict yourself again: "It may not be something that is hugely important in practical terms ..."

Then later you seem to contradict that: "It could easily make a difference in a close contest ..."

In fact my point still stands: the compulsory aspect of compulsory preferential voting will very rarely, if ever, cause an independent or minor party candidate to win over a candidate from a major political party. To state what should be obvious it is the lack of support for minor party candidates which prevents them from winning.

One way to change this (other than having electorates represented by more than one member as in the ACT) is to bring back 'first past the post' and have large numbers of candidates contesting each electorate, in which case winning is largely a lottery. This was how the elections in New Guinea were conducted (or at least in the elections before those just recently conducted - I don't know if 'first past the post was used in the most recent elections.) Certainly independents or candidates from all kind of small minor political parties were able to win those elections, but it hardly made those elections more democratic.

What optional preferential can allow on occasions, is for a different major party candidate to win than otherwise would have been the case, but, as I intend to show, that may actually make optional preferential, in practice, less democratic than compulsory preferential.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

I believe that most who vote for minor parties or independents do, in fact, have a preference for one or other of the major political parties, and if this the case, those voters should be made aware that they can express that preference and be given every encouragement to do so.

However, due to the mis-education of the public by nearly every political party the optional preferential system in Queensland has been turned into a de-facto 'first past the post' system. On occasions, the Greens have not allocated preferences on their 'how to vote' forms causing many Green voters, who I believe would otherwise have been inclined to express a preference for Labor over Liberal, not to. In marginal seats this can, and probably has, caused Labor to lose where it might otherwise have won. In such cases the winning Liberal candidate would not have succeeded in obtaining an overall majority of formal votes.

I believe that such practices are, in fact, anti-democratic. I am not arguing that Greens voters should be obliged to express a preference or that the Greens allocate their preferences on their 'how to vote' cards but I do believe that they should make the effort to advise those intending to vote for them that they should make use of the preferential voting system to express a choice for one or the other of the major parties if such a preference exists.

Daggett, the timing for this discussion is all wrong for me. I am back for a couple of days between long trips out bush. I will now be away for several weeks, and probably offline for all of that time.

I reckon it would be good to discuss it over the phone some time.

Cheers