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.