In the light of the hung parliaments and hung senates that seem to be the political reality these days the so-called 'Independent' candidates should have to clarify before the election which side of politics they would support in the event of a hung parliament.

Voters should know before they vote.

The Windsor & Oakshotte debarcle is testimony to that. 

POLL

Instead of a poll you should find out what is wrong with a liberal party so that the independents would back them

We had Windsor & Oakshotte both ex-national party members backing a labor government, the bloke from Victoria who is a ex-liberal won't back a liberal government in Victoria and it looks like one of the independents in S.A.who is a ex-liberal member could back a labor government in S.A.

So what is wrong with the liberal party that ex liberal party and national party members won't back a liberal/coalition government. It looks like something in the liberal party stinks if ex members won't back them.

Libs think it good to attacks indies then cry when said indies don’t support them.

Something in the rightarded mind prevents logical thinking I reckon.

Well Wisey, that's why I raised the poll question.

An independent shouldn't back either side of politics because that 'defeats being independent'.  If they decalre their ideological preference are they voiding their independence?

I for one would want to know which side of the political fence they're on up front and I'm sure the people of Windsor's and Oakshotte's electorates would have as well.

Nobody is a total fence sitter.

The Democrats tried but they leaned too far left and became irrelevant.  :(

Swagman wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 8:43am:

POLL

http://redpoll.org.au/images/page_images/why-IMG_9205.jpg

Swagman wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 8:34am:

In the light of the hung parliaments and hung senates that seem to be the political reality these days the so-called 'Independent' candidates should have to clarify before the election which side of politics they would support in the event of a hung parliament. Voters should know before they vote. The Windsor & Oakshotte debarcle is testimony to that.

Still throwing a tanty lovey. ;D ;D ;D ;D

I least I made my poll questions neutral Skip.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 9:20am:

Libs think it good to attacks indies then cry when said indies don’t support them.

THIS!!

Why on earth should the Liberals expect an independent to support them after the Liberals have spent so much time denigrating him?

The independents have stated that they will seek stability, and so are more likely to support whichever of the major parties has won more seats. On the latest count, that is Labor. If the Liberals had won more seats, it would also be fair for the independents to support them. That may yet happen if a Labor seat was to fall to the Liberals in a by-election.

---

Minority governments supported by independents or minor parties are a fact of life in Australian politics. If it happens, deal with it. Every single state and territory - as well as the commonwealth - has had a minority government in the past 25 years. That's right, every single one.

Not all turned out well of course. Some minority governments were defeated at the following election - Gillard/Rudd, Borbidge. Others won the following election in a landslide. It all depends on where the government is in an election cycle and how well it governs in minority. Historically, Independents are more likely to give their support to the party or coalition that already has the greater numbers because this makes for a more stable government. If the numbers are tied, it is then that they are most likely to give support based on their personal preference.

It is also plausible that independents can switch sides and change the government on the floor of parliament. This is how the Menzies government was defeated on the floor of the house in 1940 after a budget appropriation bill was amended by being reduced by a token ten pounds. This demonstrated that the government no longer had the numbers to govern so Menzies resigned.

Bam wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 10:45am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 9:20am: Libs think it good to attacks indies then cry when said indies don’t support them. THIS!! Why on earth should the Liberals expect an independent to support them after the Liberals have spent so much time denigrating him? The independents have stated that they will seek stability, and so are more likely to support whichever of the major parties has won more seats. On the latest count, that is Labor. If the Liberals had won more seats, it would also be fair for the independents to support them. That may yet happen if a Labor seat was to fall to the Liberals in a by-election. Minority governments supported by independents or minor parties are a fact of life in Australian politics. If it happens, deal with it. Every single state and territory - as well as the commonwealth - has had a minority government in the past 25 years. That's right, every single one. Not all turned out well of course. Some minority governments were defeated at the following election - Gillard/Rudd, Borbidge. Others won the following election in a landslide. It all depends on where the government is in an election cycle and how well it governs in minority. Historically, Independents are more likely to give their support to the party or coalition that already has the greater numbers because this makes for a more stable government. If the numbers are tied, it is then that they are most likely to give support based on their personal preference. It is also plausible that independents can switch sides and change the government on the floor of parliament. This is how the Menzies government was defeated on the floor of the house in 1940 after a budget appropriation bill was amended by being reduced by a token ten pounds. This demonstrated that the government no longer had the numbers to govern so Menzies resigned.

Because it is about the people, not what an indi feels personally. I hope they go labor so they go the way of the dinosaur like oakshot and Windsor and just a parting refreshing mention of the greens losing out.

Swagman wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 10:32am:

I least I made my poll questions neutral Skip.

If it were neutral there would be options for declaring whichever and not declaring whichever since independants change their minds a lot and dont back same parties all the time

SOB

Swagman wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 9:24am:

Well Wisey, that's why I raised the poll question. An independent shouldn't back either side of politics because that 'defeats being independent'.  If they decalre their ideological preference are they voiding their independence? I for one would want to know which side of the political fence they're on up front and I'm sure the people of Windsor's and Oakshotte's electorates would have as well. Nobody is a total fence sitter. The Democrats tried but they leaned too far left and became irrelevant.  :(

They became irrelevant and committed suicide when they sided with Howard over the GST. That was their undoing, not leaning left, but right.

Setanta wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 11:30am:

They became irrelevant and committed suicide when they sided with Howard over the GST. That was their undoing, not leaning left, but right.

You will find that it was individuals and not the party that sided with the GST, some voted for and some against.

Post GST you had Bartlet & Stott The Spoiler who were just as pinko as you.

They killed the Democrats off by their blatent lefty leanings.


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 10:55am:

If it were neutral there would be options for declaring whichever and not declaring whichever since independants change their minds a lot and dont back same parties all the time

That's covered by the final question IMO SOB.


Bam wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 10:45am:

Historically, Independents are more likely to give their support to the party or coalition that already has the greater numbers because this makes for a more stable government

Fine, then they just have to be up front and say exactly that before the election.

Don't you think that is an important issue for a potential voter?  Sometimes it's pretty obvious who they would support just by their rhetoric and history.

Wilkie for example is a raving Lefty.  An ex-Green candidate.

Katter is more from the Right.  An ex-coalition MP.

I know it cuts both ways.  :-?

How so you intend they do this without consultations an negotiations?

Pure stupidity.

In effect what you are really saying then is that independents should not be independent and join one of the two parties that will form Government...

Yet another big flaw with Representative Democracy (or minimalist democracy) reveals itself...

Phemanderac wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 12:27pm:

n effect what you are really saying then is that independents should not be independent

Well that's essentially what they are doing after the election if recent elections are a guide, so why not be up front about it?


Phemanderac wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 12:27pm:

Yet another big flaw with Representative Democracy (or minimalist democracy) reveals itself...

Yes it does.

Swagman wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 12:41pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 12:27pm: n effect what you are really saying then is that independents should not be independent Well that's essentially what they are doing after the election if recent elections are a guide, so why not be up front about it? Phemanderac wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 12:27pm: Yet another big flaw with Representative Democracy (or minimalist democracy) reveals itself... Yes it does.

No they aren't. They only guarantee supply, they don't guarantee a no questions asked vote on every legislation.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 9:20am:

Libs think it good to attacks indies then cry when said indies don’t support them. Something in the rightarded mind prevents logical thinking I reckon.

Same same...

If the Indies had supported Abbott in 2010 they would have been deemed as 'upstanding men of integrity, etc, etc'....

But in supporting Labor they were deemed to be anything but....

I honestly cannot see Labor having carried on with the same vitriol if these two had backed the Libs.

:)

Frances wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 9:33am:

Swagman wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:43am: POLL http://redpoll.org.au/images/page_images/why-IMG_9205.jpg

Looks like a lot of bull, to me.....

:D

Phemanderac wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 12:27pm:

In effect what you are really saying then is that independents should not be independent and join one of the two parties that will form Government.....

That's what I thought he was saying....

:)

There is one concept that is missing here.  Take the situation in SA where the Libs lead 53/47 in 2PP yet the independents will decide who governs.

Instead of negotiation which might be appropriate in a dead-heat, how about the independents consult the people of SA about it?  Oh that's right... we held an election with a massive liberal majority. They could use that as a hint that the people want  liberal govt and therefore support them.  But no, independents have very rarely ever been anything even remotely independent. Nor do they seem to consider the views of the electorate.

Lobo wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 12:48pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 9:20am: Libs think it good to attacks indies then cry when said indies don’t support them. Something in the rightarded mind prevents logical thinking I reckon. Same same... If the Indies had supported Abbott in 2010 they would have been deemed as 'upstanding men of integrity, etc, etc'.... But in supporting Labor they were deemed to be anything but.... I honestly cannot see Labor having carried on with the same vitriol if these two had backed the Libs. :)

well Windsor and oakeshott came from electorates with enormous conservative majorities.  To support the conservative coalition would have been the proper and ethical thing to do.  But independents are rarely so.  They are almost always disaffected ex party-members who couldn't get their own way. Hardly men of principle - as a rule.

The electorates voted in Indies. Again, the Nats had waged hate campaigns, the simian sat there with his feet on a table and kept them there when the Indies came to negotiate with him. Can you show more contempt than that? Any wonder Oaky and Windsor backed Labor?

Really, try thinking for a bit!

There is no gerrymander in SA—you might say the Nats had a gerrymander in their favor, 3% of the votes and they have a whole heap of reps, Greens have 8–12% support got 1 rep. Just the luck of the dice with single member electorates.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 1:38pm:

The electorates voted in Indies. Again, the Nats had waged hate campaigns, the simian sat there with his feet on a table and kept them there when the Indies came to negotiate with him. Can you show more contempt than that? Any wonder Oaky and Windsor backed Labor? Really, try thinking for a bit! There is no gerrymander in SA—you might say the Nats had a gerrymander in their favor, 3% of the votes and they have a whole heap of reps, Greens have 8–12% support got 1 rep. Just the luck of the dice with single member electorates.

Playford didn't have a gerrymander either and nor did Joh,  at least not by the way you define them.

Difference is—independent AECs nowadays.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 1:38pm:

The electorates voted in Indies. Again, the Nats had waged hate campaigns, the simian sat there with his feet on a table and kept them there when the Indies came to negotiate with him. Can you show more contempt than that? Any wonder Oaky and Windsor backed Labor? Really, try thinking for a bit! There is no gerrymander in SA—you might say the Nats had a gerrymander in their favor, 3% of the votes and they have a whole heap of reps, Greens have 8–12% support got 1 rep. Just the luck of the dice with single member electorates.

BTW nats got ZERO seats. 

OK, clarification—in the HoR the Nats got way more seats than their tiny support base (3%) would suggest, while Greens with 3–4 times the support of the Nats have only 1 HoR seat.

So let’s do proportional voting—Nats wiped out. Greens get 12 seats

The utter lack of thought by the rightarded really is worrying!

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 1:23pm:

There is one concept that is missing here.  Take the situation in SA where the Libs lead 53/47 in 2PP yet the independents will decide who governs. Instead of negotiation which might be appropriate in a dead-heat, how about the independents consult the people of SA about it?  Oh that's right... we held an election with a massive liberal majority. They could use that as a hint that the people want  liberal govt and therefore support them.  But no, independents have very rarely ever been anything even remotely independent. Nor do they seem to consider the views of the electorate.

Actually, the only people that they should consult are those in their own electorates.

Oh, that's right, they did, and the voters said that they weren't interested in either Labor, or Lib.

By doing so, the voters passed on the decision making process to their selected candidate. (As we all do, no matter who we vote for.)

The Independents will make their decision in what they consider to be the best interests of their electorate,

:)

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 1:23pm:

There is one concept that is missing here.  Take the situation in SA where the Libs lead 53/47 in 2PP yet the independents will decide who governs. Instead of negotiation which might be appropriate in a dead-heat, how about the independents consult the people of SA about it?  Oh that's right... we held an election with a massive liberal majority. They could use that as a hint that the people want  liberal govt and therefore support them.  But no, independents have very rarely ever been anything even remotely independent. Nor do they seem to consider the views of the electorate.

I think the argument you have presented is an excellent one for people not being represented appropriately to be honest. However, that is not so much an argument supporting independents being not independent, in point of fact, it argues effectively that they (as pointed out) acted independently, so independently they were independent of the system that elected them, namely "representative democracy".

Whilst I realise that there are partisan issues at play in this, not surprising on a partisan semi political discussion site really, the stand out non partisan point to me is that this highlights the need for Australia to have a good hard look at the myriad flaws inherent in the Representative Democratic system and, work towards changing that to a direct democratic system. YEP there will still be ideological issues aplenty to discuss at length, yes there will still be flaws, errors, corruption and concerns, that is people being human I suspect. However, Australians will have a much clearer and louder voice in how we are Governed, and, eventually, Government will be something genuinely for the people, rather than the currents system whereby Governing is done to the people (regardless of the Party crap).

John S wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 9:09am:

Instead of a poll you should find out what is wrong with a liberal party so that the independents would back them We had Windsor & Oakshotte both ex-national party members backing a labor government, the bloke from Victoria who is a ex-liberal won't back a liberal government in Victoria and it looks like one of the independents in S.A.who is a ex-liberal member could back a labor government in S.A. So what is wrong with the liberal party that ex liberal party and national party members won't back a liberal/coalition government. It looks like something in the liberal party stinks if ex members won't back them.

WE KNOW YOU DONT LIKE REALITY... BUT THE REALITY WAS..


ABBOTT PROMISED AN EARLY ELECTION...

HE WOULDNT BACK DOWN TO GET THEIR VOTE..UNLIKE SOMEONE ELSE WHO SOLD HER SOUL.


have you ever seen a mess like the gillard 3 years.. OMG.. only the rusted on claim she was a success even their own threw her out..lock stock and barrel...didnt wait for the electorate to do it..

Phemanderac wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 2:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 1:23pm: There is one concept that is missing here.  Take the situation in SA where the Libs lead 53/47 in 2PP yet the independents will decide who governs. Instead of negotiation which might be appropriate in a dead-heat, how about the independents consult the people of SA about it?  Oh that's right... we held an election with a massive liberal majority. They could use that as a hint that the people want  liberal govt and therefore support them.  But no, independents have very rarely ever been anything even remotely independent. Nor do they seem to consider the views of the electorate. I think the argument you have presented is an excellent one for people not being represented appropriately to be honest. However, that is not so much an argument supporting independents being not independent, in point of fact, it argues effectively that they (as pointed out) acted independently, so independently they were independent of the system that elected them, namely "representative democracy". Whilst I realise that there are partisan issues at play in this, not surprising on a partisan semi political discussion site really, the stand out non partisan point to me is that this highlights the need for Australia to have a good hard look at the myriad flaws inherent in the Representative Democratic system and, work towards changing that to a direct democratic system. YEP there will still be ideological issues aplenty to discuss at length, yes there will still be flaws, errors, corruption and concerns, that is people being human I suspect. However, Australians will have a much clearer and louder voice in how we are Governed, and, eventually, Government will be something genuinely for the people, rather than the currents system whereby Governing is done to the people (regardless of the Party crap).

Im not a fan od direct democracy as it only works with a politically engaged electorate which is one thing Australians most definitely are not.  No system is perfect nad never will be but what I find rather astonishing in places like this is that the majority - indeed the vast majority - aren't even remotely interested in fair democratic rule and representation but rather just 'winning' It cant get any more pathetic than that.

Odd results do happen sometimes with single member electorates. I mentioned the Nats with 3% of the vote with 20 or whatever the number of seats, the Greens with 9% got 1 seat.

If you don’t like that—suggest and argue for an alternative, we have mentioned enough of them, multi–member electorates and proportional voting.

But you are just whining about SA.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 4:25pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 2:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 1:23pm: There is one concept that is missing here.  Take the situation in SA where the Libs lead 53/47 in 2PP yet the independents will decide who governs. Instead of negotiation which might be appropriate in a dead-heat, how about the independents consult the people of SA about it?  Oh that's right... we held an election with a massive liberal majority. They could use that as a hint that the people want  liberal govt and therefore support them.  But no, independents have very rarely ever been anything even remotely independent. Nor do they seem to consider the views of the electorate. I think the argument you have presented is an excellent one for people not being represented appropriately to be honest. However, that is not so much an argument supporting independents being not independent, in point of fact, it argues effectively that they (as pointed out) acted independently, so independently they were independent of the system that elected them, namely "representative democracy". Whilst I realise that there are partisan issues at play in this, not surprising on a partisan semi political discussion site really, the stand out non partisan point to me is that this highlights the need for Australia to have a good hard look at the myriad flaws inherent in the Representative Democratic system and, work towards changing that to a direct democratic system. YEP there will still be ideological issues aplenty to discuss at length, yes there will still be flaws, errors, corruption and concerns, that is people being human I suspect. However, Australians will have a much clearer and louder voice in how we are Governed, and, eventually, Government will be something genuinely for the people, rather than the currents system whereby Governing is done to the people (regardless of the Party crap). Im not a fan od direct democracy as it only works with a politically engaged electorate which is one thing Australians most definitely are not.  No system is perfect nad never will be but what I find rather astonishing in places like this is that the majority - indeed the vast majority - aren't even remotely interested in fair democratic rule and representation but rather just 'winning' It cant get any more pathetic than that.

what is the the point of an election  anyway...

it is always has been about WINNING..

fair or otherwise doesnt come into it..

look for instance WA and missing votes...how do we know a few here and a few there have not gone missing everywhere..they only get double checked on a recount..I dont have any problems with what we have.... but at the end of the day..with hung govts and missing votes...!!!!

maybe it is time for a change.. or a tweak at least.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 4:55pm:

Odd results do happen sometimes with single member electorates. I mentioned the Nats with 3% of the vote with 20 or whatever the number of seats, the Greens with 9% got 1 seat. If you don’t like that—suggest and argue for an alternative, we have mentioned enough of them, multi–member electorates and proportional voting. But you are just whining about SA.

the nats didn't get 3% they averaged 40% unless of course you want to count seats where they didn't stand a candidate which is rather stupid.  the greens averaged <9%.  that's how you win seats.  you get actual votes.

Independents should back good policy not either major party.....That would ensure we get the best result from a hung Parliament!!!

:) :) :)

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 4:25pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 2:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 1:23pm: There is one concept that is missing here.  Take the situation in SA where the Libs lead 53/47 in 2PP yet the independents will decide who governs. Instead of negotiation which might be appropriate in a dead-heat, how about the independents consult the people of SA about it?  Oh that's right... we held an election with a massive liberal majority. They could use that as a hint that the people want  liberal govt and therefore support them.  But no, independents have very rarely ever been anything even remotely independent. Nor do they seem to consider the views of the electorate. I think the argument you have presented is an excellent one for people not being represented appropriately to be honest. However, that is not so much an argument supporting independents being not independent, in point of fact, it argues effectively that they (as pointed out) acted independently, so independently they were independent of the system that elected them, namely "representative democracy". Whilst I realise that there are partisan issues at play in this, not surprising on a partisan semi political discussion site really, the stand out non partisan point to me is that this highlights the need for Australia to have a good hard look at the myriad flaws inherent in the Representative Democratic system and, work towards changing that to a direct democratic system. YEP there will still be ideological issues aplenty to discuss at length, yes there will still be flaws, errors, corruption and concerns, that is people being human I suspect. However, Australians will have a much clearer and louder voice in how we are Governed, and, eventually, Government will be something genuinely for the people, rather than the currents system whereby Governing is done to the people (regardless of the Party crap). Im not a fan od direct democracy as it only works with a politically engaged electorate which is one thing Australians most definitely are not.  No system is perfect nad never will be but what I find rather astonishing in places like this is that the majority - indeed the vast majority - aren't even remotely interested in fair democratic rule and representation but rather just 'winning' It cant get any more pathetic than that.

Agreed, however, for my own part, rather than dismiss a direct democracy because of in part inherent and (to my mind) in part deliberate political dumbing down and disengagement, we need to address the dumbing down, we need to proactively and in a bipartisan way work to educate people about political systems and ultimately, as the people, take charge of our own politics. Please don't think I am silly enough to think we could just re - write the constitution, reboot the political system and all will be well. I do agree with you about how disconnected many Australians (very likely the majority) are from politics, however, I feel this is ultimately to our detriment as a people. We are ultimately the victims of politicians of all ilks and big financial interests, many of which have no significant connection with Australia apart from their exploitation or its resources and people.

As I see it, the "not so independents", the Gerrymander system, the vitriolic and personal abuse within politics, the absolute void of integrity across all political spectrums and the very good point you make the win at all costs mentality are all signs of cracks in the wall that is our political establishment. Time to tear the wall down and build a better structure, first comes engagement of people of all walks of life and then education of all things political.

We need to encourage people to question everything. This use to be something that even the most politically apathetic of Australians did because of a cultural distrust of Authority. Sadly, I don't think we have any greater trust for authority as a people still, but we just lost the tenacity to question stuff along the way. That is why the Farrs, Bolts, et al thrive currently. People take what they say on board without question, because it suits their current opinion on any given day.

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 5:41pm:

Independents should back good policy not either major party.....That would ensure we get the best result from a hung Parliament!!! :) :) :)

how about we try something novel and expect independents to reflect the wishes of voters?  I see a lot or argument on here over policy but virtually no discussion about voters getting what they want.

Phemanderac wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 5:43pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 4:25pm: Phemanderac wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 2:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 1:23pm: There is one concept that is missing here.  Take the situation in SA where the Libs lead 53/47 in 2PP yet the independents will decide who governs. Instead of negotiation which might be appropriate in a dead-heat, how about the independents consult the people of SA about it?  Oh that's right... we held an election with a massive liberal majority. They could use that as a hint that the people want  liberal govt and therefore support them.  But no, independents have very rarely ever been anything even remotely independent. Nor do they seem to consider the views of the electorate. I think the argument you have presented is an excellent one for people not being represented appropriately to be honest. However, that is not so much an argument supporting independents being not independent, in point of fact, it argues effectively that they (as pointed out) acted independently, so independently they were independent of the system that elected them, namely "representative democracy". Whilst I realise that there are partisan issues at play in this, not surprising on a partisan semi political discussion site really, the stand out non partisan point to me is that this highlights the need for Australia to have a good hard look at the myriad flaws inherent in the Representative Democratic system and, work towards changing that to a direct democratic system. YEP there will still be ideological issues aplenty to discuss at length, yes there will still be flaws, errors, corruption and concerns, that is people being human I suspect. However, Australians will have a much clearer and louder voice in how we are Governed, and, eventually, Government will be something genuinely for the people, rather than the currents system whereby Governing is done to the people (regardless of the Party crap). Im not a fan od direct democracy as it only works with a politically engaged electorate which is one thing Australians most definitely are not.  No system is perfect nad never will be but what I find rather astonishing in places like this is that the majority - indeed the vast majority - aren't even remotely interested in fair democratic rule and representation but rather just 'winning' It cant get any more pathetic than that. Agreed, however, for my own part, rather than dismiss a direct democracy because of in part inherent and (to my mind) in part deliberate political dumbing down and disengagement, we need to address the dumbing down, we need to proactively and in a bipartisan way work to educate people about political systems and ultimately, as the people, take charge of our own politics. Please don't think I am silly enough to think we could just re - write the constitution, reboot the political system and all will be well. I do agree with you about how disconnected many Australians (very likely the majority) are from politics, however, I feel this is ultimately to our detriment as a people. We are ultimately the victims of politicians of all ilks and big financial interests, many of which have no significant connection with Australia apart from their exploitation or its resources and people. As I see it, the "not so independents", the Gerrymander system, the vitriolic and personal abuse within politics, the absolute void of integrity across all political spectrums and the very good point you make the win at all costs mentality are all signs of cracks in the wall that is our political establishment. Time to tear the wall down and build a better structure, first comes engagement of people of all walks of life and then education of all things political. We need to encourage people to question everything. This use to be something that even the most politically apathetic of Australians did because of a cultural distrust of Authority. Sadly, I don't think we have any greater trust for authority as a people still, but we just lost the tenacity to question stuff along the way. That is why the Farrs, Bolts, et al thrive currently. People take what they say on board without question, because it suits their current opinion on any given day.

the reasons for the disengagement with politics is that life in Australia is very good, arguably world-best.  It is hard for joe average who doesn't have that political bent to somehow engage a process he believes has already delivered a good outcome. Countries with high levels of political engagement tend to be places with very real problems while here our 'problems' are minor compared to most. It is a rule of thumb that people don't get involved in a process they consider is already doing well even if they think it could be better.

Our culture also has a tendency to be laid-back about many things and until our lives are threatened (eg war) we don't make big deals about it.

That is why DD is a failed fit for Australia.  it would only allow the opinionated few to rule over the less engaged majority.  And it is not unfair to expect politics to be managed democratically without having to actually express an opinion on every issue. 

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 5:41pm:

Independents should back good policy not either major party.....That would ensure we get the best result from a hung Parliament!!! :) :) :)

Unfortunately, often they don't, that's why we ended up with Gillard.  I can see the hissy fits now when these SA blokes back the coalition.

wiradjuri wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 6:12pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:41pm: Independents should back good policy not either major party.....That would ensure we get the best result from a hung Parliament!!! :) :) :) Unfortunately, often they don't, that's why we ended up with Gillard.  I can see the hissy fits now when these SA blokes back the coalition.

the Gillard experience would pale to insignificance compared to SA.  oakeshot/Windsor were certainly unethical in their decision but at least labor and liberals were a  2PP dead heat.  in SA they are a mile apart.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 5:09pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 4:55pm: Odd results do happen sometimes with single member electorates. I mentioned the Nats with 3% of the vote with 20 or whatever the number of seats, the Greens with 9% got 1 seat. If you don’t like that—suggest and argue for an alternative, we have mentioned enough of them, multi–member electorates and proportional voting. But you are just whining about SA. the nats didn't get 3% they averaged 40% unless of course you want to count seats where they didn't stand a candidate which is rather stupid.  the greens averaged <9%.  that's how you win seats.  you get actual votes.

If the Nats averaged 40% support they would be the leading party in the coalition! Nationally, the Nats get about 3% yet get a heap of HoR seats, Greens on 9% get one. It is how single member seats work.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 5:55pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:41pm: Independents should back good policy not either major party.....That would ensure we get the best result from a hung Parliament!!! :) :) :) how about we try something novel and expect independents to reflect the wishes of voters?  I see a lot or argument on here over policy but virtually no discussion about voters getting what they want.

By voting for an Independent voters have rejected the major parties....I fail to see any validity to your argument as usual!!!

::) ::) ::)

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 5:55pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:41pm: Independents should back good policy not either major party.....That would ensure we get the best result from a hung Parliament!!! :) :) :) how about we try something novel and expect independents to reflect the wishes of voters?  I see a lot or argument on here over policy but virtually no discussion about voters getting what they want.

Again, why not try thinking before shooting mouth off?

Labor will have one more seat than the Libs, so the Libs getting the support of both Independents then supplying a Speaker will mean 24 for each Party. Not really workable. Better if they support Labor, make it a clear 25:23. As to the voters—they voted the Indies in, NOT Libs!

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 6:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:09pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 4:55pm: Odd results do happen sometimes with single member electorates. I mentioned the Nats with 3% of the vote with 20 or whatever the number of seats, the Greens with 9% got 1 seat. If you don’t like that—suggest and argue for an alternative, we have mentioned enough of them, multi–member electorates and proportional voting. But you are just whining about SA. the nats didn't get 3% they averaged 40% unless of course you want to count seats where they didn't stand a candidate which is rather stupid.  the greens averaged <9%.  that's how you win seats.  you get actual votes. If the Nats averaged 40% support they would be the leading party in the coalition! Nationally, the Nats get about 3% yet get a heap of HoR seats, Greens on 9% get one. It is how single member seats work.

why area you so dense?

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 6:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:55pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:41pm: Independents should back good policy not either major party.....That would ensure we get the best result from a hung Parliament!!! :) :) :) how about we try something novel and expect independents to reflect the wishes of voters?  I see a lot or argument on here over policy but virtually no discussion about voters getting what they want. By voting for an Independent voters have rejected the major parties....I fail to see any validity to your argument as usual!!! ::) ::) ::)

why do u say that?  that is a presumption.  It has some basis but it remains a presumption since most independents are known to be aligned ideologically to one or other party's general position. or did you miss the massive voter backlash against oakeshot and windsor after they voted in defiance of their electorates wishes?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 7:51pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 6:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:55pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:41pm: Independents should back good policy not either major party.....That would ensure we get the best result from a hung Parliament!!! :) :) :) how about we try something novel and expect independents to reflect the wishes of voters?  I see a lot or argument on here over policy but virtually no discussion about voters getting what they want. By voting for an Independent voters have rejected the major parties....I fail to see any validity to your argument as usual!!! ::) ::) ::) why do u say that?  that is a presumption.  It has some basis but it remains a presumption since most independents are known to be aligned ideologically to one or other party's general position. or did you miss the massive voter backlash against oakeshot and windsor after they voted in defiance of their electorates wishes?

Isn't this a presumption??

Or do you have a list of all independents and their political alignment???

:)

Lobo wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 8:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 6:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:55pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:41pm: Independents should back good policy not either major party.....That would ensure we get the best result from a hung Parliament!!! :) :) :) how about we try something novel and expect independents to reflect the wishes of voters?  I see a lot or argument on here over policy but virtually no discussion about voters getting what they want. By voting for an Independent voters have rejected the major parties....I fail to see any validity to your argument as usual!!! ::) ::) ::) why do u say that?  that is a presumption.  It has some basis but it remains a presumption since most independents are known to be aligned ideologically to one or other party's general position. or did you miss the massive voter backlash against oakeshot and windsor after they voted in defiance of their electorates wishes? Isn't this a presumption?? Or do you have a list of all independents and their political alignment??? :)

Only voters can swing depending on policies, not politicians, and they never cross the floor if they are in a party. It's a well known fact!

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 7:51pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 6:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:55pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:41pm: Independents should back good policy not either major party.....That would ensure we get the best result from a hung Parliament!!! :) :) :) how about we try something novel and expect independents to reflect the wishes of voters?  I see a lot or argument on here over policy but virtually no discussion about voters getting what they want. By voting for an Independent voters have rejected the major parties....I fail to see any validity to your argument as usual!!! ::) ::) ::) why do u say that?  that is a presumption.  It has some basis but it remains a presumption since most independents are known to be aligned ideologically to one or other party's general position. or did you miss the massive voter backlash against oakeshot and windsor after they voted in defiance of their electorates wishes?

Independent!!!

::) ::) ::)

The strongest principle of growth lies in human choice.
George Eliot (1819 - 1880)

Lobo wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 8:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 6:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:55pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:41pm: Independents should back good policy not either major party.....That would ensure we get the best result from a hung Parliament!!! :) :) :) how about we try something novel and expect independents to reflect the wishes of voters?  I see a lot or argument on here over policy but virtually no discussion about voters getting what they want. By voting for an Independent voters have rejected the major parties....I fail to see any validity to your argument as usual!!! ::) ::) ::) why do u say that?  that is a presumption.  It has some basis but it remains a presumption since most independents are known to be aligned ideologically to one or other party's general position. or did you miss the massive voter backlash against oakeshot and windsor after they voted in defiance of their electorates wishes? Isn't this a presumption?? Or do you have a list of all independents and their political alignment??? :)

an independent is in fact no such thing.  the vast majority are actually ideologically aligned and their electorate knows it.  why do you think an ex lib stands as an independent in a former liberal stronghold.  do you think that electorate suddenly supports labor???  Windsor and oakshot stood in massively conservative voting electorates and please don't try and deny that. 

Independent means 'independent from political parties' not independent from political ideology and position.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 8:35am:

Lobo wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:30pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 6:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:55pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:41pm: Independents should back good policy not either major party.....That would ensure we get the best result from a hung Parliament!!! :) :) :) how about we try something novel and expect independents to reflect the wishes of voters?  I see a lot or argument on here over policy but virtually no discussion about voters getting what they want. By voting for an Independent voters have rejected the major parties....I fail to see any validity to your argument as usual!!! ::) ::) ::) why do u say that?  that is a presumption.  It has some basis but it remains a presumption since most independents are known to be aligned ideologically to one or other party's general position. or did you miss the massive voter backlash against oakeshot and windsor after they voted in defiance of their electorates wishes? Isn't this a presumption?? Or do you have a list of all independents and their political alignment??? :) an independent is in fact no such thing.  the vast majority are actually ideologically aligned and their electorate knows it.  why do you think an ex lib stands as an independent in a former liberal stronghold.  do you think that electorate suddenly supports labor???  Windsor and oakshot stood in massively conservative voting electorates and please don't try and deny that.  Independent means 'independent from political parties' not independent from political ideology and position.

So by saying that you're saying once a person leaves a particular party they should never stand again for office.

I am just enjoying the whining from the rightarded.

Hmmm Oaky and Windsor didn’t so much get a huge electoral backlash—both would have won last year had they stood—as a campaign of hate.

An independent is. . .independent. Votes as he decides. This crap about “conservative seats” doesn’t wash—the voters elected Independents not cnservatives!

skippy. wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 8:38am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 8:35am: Lobo wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:30pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 6:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:55pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:41pm: Independents should back good policy not either major party.....That would ensure we get the best result from a hung Parliament!!! :) :) :) how about we try something novel and expect independents to reflect the wishes of voters?  I see a lot or argument on here over policy but virtually no discussion about voters getting what they want. By voting for an Independent voters have rejected the major parties....I fail to see any validity to your argument as usual!!! ::) ::) ::) why do u say that?  that is a presumption.  It has some basis but it remains a presumption since most independents are known to be aligned ideologically to one or other party's general position. or did you miss the massive voter backlash against oakeshot and windsor after they voted in defiance of their electorates wishes? Isn't this a presumption?? Or do you have a list of all independents and their political alignment??? :) an independent is in fact no such thing.  the vast majority are actually ideologically aligned and their electorate knows it.  why do you think an ex lib stands as an independent in a former liberal stronghold.  do you think that electorate suddenly supports labor???  Windsor and oakshot stood in massively conservative voting electorates and please don't try and deny that.  Independent means 'independent from political parties' not independent from political ideology and position. So by saying that you're saying once a person leaves a particular party they should never stand again for office.

are you normally this obtuse????

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 8:42am:

I am just enjoying the whining from the rightarded. Hmmm Oaky and Windsor didn’t so much get a huge electoral backlash—both would have won last year had they stood—as a campaign of hate. An independent is. . .independent. Votes as he decides. This crap about “conservative seats” doesn’t wash—the voters elected Independents not cnservatives!

are you normally this obtuse???  they didn't stand because polling in their electorates showed them on the back end of a thrashing.  Oakshotts swing was 34% AGAINST.  Windsors was similarly huge.

Nah, not by the time of the 2013 election.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 9:14am:

Nah, not by the time of the 2013 election.

wrong again.  that poll was in 2013.  Or have you wondered why the nats retained both seats in a landslide???

idiot.

Without a good Indie the seats elected Nats as expected.

Have you any idea of the money Oaky got for his electorate? A long long list of works, roads, bridges and so on.

Peter Andren was another ex–Nats Indie in Calare. A brilliant bloke, became disgusted with the Nats. Unfortunately he died just before the 2007 election. I don’t even know the name of the numpty that the Nats put into Calare and he would have achieved sod all for Calare I bet.

Andren, Oakeshotte and Windsor were and are principled men of sound intellect. We need more like them and I am sure the Nats will keep pissing off people of intellect and principle in their ranks.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 9:33am:

Without a good Indie the seats elected Nats as expected. Have you any idea of the money Oaky got for his electorate? A long long list of works, roads, bridges and so on. Peter Andren was another ex–Nats Indie in Calare. A brilliant bloke, became disgusted with the Nats. Unfortunately he died just before the 2007 election. I don’t even know the name of the numpty that the Nats put into Calare and he would have achieved sod all for Calare I bet. Andren, Oakeshotte and Windsor were and are principled men of sound intellect. We need more like them and I am sure the Nats will keep pissing off people of intellect and principle in their ranks.

all paid for by money that was denied to OTHER electorates.  Bribery and extortion is not something we should be extolling - even for a simian like you.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 12:47pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 12:41pm: Phemanderac wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 12:27pm: n effect what you are really saying then is that independents should not be independent Well that's essentially what they are doing after the election if recent elections are a guide, so why not be up front about it? Phemanderac wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 12:27pm: Yet another big flaw with Representative Democracy (or minimalist democracy) reveals itself... Yes it does. No they aren't. They only guarantee supply, they don't guarantee a no questions asked vote on every legislation.

This is the key point here - also confidence. Confidence and supply is all that the independents would guarantee.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 9:33am:

Without a good Indie the seats elected Nats as expected. Have you any idea of the money Oaky got for his electorate? A long long list of works, roads, bridges and so on. Peter Andren was another ex–Nats Indie in Calare. A brilliant bloke, became disgusted with the Nats. Unfortunately he died just before the 2007 election. I don’t even know the name of the numpty that the Nats put into Calare and he would have achieved sod all for Calare I bet. Andren, Oakeshotte and Windsor were and are principled men of sound intellect. We need more like them and I am sure the Nats will keep pissing off people of intellect and principle in their ranks.

Do not forget Ted Mack.

He is the only person who has ever been elected and re-elected as an independent at local, state and federal level. He is the only non-conservative politician ever to hold the seat of North Sydney, a seat that has been in existence since Federation. Joe Hockey won the seat after Mack quit politics.

He quit his seat - at both state and federal level - just before he was to become eligible to receive a Parliamentary pension just so he wouldn't get it. He didn't want it. He wasn't in it for the money.

Only once in the 40 years before Ted Mack was elected to the Federal Parliament was someone elected to the House in Federal Parliament who was not a member of a major party. There has not been an election since where the House in Federal Parliament has not had at least one independent or minor party member.

Bam wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 10:56am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 9:33am: Without a good Indie the seats elected Nats as expected. Have you any idea of the money Oaky got for his electorate? A long long list of works, roads, bridges and so on. Peter Andren was another ex–Nats Indie in Calare. A brilliant bloke, became disgusted with the Nats. Unfortunately he died just before the 2007 election. I don’t even know the name of the numpty that the Nats put into Calare and he would have achieved sod all for Calare I bet. Andren, Oakeshotte and Windsor were and are principled men of sound intellect. We need more like them and I am sure the Nats will keep pissing off people of intellect and principle in their ranks. Do not forget Ted Mack. He is the only person who has ever been elected and re-elected as an independent at local, state and federal level. He is the only non-conservative politician ever to hold the seat of North Sydney, a seat that has been in existence since Federation. Joe Hockey won the seat after Mack quit politics. He quit his seat - at both state and federal level - just before he was to become eligible to receive a Parliamentary pension just so he wouldn't get it. He didn't want it. He wasn't in it for the money. Only once in the 40 years before Ted Mack was elected to the Federal Parliament was someone elected to the House in Federal Parliament who was not a member of a major party. There has not been an election since where the House in Federal Parliament has not had at least one independent or minor party member.

Ted MAck was a good man and nothing like the average indie.  Resigning the day before qualifying for a parliamentary pension still sounds like a foolish act however.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 10:29am:

[quote author=GeorgeH link=1395354866/55#55 date=1395444826]Without a good Indie the seats elected Nats as expected. Have you any idea of the money Oaky got for his electorate? A long long list of works, roads, bridges and so on. all paid for by money that was denied to OTHER electorates.  Bribery and extortion is not something we should be extolling - even for a simian like you. Peter Andren was another ex–Nats Indie in Calare. A brilliant bloke, became disgusted with the Nats. Unfortunately he died just before the 2007 election. I don’t even know the name of the numpty that the Nats put into Calare and he would have achieved sod all for Calare I bet. Andren, Oakeshotte and Windsor were and are principled men of sound intellect. We need more like them and I am sure the Nats will keep pissing off people of intellect and principle in their ranks.

No, all got because Oaky worked for his electorate! Worked much harder than a Nat would have.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 11:02am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 10:29am: [quote author=GeorgeH link=1395354866/55#55 date=1395444826]Without a good Indie the seats elected Nats as expected. Have you any idea of the money Oaky got for his electorate? A long long list of works, roads, bridges and so on. Peter Andren was another ex–Nats Indie in Calare. A brilliant bloke, became disgusted with the Nats. Unfortunately he died just before the 2007 election. I don’t even know the name of the numpty that the Nats put into Calare and he would have achieved sod all for Calare I bet. Andren, Oakeshotte and Windsor were and are principled men of sound intellect. We need more like them and I am sure the Nats will keep pissing off people of intellect and principle in their ranks. No, all got because Oaky worked for his electorate! Worked much harder than a Nat would have. all paid for by money that was denied to OTHER electorates.  Bribery and extortion is not something we should be extolling - even for a simian like you.

not even the most lard-headed labor rusted-on would deny that Oakeshot demanded things for his electorate soley for his vote to keep Gillard in power.  and them comes you, so far below their standard of intellect that it defies belief.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 11:05am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 11:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 10:29am: [quote author=GeorgeH link=1395354866/55#55 date=1395444826]Without a good Indie the seats elected Nats as expected. Have you any idea of the money Oaky got for his electorate? A long long list of works, roads, bridges and so on. Peter Andren was another ex–Nats Indie in Calare. A brilliant bloke, became disgusted with the Nats. Unfortunately he died just before the 2007 election. I don’t even know the name of the numpty that the Nats put into Calare and he would have achieved sod all for Calare I bet. Andren, Oakeshotte and Windsor were and are principled men of sound intellect. We need more like them and I am sure the Nats will keep pissing off people of intellect and principle in their ranks. No, all got because Oaky worked for his electorate! Worked much harder than a Nat would have. all paid for by money that was denied to OTHER electorates.  Bribery and extortion is not something we should be extolling - even for a simian like you. not even the most lard-headed labor rusted-on would deny that Oakeshot demanded things for his electorate soley for his vote to keep Gillard in power.  and them comes you, so far below their standard of intellect that it defies belief.

No, you have no evidence of that. An agreement was reached and documented. Oaky worked hard for his electorate as any Indie, lacking a party apparatus behind him, must do. That is why there are but a few Indies in all the Parliaments.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 11:16am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 11:05am: St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 11:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 10:29am: [quote author=GeorgeH link=1395354866/55#55 date=1395444826]Without a good Indie the seats elected Nats as expected. Have you any idea of the money Oaky got for his electorate? A long long list of works, roads, bridges and so on. Peter Andren was another ex–Nats Indie in Calare. A brilliant bloke, became disgusted with the Nats. Unfortunately he died just before the 2007 election. I don’t even know the name of the numpty that the Nats put into Calare and he would have achieved sod all for Calare I bet. Andren, Oakeshotte and Windsor were and are principled men of sound intellect. We need more like them and I am sure the Nats will keep pissing off people of intellect and principle in their ranks. No, all got because Oaky worked for his electorate! Worked much harder than a Nat would have. all paid for by money that was denied to OTHER electorates.  Bribery and extortion is not something we should be extolling - even for a simian like you. not even the most lard-headed labor rusted-on would deny that Oakeshot demanded things for his electorate soley for his vote to keep Gillard in power.  and them comes you, so far below their standard of intellect that it defies belief. No, you have no evidence of that. An agreement was reached and documented. Oaky worked hard for his electorate as any Indie, lacking a party apparatus behind him, must do. That is why there are but a few Indies in all the Parliaments.

Oakeshot even delivered a list of requirements including projects (like the NBN to his electorate) to Gillard in demand for his vote.  that you don't know that is pitiful.

And you get it wrong AGAIN and no excuse this time!

Oaky and Windsor wanted priority for the regions in the rollout of the NBN.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 11:19am:

And you get it wrong AGAIN and no excuse this time! Oaky and Windsor wanted priority for the regions in the rollout of the NBN.

yes of they are.... rural electorates.

a bribe.  extortion.

Armidale in New England got wired up to the NBN early. Not sure if there was any rollout in Lyne.

But the Agreement was for the regions to get a higher priority than they would otherwise have. But ALL electorates would have gotten the NBN.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 11:58am:

Armidale in New England got wired up to the NBN early. Not sure if there was any rollout in Lyne. But the Agreement was for the regions to get a higher priority than they would otherwise have. But ALL electorates would have gotten the NBN.

by 2035

I've got the nbn.  Thanks Tony.

Swagman wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 1:23pm:

I've got the nbn.  Thanks Tony.

A shame that Tony Windsor is no longer in Parliament.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 11:02am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 10:29am: [quote author=GeorgeH link=1395354866/55#55 date=1395444826]Without a good Indie the seats elected Nats as expected. Have you any idea of the money Oaky got for his electorate? A long long list of works, roads, bridges and so on. all paid for by money that was denied to OTHER electorates.  Bribery and extortion is not something we should be extolling - even for a simian like you. Peter Andren was another ex–Nats Indie in Calare. A brilliant bloke, became disgusted with the Nats. Unfortunately he died just before the 2007 election. I don’t even know the name of the numpty that the Nats put into Calare and he would have achieved sod all for Calare I bet. Andren, Oakeshotte and Windsor were and are principled men of sound intellect. We need more like them and I am sure the Nats will keep pissing off people of intellect and principle in their ranks. No, all got because Oaky worked for his electorate! Worked much harder than a Nat would have.

Huh?
Dopeshott was/is a fool.
His electorate are mostly conservative he betrayed them.  hence he is gone.
Windsor was a bitter and twisted old hater and his electorate are mostly conservative.
both would never have sided with the Coalition.
Nor would have Wilkie a PC LW Prog if ever there was one.
Nick Xenophon is about the only one I'd give time to.
Why do you post in politics if you know so little?

Bam wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 1:49pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 1:23pm: I've got the nbn.  Thanks Tony. A shame that Tony Windsor is no longer in Parliament.

Replaced by Barney

Swagman wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 1:23pm:

I've got the nbn.  Thanks Tony.

Lucky you

Grendel wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 2:01pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 11:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 10:29am: St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 9:33am: Without a good Indie the seats elected Nats as expected. Have you any idea of the money Oaky got for his electorate? A long long list of works, roads, bridges and so on. all paid for by money that was denied to OTHER electorates.  Bribery and extortion is not something we should be extolling - even for a simian like you. Peter Andren was another ex–Nats Indie in Calare. A brilliant bloke, became disgusted with the Nats. Unfortunately he died just before the 2007 election. I don’t even know the name of the numpty that the Nats put into Calare and he would have achieved sod all for Calare I bet. Andren, Oakeshotte and Windsor were and are principled men of sound intellect. We need more like them and I am sure the Nats will keep pissing off people of intellect and principle in their ranks. No, all got because Oaky worked for his electorate! Worked much harder than a Nat would have. Huh? Dopeshott was/is a fool. His electorate are mostly conservative he betrayed them.  hence he is gone. Windsor was a bitter and twisted old hater and his electorate are mostly conservative. both would never have sided with the Coalition. Windsor didn't like Abbott and made no secret of this. It's not the same thing as not liking the Liberals. If the Liberals had been led by someone more reasonable, like Turnbull, Hockey or another good Liberal, would Windsor have supported the Liberals instead? I don't know. Oakeshott seemed to prevaricate more - his infamous 17-minute speech was an example of this. Both were former Nationals. It says something about the Nationals that many rural independents are former Nationals. Katter was another, so was the late Andren. Too often the Nationals are just country Liberals with big hats, and don't follow their own beliefs. It's no wonder that people become disillusioned with them and leave. It's not for no reason that notional National party seats see a disproportionate number of independents winning them. Quote: Nor would have Wilkie a PC LW Prog if ever there was one. Yes, Wilkie is left-leaning. He represents a left-leaning electorate. He would not have been elected in a conservative-leaning electorate. [quote]Nick Xenophon is about the only one I'd give time to.

Agreed, Xenophon is a good politician with more integrity than most of them.

Swagman wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 8:34am:

In the light of the hung parliaments and hung senates that seem to be the political reality these days the so-called 'Independent' candidates should have to clarify before the election which side of politics they would support in the event of a hung parliament. Voters should know before they vote. The Windsor & Oakshotte debarcle  (sic) is testimony to that.

What "debacle" do you refer to ?


All I saw democracy in action - with near record pieces of legislation passed - DESPITE the obstructive, destructive antics and stunts pulled by the "government in exile"


... and if you want an "independent" that will blindly back the LibNats - without weighing up what decision is in the best interests of the electorate and country - why not elect a LibNat representative in the FIRST place ?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 8:35am:

Lobo wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:30pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 6:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:55pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:41pm: Independents should back good policy not either major party.....That would ensure we get the best result from a hung Parliament!!! :) :) :) how about we try something novel and expect independents to reflect the wishes of voters?  I see a lot or argument on here over policy but virtually no discussion about voters getting what they want. By voting for an Independent voters have rejected the major parties....I fail to see any validity to your argument as usual!!! ::) ::) ::) why do u say that?  that is a presumption.  It has some basis but it remains a presumption since most independents are known to be aligned ideologically to one or other party's general position. or did you miss the massive voter backlash against oakeshot and windsor after they voted in defiance of their electorates wishes? Isn't this a presumption?? Or do you have a list of all independents and their political alignment??? :) an independent is in fact no such thing.  the vast majority are actually ideologically aligned and their electorate knows it.  why do you think an ex lib stands as an independent in a former liberal stronghold.  do you think that electorate suddenly supports labor???  Windsor and oakshot stood in massively conservative voting electorates and please don't try and deny that.  Independent means 'independent from political parties' not independent from political ideology and position.

All you have is two people that you keep coming back to time and time again.

The fact that neither of these ran in the election you are referring to seems to drift right over your head.

Even Bill Hayden's 'drover's dog' would have had a large swing to it due to a lot of voters only being able to digest 3-word slogans.

IF Oakeshott and Windsor had run at that election you may, just may, have a point.

BUT, they didn't, so we will never know.
Regardless of what you seem to believe, what you are positing regarding the two is nothing but pure conjecture.

Having sorted that out, could you now post a list of ALL past independents and their political alignment.

Also, posting a full list of same one month out from the next Federal election would be a great help to those wishing to cast their vote with some accuracy.

Hate to tell you this Bam, but Windsor also hated the Nats and probably other Libs... he is a bitter and twisted old man.
No way was he ever going to support the Coalition.
Turnbull will probably never lead it after his last fiasco.  He should quit and join Labor his natural fit...

The way the Nats treated Windsor may have something to with that. Two sides to every story doncha know.

Grendel wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 7:36pm:

Hate to tell you this Bam, but Windsor also hated the Nats and probably other Libs... he is a bitter and twisted old man.

If that's the case, the Nationals must really have done something to pss him off. I doubt it's all of his own making. Don't forget too that he took on Nationals at elections and defeated them more than once.


Quote:

No way was he ever going to support the Coalition. Turnbull will probably never lead it after his last fiasco.  He should quit and join Labor his natural fit...

Turnbull is probably a "wet". Don't confuse Liberal party factionalism with being a natural fit for Labor. Turnbull's closer to the Liberal party ideology of Menzies than the dry-infested party that the Liberals have become.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 7:43pm:

The way the Nats treated Windsor may have something to with that. Two sides to every story doncha know.

Oh yes, and I know what happened...  do you?
Like I said a bitter and twisted old man.

Windsor and Oaky were gems in the previous Parliament. Disagree “bitter and twisted” didn’t behave like that—didn’t reveal that conversation with the simian he recorded on his mobile phone for example.

Brock is going to support Labor in SA. Such is going to hospital for an operation—I said he was a fence sitter.

Longy appears to have gone MIA.

Would this be the reason??  ;)



Quote:

South Australia has avoided a constitutional crisis and the potential of a fresh election with independent MP Geoff Brock delivering Labor the numbers to form a minority government. Labor will be returned for a fourth term thanks to Mr Brock's support which ends a week of uncertainty after the March 15 poll returned a hung parliament. Premier Jay Weatherill says the regional MP's decision offers the state security and stability for the next four years.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/sa/a/22121477/labor-to-retain-power-in-south-australia/


:)

And what about this wanker???


Quote:

Opposition Leader Steven Marshall says Labor cannot argue that it has a mandate to govern.

Just when did Labor claim a mandate???

:D :D

Bam wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 9:25pm:

Grendel wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 7:36pm: Hate to tell you this Bam, but Windsor also hated the Nats and probably other Libs... he is a bitter and twisted old man. If that's the case, the Nationals must really have done something to pss him off. I doubt it's all of his own making. Don't forget too that he took on Nationals at elections and defeated them more than once. Quote: No way was he ever going to support the Coalition. Turnbull will probably never lead it after his last fiasco.  He should quit and join Labor his natural fit... Turnbull is probably a "wet". Don't confuse Liberal party factionalism with being a natural fit for Labor. Turnbull's closer to the Liberal party ideology of Menzies than the dry-infested party that the Liberals have become.

Windsor is just a bitter and twisted old man.  Don't for one minute hold him up to Andren or Mack.
Turnbull?  I'm not confused he already tried to join the ALP in the past.  He's a progressive, the ALP apparently are the progressive party these days he should be their leader.  ::)

It is all about seats not mandates.

That said, I would be happy if some form of multi member seats was worked out.

Pragmatically—I am glad there is some sort of protection from the simian and shambles and a half way rational, competent state govt. Barnett in WA is plainly incompetent: despite a 700+% hike in utility fees, despite a huge mining boom Barnett has a huge Budget deficit! In the NT the LCL is splintering, in Qld Newman has psychological problems, little man syndrome, Barry O’Farrell is not too bad but crap like letting hunters hunt in National Parks to get the Shooters onside is crap, in Victoria the Libs are hopeless, splitting, worrying about abortion rather than jobs and in Tas the new govt is way unready for govt.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2014 at 8:01pm:

Windsor and Oaky were gems in the previous Parliament. Disagree “bitter and twisted” didn’t behave like that—didn’t reveal that conversation with the simian he recorded on his mobile phone for example. Brock is going to support Labor in SA. Such is going to hospital for an operation—I said he was a fence sitter.

Gems?  Of what?  certainly not wisdom.  They betrayed their conservative electorates.

Why would you expect Brock to do any different, he used to work at port pirie.  I doubt he'd ever swing Liberal.

I love to see the conga line so bitter, like sugar in my tea. ;D

skippy. wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2014 at 8:52pm:

I love to see the conga line so bitter, like sugar in my tea. ;D

Me too!

I emailed both Oaky and Windsor in the run up to the last election saying they had been gems of the Parliament and men of integrity and intelligence. Hopefully made up in a tiny way for the hate they unjustly got.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2014 at 8:31pm:

It is all about seats not mandates. That said, I would be happy if some form of multi member seats was worked out. Pragmatically—I am glad there is some sort of protection from the simian and shambles and a half way rational, competent state govt. Barnett in WA is plainly incompetent: despite a 700+% hike in utility fees, despite a huge mining boom Barnett has a huge Budget deficit! In the NT the LCL is splintering, in Qld Newman has psychological problems, little man syndrome, Barry O’Farrell is not too bad but crap like letting hunters hunt in National Parks to get the Shooters onside is crap, in Victoria the Libs are hopeless, splitting, worrying about abortion rather than jobs and in Tas the new govt is way unready for govt.

You see this is what I mean re your troubles with the truth...  where is it?

Where is what?

Grendel wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2014 at 8:34pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 23rd, 2014 at 8:01pm: Windsor and Oaky were gems in the previous Parliament. Disagree “bitter and twisted” didn’t behave like that—didn’t reveal that conversation with the simian he recorded on his mobile phone for example. Brock is going to support Labor in SA. Such is going to hospital for an operation—I said he was a fence sitter. Gems?  Of what?  certainly not wisdom.  They betrayed their conservative electorates. Why would you expect Brock to do any different, he used to work at port pirie.  I doubt he'd ever swing Liberal.

Gems of integrity, decency and honor. Parliament would not have lasted the full three years without them and the nation owes them heaps. For some, party affiliation may prevent them from seeing that now but hopefully that will change with time.

Their electorates elected them, not some Nat drone or numpty.

Brock was in the Liberal Party for a short time. Brock was always going to support Labor because Labor had one more seat than the Libs. Take away one MP to be Speaker and the Indies both supporting the Libs would have seen 23 seats on each side of the chamber—unworkable. With Brock it is tight, 23 to 22 but doable and I doubt Such will ever vote against the govt so it is 24:22.

Hah! Barnaby bloody Joyce agrees with me WA govt is incompetent, too incompetent to admister the Drought Relief Package:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/22122820/barnaby-blazes-into-aid-battle/

Grendel wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2014 at 8:30pm:

Bam wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 9:25pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 7:36pm: Hate to tell you this Bam, but Windsor also hated the Nats and probably other Libs... he is a bitter and twisted old man. If that's the case, the Nationals must really have done something to pss him off. I doubt it's all of his own making. Don't forget too that he took on Nationals at elections and defeated them more than once. Quote: No way was he ever going to support the Coalition. Turnbull will probably never lead it after his last fiasco.  He should quit and join Labor his natural fit... Turnbull is probably a "wet". Don't confuse Liberal party factionalism with being a natural fit for Labor. Turnbull's closer to the Liberal party ideology of Menzies than the dry-infested party that the Liberals have become. Windsor is just a bitter and twisted old man.  Don't for one minute hold him up to Andren or Mack.

The Nationals are a lingering irrelevancy. They hold no seats outside NSW and Victoria. They only win House seats because the Liberals don't run against them. They only win Senate seats because the Liberals prop them up with a joint ticket; they are unlikely to win any Senate seats in their own right with 4% of the vote.


Quote:

Turnbull?  I'm not confused he already tried to join the ALP in the past.  He's a progressive, the ALP apparently are the progressive party these days he should be their leader.  ::)

Liberal voters should be pleased that Turnbull is among their ranks. The Liberals would have less broad appeal if Turnbull cannot find a place among them. This is probably why many practically begged Turnbull not to quit when he considered leaving politics a couple of years ago.

Bam wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 9:48am:

Grendel wrote on Mar 23rd, 2014 at 8:30pm: Bam wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 9:25pm: Grendel wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 7:36pm: Hate to tell you this Bam, but Windsor also hated the Nats and probably other Libs... he is a bitter and twisted old man. If that's the case, the Nationals must really have done something to pss him off. I doubt it's all of his own making. Don't forget too that he took on Nationals at elections and defeated them more than once. Quote: No way was he ever going to support the Coalition. Turnbull will probably never lead it after his last fiasco.  He should quit and join Labor his natural fit... Turnbull is probably a "wet". Don't confuse Liberal party factionalism with being a natural fit for Labor. Turnbull's closer to the Liberal party ideology of Menzies than the dry-infested party that the Liberals have become. Windsor is just a bitter and twisted old man.  Don't for one minute hold him up to Andren or Mack. The Nationals are a lingering irrelevancy. They hold no seats outside NSW and Victoria. They only win House seats because the Liberals don't run against them. They only win Senate seats because the Liberals prop them up with a joint ticket; they are unlikely to win any Senate seats in their own right with 4% of the vote. So?  How does that prove Windsor isn't a bitter and twisted old man?  That's right...  it doesn't.  What do you know of Nationals policy?  Better than the Libs I bet ya...  was last time I looked. [quote]Turnbull?  I'm not confused he already tried to join the ALP in the past.  He's a progressive, the ALP apparently are the progressive party these days he should be their leader.  ::)

Liberal voters should be pleased that Turnbull is among their ranks. Why he's hardly a Conservative and the Libs are supposed to be Conservative that's why labor just became all progressives. He's already proven he takes no advice from others and has poor political judgement. The Liberals would have less broad appeal if Turnbull cannot find a place among them. Doubt it...  maybe in his seat.  This is probably why many practically begged Turnbull not to quit when he considered leaving politics a couple of years ago.  Most didn't beg him BTW.  many would have been happy with him gone.
[/quote]

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 10:29am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 9:33am: Without a good Indie the seats elected Nats as expected. Have you any idea of the money Oaky got for his electorate? A long long list of works, roads, bridges and so on. Peter Andren was another ex–Nats Indie in Calare. A brilliant bloke, became disgusted with the Nats. Unfortunately he died just before the 2007 election. I don’t even know the name of the numpty that the Nats put into Calare and he would have achieved sod all for Calare I bet. Andren, Oakeshotte and Windsor were and are principled men of sound intellect. We need more like them and I am sure the Nats will keep pissing off people of intellect and principle in their ranks. all paid for by money that was denied to OTHER electorates.  Bribery and extortion is not something we should be extolling - even for a simian like you.

Didnt someone offer $100m for the Hobart Hospital in their negoiations is Wilkie?

Bam wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 9:48am:

The Nationals are a lingering irrelevancy. They hold no seats outside NSW and Victoria. They only win House seats because the Liberals don't run against them. They only win Senate seats because the Liberals prop them up with a joint ticket; they are unlikely to win any Senate seats in their own right with 4% of the vote

Do you feel the same way about the Greens?   :-?