If the polls are right then the coalition  will be re-elected.  But will it be able to govern?  Based on past history it will not. I base that observation on the recent history of the Liberal Party.

Few made much of the party room election which saw Tony Abbott elected as leader.  We did not pay much heed to the fact that he was elected on the narrowest of margins – his own vote saw him secure the leadership.  We did not pay much notice because our political tradition held that once the question of leadership has been settled the party unites behind the new leader and get on with business.

For a time that seemed to be the case.  Tony Abbot certainly seemed to know how to run an effective election campaign in 2010 the Liberals came close to being able to form government. The reason they didn’t tends to be dismissed on the grounds that the Independents were traitors to their conservative electorates – these were notionally Liberal seats and the expectation was that they would simply fall into line and ensure a Liberal Government.

Why did the independent not fall into line?  Were they closet Labor supporters?  The accounts given by the Independents show that it was Tony Abbott’s poor negotiating skills that cost the Liberals government.  Again at the time we may not have picked up on that but recent experience suggests that it may well have been an accurate representation of events.

Despite its many difficulties the Gillard Government was surprisingly effective steering an ambitious legislative programme through both the reps and the senate.  Abbott’s guerrilla warfare ultimately succeeded not only forcing a return of Kevin 07 but ultimately in sweeping the Coalition to power in 2013.

From the outset Abbott’s government remained confrontational.  Whilst it had served it well in opposition it was clear that there was no reset button on the rhetoric.  The first months were marred by promises broken and a pre-occupation on what may be described as negative policies – no carbon tax, stopping the boats became the mantra but there was no vision of what the government was planning.  A disastrous first budget had Abbott’s fingerprints all over it and was to be the harbinger of his doom.

Spooked by the polls the Party Room finally had enough and replaced Abbott with Turnbull.  Judging by the polls it was a smart decision but that sizeable rump of Abbott’s supporters remained unconvinced.  Turnbull has been ineffective, the Liberal right has behaves like the American Tea Party – absolutely convinced that they are right they will not brook any compromise.

So we are now facing an election – assuming that the polls are right, we will see a Turnbull government elected.  The problem is that we will have elected a house divided. This is already becoming evident – Tony Abbott has come out strongly to claim that the Turnbull government deserves to be re elected  because of Abbott’s legacy.  He has a point, Turnbull has not been able to divest himself of Abbott’s legacy, but it is precisely that legacy which crippled his government. Traditionally our political system acknowledges that there are many diverse opinions and that the role of government is to develop policies that ensure that we can all agree that the legislative programme has been developed so that it is in the interest of all Australians.  Yet we will be electing a government in which close to half of its members does not see it like that.

A Turnbull government will be a lame duck government because Turnbull does not have the authority within his party to govern.  A significant rump will continue to regard him as an imposter and will do everything they can to undermine him and re-instate Abbott.

And what of the Senate?  Will the changes result in a Senate that is less fractious?  Somehow I doubt it – if anything the new voting system will encourage people like me to vote for anyone who is not affiliated with any of the major parties, who does not have the smell of a professional politician.

As the old curse aptly puts it we are living in interesting times…


http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18122

its sad isnt it......we seem to have govts that spend more time in fighting than they do running the country..

we do not seem to create LEADERS anymore...

people that if nothing else you respected them...

now the leaders we have KNOW they are jokes..

bad jokes not funny jokes.....

they are there because they are jackals...

they stole what they have...yes thats correct both our leaders...took .....from someone who was ELECTED ..

and to the voters credit... it appalled them..

both leaders are JUDAS'.. they are tainted...

its really isnt about the party anymore..

even thats getting lost in the greed for POWER.

I dont know about lefties...

but I am not a happy Liberal....

cods wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:54am:

its sad isnt it......we seem to have govts that spend more time in fighting than they do running the country.. we do not seem to create LEADERS anymore... people that if nothing else you respected them... now the leaders we have KNOW they are jokes.. bad jokes not funny jokes..... they are there because they are jackals... they stole what they have...yes thats correct both our leaders...took .....from someone who was ELECTED .. and to the voters credit... it appalled them.. both leaders are JUDAS'.. they are tainted... its really isnt about the party anymore.. even thats getting lost in the greed for POWER. I dont know about lefties... but I am not a happy Liberal....

John Howard was the last great PM this country had. His ability to negotiate was second-to-none, as we saw with his ability to pass legislation for the greatest change to our taxation system - the Goods and Services Tax (GST). He also negotiated a tougher stance with Indonesia, as opposed to the submissive style of previous Labor Prime Minister's, all without any detrimental effects on the relationship with our northern neighbour. He is without doubt one of the greatest Prime Minister's this country ever had and we're a better country for it. Rudd and Gillard were unmitigated disasters, while Abbott never achieved his full potential thanks to being handed a brutally damaged budget drowning in debt and a vindictive and openly hostile Senate that just hated him and did not serve in the best interests of this country. Both of these obstacles severely hampered his ability to carry out the agenda on which he was elected and ultimately lead to his downfall at the hands of Turnbull.

The Howard government have had their time.  Now they are where they belong.  In the rubbish bin of history.  With their Workchoices.   ( no choices )     :( 

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:26am:

John Howard was the last great PM this country had. His ability to negotiate was second-to-none, as we saw with his ability to pass legislation for the greatest change to our taxation system - the Goods and Services Tax (GST). He also negotiated a tougher stance with Indonesia, as opposed to the submissive style of previous Labor Prime Minister's, all without any detrimental effects on the relationship with our northern neighbour. He is without doubt one of the greatest Prime Minister's this country ever had and we're a better country for it. Rudd and Gillard were unmitigated disasters, while Abbott never achieved his full potential thanks to being handed a brutally damaged budget drowning in debt and a vindictive and openly hostile Senate that just hated him and did not serve in the best interests of this country. Both of these obstacles severely hampered his ability to carry out the agenda on which he was elected and ultimately lead to his downfall at the hands of Turnbull.

This thread is about the upcoming election nothing to do with John Howard.

If you want to praise Howard start your own thread.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:26am:

John Howard was the last great PM this country had

that proves you are an id iot

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:34am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:26am: John Howard was the last great PM this country had that proves you are an id iot

Nothing of substance to refute my opinion again, eh? Your loss.

Which ever side of our two-party (one party in disguise) government 'wins' - we the people will be the losers one way or the other, and always will be until a new party with a genuine interest in working for the electors holds power.

Again I will not be voting for either of them, nor for their sellout Greens running dog.

Labor voter wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:33am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:26am: John Howard was the last great PM this country had. His ability to negotiate was second-to-none, as we saw with his ability to pass legislation for the greatest change to our taxation system - the Goods and Services Tax (GST). He also negotiated a tougher stance with Indonesia, as opposed to the submissive style of previous Labor Prime Minister's, all without any detrimental effects on the relationship with our northern neighbour. He is without doubt one of the greatest Prime Minister's this country ever had and we're a better country for it. Rudd and Gillard were unmitigated disasters, while Abbott never achieved his full potential thanks to being handed a brutally damaged budget drowning in debt and a vindictive and openly hostile Senate that just hated him and did not serve in the best interests of this country. Both of these obstacles severely hampered his ability to carry out the agenda on which he was elected and ultimately lead to his downfall at the hands of Turnbull. This thread is about the upcoming election nothing to do with John Howard. If you want to praise Howard start your own thread.

Turnbull has reportedly taken advice from Howard in regard to the upcoming election and he still wields considerable influence with the Liberals, so I'd say he's very relevant to this thread.

Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:35am:

Which ever side of our two-party (one party in disguise) government 'wins' - we the people will be the losers one way or the other, and always will be until a new party with a genuine interest in working for the electors holds power. Again I will not be voting for either of them, nor for their sellout Greens running dog.

So you'll vote for an inconsequential independent who will serve little or no purpose in a revamped Senate following changes to electoral laws recently passed to negate the power of independents and micro-parties? Great choice - if you want your vote to not count.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:35am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:34am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:26am: John Howard was the last great PM this country had that proves you are an id iot Nothing of substance to refute my opinion again, eh? Your loss.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5a/7d/76/5a7d76c039c3b1ecc1d251ef16c418a0.jpg

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:40am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:35am: John Smith wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:34am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:26am: John Howard was the last great PM this country had that proves you are an id iot Nothing of substance to refute my opinion again, eh? Your loss. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5a/7d/76/5a7d76c039c3b1ecc1d251ef16c418a0.jpg

Ok, off you go then back to your village. Bye bye.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:41am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:40am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:35am: John Smith wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:34am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:26am: John Howard was the last great PM this country had that proves you are an id iot Nothing of substance to refute my opinion again, eh? Your loss. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5a/7d/76/5a7d76c039c3b1ecc1d251ef16c418a0.jpg Ok, off you go then back to your village. Bye bye.

thanks for proving my point ... only an idiot doesn't know what 'you' means

Turnbull's popularity is past its peak and has dropped sharply since the start of the year. It's not doing so for no reason.

If current opinion polling is replicated at the election, the Turnbull government will be returned with a very small majority of about 3 seats. Do we really want a government with such a small majority that is plagued by infighting until the following election?

If the Turnbull government is returned, it may well turn out to be a government that won one election too many. Such governments end up getting obliterated at the following election. Iemma's win in NSW in 2008 was one example. If this troubled government was to win with a small majority and then limp on for another three years, the Liberals could receive one of their heaviest ever election defeats at the next election and be likely to spend at least three terms in Opposition, perhaps more.

This election could well be a good one for the Coalition to lose.

Bam wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 11:32am:

Turnbull's popularity is past its peak and has dropped sharply since the start of the year. It's not doing so for no reason. If current opinion polling is replicated at the election, the Turnbull government will be returned with a very small majority of about 3 seats. Do we really want a government with such a small majority that is plagued by infighting until the following election? If the Turnbull government is returned, it may well turn out to be a government that won one election too many. Such governments end up getting obliterated at the following election. Iemma's win in NSW in 2008 was one example. If this troubled government was to win with a small majority and then limp on for another three years, the Liberals could receive one of their heaviest ever election defeats at the next election and be likely to spend at least three terms in Opposition, perhaps more. This election could well be a good one for the Coalition to lose.

If Turnbull only has a majority of one seat but has a majority in the Senate, it won't matter in the House of Representatives. He'll be able to govern without the spineless antics of the micro parties and independents to stop him.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 11:39am:

but has a majority in the Senate,

won't happen

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 11:40am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 11:39am: but has a majority in the Senate, won't happen

There's a greater chance of it happening now the new Senate laws have been passed.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 11:47am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 11:40am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 11:39am: but has a majority in the Senate, won't happen There's a greater chance of it happening now the new Senate laws have been passed.

it still won't happen

senate majorities are very rare and occur as a result of sustained dominance of one party. we dont have that.  we will end up with a few less crossbenchers and the spoils split among the majors.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 11:39am:

Bam wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 11:32am: Turnbull's popularity is past its peak and has dropped sharply since the start of the year. It's not doing so for no reason. If current opinion polling is replicated at the election, the Turnbull government will be returned with a very small majority of about 3 seats. Do we really want a government with such a small majority that is plagued by infighting until the following election? If the Turnbull government is returned, it may well turn out to be a government that won one election too many. Such governments end up getting obliterated at the following election. Iemma's win in NSW in 2008 was one example. If this troubled government was to win with a small majority and then limp on for another three years, the Liberals could receive one of their heaviest ever election defeats at the next election and be likely to spend at least three terms in Opposition, perhaps more. This election could well be a good one for the Coalition to lose. If Turnbull only has a majority of one seat but has a majority in the Senate, it won't matter in the House of Representatives. He'll be able to govern without the spineless antics of the micro parties and independents to stop him.

In your dreams. If the Coalition have a majority of one seat in the HoR (76 seats) it is impossible for them to have a Senate majority. It would require the Coalition winning a primary vote in the Senate that's about 10% higher than the primary vote in the lower House.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 12:01pm:

senate majorities are very rare and occur as a result of sustained dominance of one party. we dont have that.  we will end up with a few less crossbenchers and the spoils split among the majors.

Correct. These also occur after convincing election wins (eg: 1977, 2004), not elections won with wafer-thin majorities.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:38am:

Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:35am: Which ever side of our two-party (one party in disguise) government 'wins' - we the people will be the losers one way or the other, and always will be until a new party with a genuine interest in working for the electors holds power. Again I will not be voting for either of them, nor for their sellout Greens running dog. So you'll vote for an inconsequential independent who will serve little or no purpose in a revamped Senate following changes to electoral laws recently passed to negate the power of independents and micro-parties? Great choice - if you want your vote to not count.

Nothing inconsequential about an elected senator....... if one such holds the balance of power and refuses bad legislation... that proves the point of electing independents and minor parties....

You need to break clear of the delusion that rejecting poor governance is somehow a sin on the part of Independents etc....

Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 4:06pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:38am: Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:35am: Which ever side of our two-party (one party in disguise) government 'wins' - we the people will be the losers one way or the other, and always will be until a new party with a genuine interest in working for the electors holds power. Again I will not be voting for either of them, nor for their sellout Greens running dog. So you'll vote for an inconsequential independent who will serve little or no purpose in a revamped Senate following changes to electoral laws recently passed to negate the power of independents and micro-parties? Great choice - if you want your vote to not count. Nothing inconsequential about an elected senator....... if one such holds the balance of power and refuses bad legislation... that proves the point of electing independents and minor parties.... You need to break clear of the delusion that rejecting poor governance is somehow a sin on the part of Independents etc....

Yet the ABCC isn't bad legislation, it's just bad for Unions because it'll hold them accountable and that makes it bad for Labor because the Unions are unhappy. Blocking that legislation isn't rejecting poor governance, it's simply desperation from the Union-affiliated ALP and spite from the Coalition-hating Senators such as Lambie, Lazarus and Muir, who was elected on less than one half of one percent of the vote due to preferences. You can't get more inconsequential than that!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 4:10pm:

Yet the ABCC isn't bad legislation

why? cause the liberal party said so? they've already proven they haven't got a clue ... that's why you like them

Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 4:06pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:38am: Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:35am: Which ever side of our two-party (one party in disguise) government 'wins' - we the people will be the losers one way or the other, and always will be until a new party with a genuine interest in working for the electors holds power. Again I will not be voting for either of them, nor for their sellout Greens running dog. So you'll vote for an inconsequential independent who will serve little or no purpose in a revamped Senate following changes to electoral laws recently passed to negate the power of independents and micro-parties? Great choice - if you want your vote to not count. Nothing inconsequential about an elected senator....... if one such holds the balance of power and refuses bad legislation... that proves the point of electing independents and minor parties.... You need to break clear of the delusion that rejecting poor governance is somehow a sin on the part of Independents etc....

you might want to try and define 'bad legislation'.  If you mean it opposes their political persuasion  then that doesnt make it bad at all.

I said if before, but your concept of democracy is quite flawed. democracy is supposed to allow the MAJORITY to rule while you seem to think it is okay for one senator, representing nobody in particular to accept or reject legislation as he feels like on the day.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:43pm:

. democracy is supposed to allow the MAJORITY to rule while you seem to think it is okay for one senator, representing nobody in particular to accept or reject legislation as he feels like on the day.

you should have considered that before objecting the the ETS

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 11:39am:

Bam wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 11:32am: Turnbull's popularity is past its peak and has dropped sharply since the start of the year. It's not doing so for no reason. If current opinion polling is replicated at the election, the Turnbull government will be returned with a very small majority of about 3 seats. Do we really want a government with such a small majority that is plagued by infighting until the following election? If the Turnbull government is returned, it may well turn out to be a government that won one election too many. Such governments end up getting obliterated at the following election. Iemma's win in NSW in 2008 was one example. If this troubled government was to win with a small majority and then limp on for another three years, the Liberals could receive one of their heaviest ever election defeats at the next election and be likely to spend at least three terms in Opposition, perhaps more. This election could well be a good one for the Coalition to lose. If Turnbull only has a majority of one seat but has a majority in the Senate, it won't matter in the House of Representatives. He'll be able to govern without the spineless antics of the micro parties and independents to stop him.

The chances of Turnbull having a one seat majority in the HoR and control of the Senate is non-existent.

Aussie wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:46pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 11:39am: Bam wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 11:32am: Turnbull's popularity is past its peak and has dropped sharply since the start of the year. It's not doing so for no reason. If current opinion polling is replicated at the election, the Turnbull government will be returned with a very small majority of about 3 seats. Do we really want a government with such a small majority that is plagued by infighting until the following election? If the Turnbull government is returned, it may well turn out to be a government that won one election too many. Such governments end up getting obliterated at the following election. Iemma's win in NSW in 2008 was one example. If this troubled government was to win with a small majority and then limp on for another three years, the Liberals could receive one of their heaviest ever election defeats at the next election and be likely to spend at least three terms in Opposition, perhaps more. This election could well be a good one for the Coalition to lose. If Turnbull only has a majority of one seat but has a majority in the Senate, it won't matter in the House of Representatives. He'll be able to govern without the spineless antics of the micro parties and independents to stop him. The chances of Turnbull having a one seat majority in the HoR and control of the Senate is non-existent.

the point he was making (poorly) is that if you have control of the senate then that is all that matters. if your majority is 1 or 39, the results are still the same.

Quote:

the point he was making (poorly) is that if you have control of the senate then that is all that matters. if your majority is 1 or 39, the results are still the same.

http://media.creativebloq.futurecdn.net/sites/creativebloq.com/files/images/2015/11/25/Are-You-Kidding-Me-Gif.gif

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:43pm:

Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 4:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:38am: Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:35am: Which ever side of our two-party (one party in disguise) government 'wins' - we the people will be the losers one way or the other, and always will be until a new party with a genuine interest in working for the electors holds power. Again I will not be voting for either of them, nor for their sellout Greens running dog. So you'll vote for an inconsequential independent who will serve little or no purpose in a revamped Senate following changes to electoral laws recently passed to negate the power of independents and micro-parties? Great choice - if you want your vote to not count. Nothing inconsequential about an elected senator....... if one such holds the balance of power and refuses bad legislation... that proves the point of electing independents and minor parties.... You need to break clear of the delusion that rejecting poor governance is somehow a sin on the part of Independents etc.... you might want to try and define 'bad legislation'.  If you mean it opposes their political persuasion  then that doesnt make it bad at all. I said if before, but your concept of democracy is quite flawed. democracy is supposed to allow the MAJORITY to rule while you seem to think it is okay for one senator, representing nobody in particular to accept or reject legislation as he feels like on the day.

Majority to rule does not mean majority to dictate.. thanks for coming.  It is YOUR concept of democracy that is flawed.  No mandate, even if accepted to be such, translates to tyranny and dictatorship of the elected majority government.....

To prevent such a thing is precisely why we have democracy......

If it opposes their political persuasion..... they are there at the will of the people according to the rules.... the ONLY question relevant about the current changes is whether or not it accords with the will of the people and renders just and proper democracy through the ballot box.  Weighting the voting method so as to ensure you control both houses is an act of some petty Third World dictator.... and is emphatically anti-democratic....

'Whenever we leave principles and clear positive laws we are soon lost in the wild regions of imagination and possibility where arbitrary power sits upon her brazen throne and governs with an iron scepter' .

"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak, and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all His laws."

- John Adams, 2nd President of the United States.

Now, Grasshoppers... let us expand this argument a further step.. one which I feel has absolute relevance here....

Why should those who stand to benefit most from setting the voting rules be the very ones to make those rules, and to hold the power to alter them?  Should not the rules be set by a totally independent, non-partisan body outside of influence by those most set to benefit?

**hear that bell tolling**  .. it is loud and clear.....

Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 6:34pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 5:43pm: Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 4:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:38am: Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:35am: Which ever side of our two-party (one party in disguise) government 'wins' - we the people will be the losers one way or the other, and always will be until a new party with a genuine interest in working for the electors holds power. Again I will not be voting for either of them, nor for their sellout Greens running dog. So you'll vote for an inconsequential independent who will serve little or no purpose in a revamped Senate following changes to electoral laws recently passed to negate the power of independents and micro-parties? Great choice - if you want your vote to not count. Nothing inconsequential about an elected senator....... if one such holds the balance of power and refuses bad legislation... that proves the point of electing independents and minor parties.... You need to break clear of the delusion that rejecting poor governance is somehow a sin on the part of Independents etc.... you might want to try and define 'bad legislation'.  If you mean it opposes their political persuasion  then that doesnt make it bad at all. I said if before, but your concept of democracy is quite flawed. democracy is supposed to allow the MAJORITY to rule while you seem to think it is okay for one senator, representing nobody in particular to accept or reject legislation as he feels like on the day. Majority to rule does not mean majority to dictate.. thanks for coming.  It is YOUR concept of democracy that is flawed.  No mandate, even if accepted to be such, translates to tyranny and dictatorship of the elected majority government..... To prevent such a thing is precisely why we have democracy...... If it opposes their political persuasion..... they are there at the will of the people according to the rules.... the ONLY question relevant about the current changes is whether or not it accords with the will of the people and renders just and proper democracy through the ballot box.  Weighting the voting method so as to ensure you control both houses is an act of some petty Third World dictator.... and is emphatically anti-democratic.... 'Whenever we leave principles and clear positive laws we are soon lost in the wild regions of imagination and possibility where arbitrary power sits upon her brazen throne and governs with an iron scepter' . "Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak, and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all His laws." - John Adams, 2nd President of the United States.

then you will need to define tyranny and dictatorship because it simply sounds like you think any rule, decision or ideology you dont like is dictatorship.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 7:13pm:

Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 6:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 5:43pm: Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 4:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:38am: Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 9:35am: Which ever side of our two-party (one party in disguise) government 'wins' - we the people will be the losers one way or the other, and always will be until a new party with a genuine interest in working for the electors holds power. Again I will not be voting for either of them, nor for their sellout Greens running dog. So you'll vote for an inconsequential independent who will serve little or no purpose in a revamped Senate following changes to electoral laws recently passed to negate the power of independents and micro-parties? Great choice - if you want your vote to not count. Nothing inconsequential about an elected senator....... if one such holds the balance of power and refuses bad legislation... that proves the point of electing independents and minor parties.... You need to break clear of the delusion that rejecting poor governance is somehow a sin on the part of Independents etc.... you might want to try and define 'bad legislation'.  If you mean it opposes their political persuasion  then that doesnt make it bad at all. I said if before, but your concept of democracy is quite flawed. democracy is supposed to allow the MAJORITY to rule while you seem to think it is okay for one senator, representing nobody in particular to accept or reject legislation as he feels like on the day. Majority to rule does not mean majority to dictate.. thanks for coming.  It is YOUR concept of democracy that is flawed.  No mandate, even if accepted to be such, translates to tyranny and dictatorship of the elected majority government..... To prevent such a thing is precisely why we have democracy...... If it opposes their political persuasion..... they are there at the will of the people according to the rules.... the ONLY question relevant about the current changes is whether or not it accords with the will of the people and renders just and proper democracy through the ballot box.  Weighting the voting method so as to ensure you control both houses is an act of some petty Third World dictator.... and is emphatically anti-democratic.... 'Whenever we leave principles and clear positive laws we are soon lost in the wild regions of imagination and possibility where arbitrary power sits upon her brazen throne and governs with an iron scepter' . "Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak, and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all His laws." - John Adams, 2nd President of the United States. then you will need to define tyranny and dictatorship because it simply sounds like you think any rule, decision or ideology you dont like is dictatorship.

I will refer your issue to El Presidente and the Board of Consigliores... they will advise you on what is tyranny, despotism, and dictatorship.

Meanwhile what is your view on the body set to benefit being the one that makes the rules... is this not a perfect example of each of the above?  Certainly it flies in the face of democracy.

Be quick.. Downton Abbey will be on shortly.... the tyranny of reality TV will be broken.... even though they (MKR) seem now to be able to afford theme music from Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park.... must be something to do with the fossils on the show and the dead animals......

"By combining this sheep DNA with a long dead carcasse of a walrus... we can derive.. wait for it.... a shalrus steak!"

"Did he say they've got lamb chops?"

"No.. he said ram cropped.. I think that's.... you know."

"Oh,, balls...."

"No.. the.. longer version!"

Longie - both you and Armchair need to get away from the delusion that holding a majority in the lower House automatically means that you are entitled to have everything you work out passed without comment or question...

Indeed your concept of democracy is severely flawed.... we do not operate on Fuhrerbefehlen here..... now will we..... ever...