freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 9:41pm:


An interesting observation which may be true. However, (and its a biggie) does it discriminate AGAINST them or does it simply remove and existing favouritism. The voting system must never ever be used to give advantage to any one party. If optional preferential voting removes an advantage to minor parties then it should be implemented.

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:20am:


Have a look. Its not a claim its a question. I remember him trying to bring in some legislation to stop new parties starting up. I dont know if he managed it or not but I expect he might have since I dont see any new parties.

Besides @ what time did Howard care about the constitution?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:34am:


I dont and nor does anyone else. And it doesnt matter if anyone cares about the constitution or not. Teh High Court is there to ensure that it is upheld.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 9:41pm:


Why do you think that my last comment is a joke?
when the elections are held, there may be no candidate that a citizen wants to vote for, because most, if not all politicians are in politics for their own benefit and the politicians have sufficient resources and staff to answer citizens letters or e-mails.

In the book “Unemployment forever or a Support Income System and Work For All”, by Allan McDonald, on page 142 (h) it is stated: Any means tested welfare system requires extensive and complex state control and regulation. Australia is slowly but surely moving towards the ultimate outcome of a means tested social welfare system-state control over finances, the savings, and the labours of the poorest in the community.

Have the politicians of Australia the know-how and will to change the tax and social system to be more egalitarian, or was the late Professor A.J.Marshall right when he wrote, as quoted in the book “Equality and Authority” by S Encel on page212: “Most Australian politicians, he wrote, aspire to parliamentary seats ‘to better their salary, to inflate their egos and feather their nests’.

John Pilger in his book “The new rulers of the world” wrote on page 175: Like Britain and the US, Australia is a single ideology state with two competing factions, discernible largely by the personalities of their politicians. The difference between Howard’s conservative coalition and the opposition Labor Party is that Howards policies are not veiled. The Labor governments of the 1980s and early 1990s oversaw the greatest distribution of wealth in the country’s history: from bottom to top. They were Thatcherite and Reganite in all but name. Indeed, Tony Blair described then Prime Minister Paul Keating as his
‘inspiration’.

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:56am:


Maybe. Maybe someone else does. Hence my question. Thats the way it is though isnt it. Short memories and ppl make the same mistakes over and over. You would think we learned from the howard era. Nooo we let gillard do the same things. And then we will allow abbott to do even worse things.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 12:38pm:


NOBODY is proposing a limit on the number of political parties nor has anyone ever done so. So what exactly is your point? The closest we got was a proposed ban on the Communist Party under Menzies which was rejected.

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 12:56pm:


If you are going to tell me my memory is @ fault then you need to back it up somehow. Just because you dont remember it doesnt mean it didnt happen. I remember him proposing something to stop new parties starting up. You dont.

SOB