Yenn Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 You all know no new partry is going to change the system. The beaurocrats wouldn't allow it to happen, the pollies wouldn't allow it to happen and our compulsory voting means that it can't happen. Our system means that 49.99% of the voting population is below average IQ and we make them vote. How sad is that.
Neil_S Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 You all know no new partry is going to change the system. The beaurocrats wouldn't allow it to happen, the pollies wouldn't allow it to happen and our compulsory voting means that it can't happen. Our system means that 49.99% of the voting population is below average IQ and we make them vote. How sad is that. Hi Yenn, Sadly I fear you are right. I remember many years ago in the UK, where voting is not compulsory, I was very tempted to get up early and go to vote for a guy who had changed his name by deed poll to "None of the above", purely because it appealed to my sense of humour. And then there was the sadly missed Screaming Lord Sutch's Monster Raving Looney Party, which wanted to debate such important issues as "why is there only one Monopolies and Mergers Commission?" It is a sad day when you can't inject a bit of humour into politics..... Cheers, Neil
rhysmcc Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Lend his name but not stand for election? So who will be in charge of this party?
bexrbetter Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 You all know no new partry is going to change the system. The beaurocrats wouldn't allow it to happen, the pollies wouldn't allow it to happen and our compulsory voting means that it can't happen. And yet a lot of people know this and yet continue to have massive apathy. .... Then get on the internet and beetch about them while claiming to be just for voting the other Party. Sad indeed.
Marty_d Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 US readers might misinterpret that to mean you are a bottom fan! Are there people who aren't?? 1
winsor68 Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Amazed at the number of us claiming we would vote for him without knowing his policies...helps explain a few things... 1 1 2
winsor68 Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 But really, who's going to vote for him? I need to know more but based upon his population stance I would. The Sustainable Population Party has been around for a few years now and I have supported them as much as possible since then...it doesn't have his name on it but was founded due to his research on population...
biggles Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 I like Dick . Err Smith that is. Notice the thread title dazz ? Score ..... Bob 1. , dazza 0
Birdseye Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Lend his name but not stand for election? So who will be in charge of this party? He'll let 'the voices' decide:drool:
fly_tornado Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 I need to know more but based upon his population stance I would. The Sustainable Population Party has been around for a few years now and I have supported them as much as possible since then...it doesn't have his name on it but was founded due to his research on population... Dick will make it like survivor, those useful to him can stay and those that aren't starve. And don't complain about him landing his helo at night 1
Cosmick Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Friend of mine was elected during the Howard era and had a enthusiastic passion to be involved in change armed with optimistic visions. On arrival to Canberra basically told to sit down and shut up and tow the Party line. Why do they even go to Parliament if their vote is foretold. They could stay in their electorate and deal with local maters, save the expense of housing and travel and wages for the whole entorage, in fact save dollars and sack the entorage. Just note "one vote" to get their proposal through. Is it a fact that Minority parties and Independents are our only chance for a conscience vote ? 4
turboplanner Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Lend his name but not stand for election? So who will be in charge of this party? He's done this before; Woolworths spends squillions each year promoting his name. Great leverage. 1
Jabiru Phil Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Met him once. Liked the guy, no bull dust, I asked a few questions regarding aircraft as you would, his response was mainly that it was the have and have nots, plus safety Guess I came away with the impression that the fat cats and CASA versus the underdog was his objective. Every party has a constitution ( shame that the voters don't read same) I will await his party's comments. Great bloke, hope it doesn't break his heart. Phil 1
Birdseye Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 He would have liked you Phil. You agreed with him.
Marty_d Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 More variety can only be more representative. Running the country should ideally be garnering cross-party support for good policy, not claiming a "mandate" for some thought bubble and being able to force it through because you have the numbers. Bet Dick wouldn't support this extremely dodgy and secretive "Trans-Pacific Partnership" trade deal that will allow foreign companies to override our sovereign law through a closed-door tribunal with no appeal. 1 2
winsor68 Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Dick already endorses the SPP... http://www.votesustainable.org.au/media_release_dick_smith_endorses_sustainable_population_party_in_2014_wa_senate_election
Birdseye Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 I would have thought Mackay would appreciate some population growth. If nothing else, like most of Northern Queensland, it would elevate the IQ, aye. 2
farri Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 If nothing else, like most of Northern Queensland, it would elevate the IQ, aye. ...Wonder how much IQ it took to think of that one? 1
Birdseye Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 ...Wonder how much IQ it took to think of that one? It took a little while, but when I thought about it and then considered it again while I thought about it, and then thought about it again and although I was being rushed it was easy. Aye? 1 1
winsor68 Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 It took a little while, but when I thought about it and then considered it again while I thought about it, and then thought about it again and although I was being rushed it was easy. Aye? You didn't think much about anything... or in fact go to the link above and read any of the policies of the SPP. If you had you would know just how silly that question is... and that the SPP has a solution. It is about "Sustainability"...not stagnation...or indeed repeating ad nauseam the same failed remedies driven by a flawed ideology of the past.
Birdseye Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 You didn't think much about anything... or in fact go to the link above and read any of the policies of the SPP. If you had you would know just how silly that question is... and that the SPP has a solution. It is about "Sustainability"...not stagnation...or indeed repeating ad nauseam the same failed remedies driven by a flawed ideology of the past. You should realise that my views about population growth are just as extreme and that they don't follow those of the late Malcolm Fraser. I might also be taking the p*ss. As to taking Dick, sorry no thanks. 1
turboplanner Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Friend of mine was elected during the Howard era and had a enthusiastic passion to be involved in change armed with optimistic visions. On arrival to Canberra basically told to sit down and shut up and tow the Party line. Why do they even go to Parliament if their vote is foretold. They could stay in their electorate and deal with local maters, save the expense of housing and travel and wages for the whole entorage, in fact save dollars and sack the entorage. Just note "one vote" to get their proposal through.Is it a fact that Minority parties and Independents are our only chance for a conscience vote ? Because we are governed by the Westminster system Cosmick. The Monarch of the day has a Government to adjust legislation, or come up with new legislation, and an Opposition whose job it is to tear the proposed legislation to pieces and find any fault there is to be found. Of all the systems the world has known this is the best one to guarantee stable and just government. Where the individual has a place is the Branch system where he/she can propose a course of action have it voted on at Branch level, then State level, then all the way to the Parliamentary Parties. There is also the "Member's Bill" but this is rare, and in about 5% to 10% of legislation, it can be started in the Upper House. The key to the success of the system is the exhaustive debating and review process. Call me a cynic, but I think the only benefit of a Dick Smith Party without Dick would be the constant publicity of his name in the media as a result of the Party's Memeber's activities, good or bad.
bexrbetter Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Amazed at the number of us claiming we would vote for him without knowing his policies...helps explain a few things... Hawke is a testament to people voting for a "Top Bloke" with no knowledge of policies and yet with the same Party policies, but with the same lack of knowledge of them, voting out an "a'hol" with Keating. The morons still think he's a great bloke even with some knowledge now of what he did do to the Country. Again I point out I am neither Lib or Labour biased. I don't know what Smith's policies are but one would consider with his business acumen, adventuring, dedication to achieving, etc, would make him worth listening too above some others. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now