Well here we go again with the Queensland State Election being called ( early ) for this Saturday. The Australian Christian Lobby ( ACL ) has a few reservations about Labor :
Labor-Greens Preference Deal Rings Alarm Bells for Christians
Source: ACL
Monday, 16 March 2009, 10:41 (EST)
The announcement in Labor’s election launch of new environmental initiatives clearly reflects their preference deal with the Greens and has heightened concerns for Christians about what other deals may have been done in the area of social policy to reflect the Green’s radical agenda in non-environmental areas.
“While increased concern for the environment is generally welcomed, ACL is particularly worried that a Bligh government would introduce surrogacy laws with all the worst features of recent Victorian legislation, which even permits two men to acquire babies through surrogacy,” said ACL Managing Director Jim Wallace.
In response to a question on whether they would ensure that any introduction of surrogacy would be restricted to infertile heterosexual couples, Labor had only regurgitated the fact that a report on surrogacy was before the parliament. (See Labor’s and other parties’ responses at http://www.qldvotes.org )
“Labor gave a totally evasive response on the issue of whether it would allow even two men to have a baby by surrogacy,” said ACL Managing Director Jim Wallace. “And we have no response at all from the Greens on the issue, only the record of the party’s unqualified support for it in other states.”
“The Christian constituency is understandably nervous about the confidence it can put in Labor promises after Federal Labor’s removal of the ban on aid money being used for abortion last week, despite indications before the federal election in much less equivocal terms than Bligh has used on surrogacy that that wouldn’t happen,” said Mr Wallace.
ACL believes this is a fundamental question of the best interests of the child.
“The three weeks of an election campaign is the time when parties must give answers, not equivocate,” Mr Wallace said. “All parties know the recommendations of the report on surrogacy before parliament and cannot claim any integrity before the electorate, if they fail to give a straight answer. That answer must also address the broader principle of ensuring state government policy always seeks to give children the opportunity to have both a mother and a father,” he said
Mr Wallace said that the LNP’s responses had stressed their commitment to ‘the right of children wherever possible to have the love of a mother and a father’ and their intention to keep to this principle in the context of surrogacy laws. Family First has also decisively rejected same-sex surrogacy.
I’m not so sure that Labor will lose. The Greens have had an arguably record high percentage of first preference votes in the past year or two (don’t have the figures before me but remember it to be >10% nationwide), and these will go to Labor.
All those other issues are kinda moot as Labor and The Greens have historically preferenced each other ... I don’t imply anything positive or negative in saying this.
The Australian Christian Lobby virtually told us to vote Christian Democrat in the Federal election, and then Fred Nile did his stirring up trouble in Camden over the Muslim school, and I was spitting chips that I had been hoodwinked!
The CDP geezer at our local meeting seemed so reasonable!
In case no-one had noticed, there will be a State election here in NSW ( in 4 more sleeps ).
The Green’s have been emailing around a list of “10 reasons to vote Green” for friends ( I am NOT one ! ) to pass on to friends/enemies etc.
I was drawn to Reason #3 :
( “The calibre of Greens’ candidates has created a lot of excitement this election….” )
What exactly is the ‘calibre’ of this deceitful lie as revealed in today’s “Australian” ?
Greens’ Israel boycott confusion
Imre Salusinszky, NSW political reporter From:The Australian March 22, 2011
THE Greens have refused to retract a statement on their website that misleadingly denies they intend to push for a statewide boycott of Israel if they are successful at the NSW election on Saturday.
Fiona Byrne, the Greens candidate in the inner-western Sydney seat of Marrickville, posted the statement last week after The Australian reported she planned to push for NSW to support the anti-Israel global boycott, divestments and sanctions movement (GBDS) if she is elected.
Ms Byrne, the Greens Mayor of Marrickville, supported a successful push for GBDS on the council by her fellow Greens in January. She is firm favourite to oust NSW Deputy Premier Carmel Tebbutt at the election.
In her March 16 statement, Ms Byrne claimed the report in The Australian was “misleading”, “factually incorrect” and “a misrepresentation”. “The statement that I vowed to push the GBDS to state parliament is simply untrue,” Ms Byrne wrote. “I have never said that I will, nor do I have an intention to bring the GBDS to state parliament.
“Any reporting to the contrary is a misrepresentation and simply false. These and other falsehoods are being pushed by a desperate Labor Party as they attempt to smear me ahead of the election.”
However, an audio recording of a press conference on February 15 reveals Ms Byrne was asked whether, if elected, she would seek to have NSW “follow suit” with Marrickville on the GBDS.
“It’s the NSW Greens policy to support the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, which is a global movement,” Ms Byrne replied.
“I would suggest that the NSW Greens would be looking to bring that forward at state parliament if we were elected.”
Labor campaign spokesman Luke Foley leapt on the discrepancy between Ms Byrne’s comments on February 15 and her statement on March 16.
“The Greens party calls for clean politics, yet its candidate for Marrickville practises the grubbiest form of politics,” Mr Foley said.
“Fiona Byrne now lies about, hides and obfuscates her extremist policies on the eve of an election. Her boycott policy is divisive and destructive.”
Ms Byrne did not respond to emails yesterday.
However, NSW Greens spokesman Mark Riboldi said Ms Byrne had not made a formal “vow” to introduce GBDS in state parliament. “Also, ‘I would suggest that the NSW Greens would be looking to’ is not the same as ‘I will’,” Mr Riboldi said.
The Australian has obtained a letter from Marrickville council to Ms Tebbutt, dated January 12, in which she is asked to support the GBDS initiative “by raising the issue in the state parliament and urging your parliamentary colleagues to contemplate support for similar action”.
The contact on the letter for “further enquiries” is Ms Byrne.
I for one would be happy if Verity Firth were turfed out of her seat for introducing those atheist ethics classes, even if it’s by a Greenie.
Arthur, surely not! Sayings about frying pans and fire come to mind. Besides, it looks possible Nathan Rees might wear the poetic justice over the ethics classes, because his seat is under threat from an evangelical Christian.
Fiona Byrne is going up against Carmel Tebbutt. Verity Firth is in Balmain, where her Greens opposition is Jamie Parker.
What is it with the Greens anti-Israel thing? Fiona Byrne’s denial was ridiculous. She even used the Greens’ three letter acronym for their anti-Israel policy in her denial. (If something has a TLA, then you know it’s part of the scenery somewhere)
More importantly, what about the Legislative Council? I’m voting 1.Gordon Moyes and Family First. Possibly followed by John Hatton, then Labor (but omitting Eric Roozendaal), Christian Democrats and LNP (omiting David Clarke). It’s optional preferential, so I don’t want my vote to exhaust. I’ll bet a lot of people get confused over that.
Thanks for being so open about your intentions. You only mentioned the upper house - so I’m not sure if you want to discuss the lower house - where the real action is !
After 16 years of what is generally regarded as the worst government in living memory, I really am astonished that Labor could be preferenced ahead of the LNP. So many scandals, broken promises and mismanagement will probably see Labor end up with insufficient members to field a footy team. Here’s what two ‘experts’ predict :
Graham Richardson : “Twelve to 15 seats - tops. At an Italian Chamber of Commerce pre-election cocktail function in the high rise Sydney offices of law firm Norton Rose on Monday night, Graham ‘Richo’ Richardson predicted the NSW ALP would be decimated at the polls on Saturday.”
Nick Greiner : “Greiner was more generous in his prediction. NSW Labor would be reduced to 19 seats. The reality was, said Greiner, that the voters were going to throw the Labor Party out of government after 16 years for two main reasons: competence and honesty.”
It’s that ‘honesty’ thing that grabs at me. I have NEVER seen such blatant LIES as the ALP’s ads in this election. Apart from the lies that Keneally has been caught out with in regard to the real reason for proroguing Parliament etc. I shake my head in disbelief that any Christian could contemplate giving Labor their preference. Truly, words fail me. Not looking for a debate at this point in time - and with a new government just hours away, I - and most NSW voters - including a majority of Christian voters - are just counting the hours until our nightmare of the worst ever state Labor government in history is finally over - once and for all.
From the SMH comes this quote :
Nile says Coalition is best bet
Josephine Tovey
March 24, 2011
POLICIES in line with a Christian agenda will be easier to achieve under a Coalition government, the Reverend Fred Nile told an anti-abortion rally in Sydney.
The Liberal MLC David Clarke joined the Christian Democratic Party leader, where they denounced the NSW Greens and pledged to stymie any attempts to liberalise the state’s abortion or euthanasia laws….......
It’s optional preferential, so I don’t want my vote to exhaust. I’ll bet a lot of people get confused over that.
I disagree Ros - I reckon that most voters ( especially ) in the lower house will want to make an emphatic statement - and just vote for 1 candidate in the lower house - making effective use of their ‘baseball bats’ to hammer the Labor government. There has never been such anger against such a bad government as what I have encountered in talking with folk - folk who have usually been ‘rusted on’ Labor voters - but now tell me that they have finally woken up and will ‘never ever’ vote Labor again - even more so now that Julia Gillard lied about the carbon tax etc. That’s what I’m hearing out here in ( what was previously ) “Labor Heartland”.
Wow, it’s almost 1am - so we only have to wait 1 more day for deliverance hour ;)
Hallelujah, I say, Hallelujah. ( And the majority cried aloud “AMEN”. )
There’ll barely be a Labor Party left after the election
Andrew Clennell From:The Daily Telegraph March 25, 2011
NSW Labor will be wiped out in its worst electoral defeat in 110 years tomorrow and will only just retain party status by winning a paltry 14 of 93 lower house seats.
That was the finding of a final Daily Telegraph-Galaxy poll, which has Labor’s primary vote at just 22 per cent - down one point from three weeks ago - compared to Barry O’Farrell’s Coalition, unchanged at 51 per cent.
The Greens sit at 12 per cent and other minor parties and independents 15.
On a two-party preferred basis, the Coalition was up two points, leading 66 to 34.
A party is required to win 10 seats in the Legislative Assembly to give it party status, allowing the opposition leader and deputy opposition leader to be paid more than an ordinary backbencher.
The Galaxy poll found Labor will squeak over the line - with three more members than a cricket team.
If the poll is proven correct, the Coalition is likely to win 70 seats, with Greens and independents likely to account for the remaining nine seats.
It would be the best primary vote for the Coalition ever, surpassing Robert Askin’s 1965 election win primary vote of 49.8 per cent and Nick Greiner’s 1988 win with 49.5 per cent.
But the poll, of 1000 voters taken on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, found the result will be more a rejection of Labor than an endorsement of Mr O’Farrell.
Sixty nine per cent thought the Coalition would win because Labor deserved to lose. Only 24 per cent believe the Coalition deserved to win.
Pessimistic senior Labor sources appeared to back the poll yesterday, saying they were regarding only eight to nine seats as “safe” and a further 14 as “winnable”.
The key reasons for Labor’s defeat, voters thought, were mismanagement [35 per cent], followed by the “it’s time” factor [23 per cent].
Eighteen per cent believed that the defeat would come because of too many scandals, 14 per cent because of too much influence by backroom people and 8 per cent because of poor leadership.
On the poll’s statewide swing of more than 18 per cent - and providing Marrickville and Balmain go to the Greens and Newcastle to an independent - Labor would be left with 14 seats. Wollongong is also at risk of falling to an independent.
The polls found Barry O’Farrell led Kristina Keneally by 53 to 33 per cent as preferred premier and by 50 per cent to 26 on who was more likely to keep promises.
Despite an energetic campaign by Ms Keneally, voters believed Mr O’Farrell performed better during the campaign by 44 per cent to 39. Despite expectations, Ms Keneally will stand down as the Labor leader on Saturday night.
But the poll found 53 per cent would prefer her as opposition leader to John Robertson [13 per cent] and Michael Daley [11 per cent], although Mr Daley would lose Maroubra according to the poll results.
“The only glimmer of hope for Labor would be a surge in sympathy votes,” pollster David Briggs said.
”Labor’s plea to not give Barry O’Farrell a blank cheque has fallen on deaf ears.”
Mr Briggs said the result would be the worst for Labor since 1901, when the Labor vote was 18.44 per cent, 10 years after the party was formed. Even then Labor won more seats - 24 in the 125-seat parliament and it was a three-cornered contest against the Progressive Party and Liberal and Reform Association.
“In my 28 years of polling I haven’t seen anything like the looming train wreck of NSW,” Mr Briggs said. “Labor have made hardly any votes change their way.”
As Star Trek’s Captain Picard would say : Let it be so ! link
It’s time for a state cleanout From:The Daily Telegraph March 25, 2011
EVERY so often hard rubbish day arrives and the community gets a chance to throw out the useless, the broken, the redundant and the decayed - all the junk long past its use-by date.
That day comes for the people of NSW tomorrow when we go to the polls and finally oust one of the most wretched and incompetent governments this state - indeed, this nation - has ever experienced.
An era of poisonous factionalism and stagnancy will be over. Good riddance to it. Labor deserves a savage response at the ballot box - final payback for almost a decade of broken promises and visionless leadership. What concerns us now is what comes next.
Few new leaders will have woken on a Sunday morning after an election with such an overwhelming mandate as the one NSW will give to Barry O’Farrell this weekend.
Even fewer will have woken to such a burden of expectation.
This Sunday more than seven million people will be waiting for the new Premier to articulate a bold, clear vision for a new NSW.
We have not seen it so far, only because the stench of Labor has not had to force O’Farrell’s hand.
But from this Sunday, it starts. O’Farrell and his coalition team must spell out what waits before us as they set about remaking the most powerful state in Australia.
What do we need? Leadership, for a start. It is time for integrity and dignity to be restored to our Parliament, and to be demanded of those who sit in it.
We demand a secure and confident handling of the economic reins, including future privatisation sell-offs. It is not as if NSW is an economic basket case. We boast the second-lowest unemployment level in the nation and, with a $400 billion economy growing faster than any other state, a harness, not a hurdle, is required.
We need vision. Greater Western Sydney has been ignored for too long. A powerhouse of a region, the west has grown contemptuous of the CBD and Macquarie St for ignoring its transport, health and other infrastructure needs.
The west, an undiscovered world for city types obsessing over the origin and quality of their coffee bean, boasts the nation’s third largest economy. It is a furnace for growth, a home for manufacturing, agriculture and a thriving property market.
Forty per cent of us live in the west and southwest and are now angry, restless and demanding the same living standards afforded to those in the city.
And let’s not even begin on rural NSW, where the only bus service is one that arrives every four years, hijacked by politicians for a stunt ride around the state.
The list of needs and wants is long; there needs to be the capacity and courage for a big project like another Harbour Bridge (a massive construction that was completed in eight years), an overhaul of our road system, a deliverable public transport system for the west.
O’Farrell will need the ticker for many unpalatable changes.
In transforming the Liberal Party he has already shown he is able to heal rifts and head off conflicts. But that will be nothing compared to the public sector cuts and other measures required of him.
Complacency for an incoming government with an overwhelming mandate and next to no opposition is a danger.
While they most likely will win more than half the primary vote, the Coalition is expected to be hampered by an Upper House controlled by a menagerie of Greens, Shooters, the Christian Right and the odd independent.
Opposition in a democracy should be bold and healthy. But voting for these minority interests in the Upper House is virtually guaranteeing a handbrake on reform. Should O’Farrell’s agenda be hampered or twisted by a minority of arcane interests, those members will be placed on notice by this newspaper and the people of this state….......
Good riddance to bad rubbish indeed ! “Labor deserves a savage response at the ballot box - final payback for almost a decade of broken promises and visionless leadership.”
Yes, that sums up the general mood in the state electoral. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Reminds me of “The First Wives Club” motto : “don’t get mad, get EVEN !”
Hi Kevin,
I don’t mind discussing the Lower House, but I thought that was a foregone conclusion. Labor has to go; it would be unconscionable for a democratically elected government to get away with the stuff they have done in this last term. And Barry O’Farrell looks like he’ll make a good Premier. I live in a Liberal electorate anyway, but I don’t want to vote for the local Liberal candidate because he’s a hotelier and I’ve got this Methodist wowserish thing against drinkin’ and gamblin’. Not that those things seem to bother the local evangelicals!
I’m not debating, just putting my point of view, seeing as you wrote: “I shake my head in disbelief that any Christian could contemplate giving Labor their preference. Truly, words fail me.”
I don’t like the Liberal party. Their policies and record consistently show a tendency to allow the exploitation and even demonisation of the disempowered, IMO. Especially if given a free reign in the Upper House. I could hardly fail to notice that there is very strong and vocal support for the Liberal party among evangelicals, but I’ve never understood the rationale.
Besides, I really hope Gordon Moyes and/or John Hatton get in. I am still tossing up whether to put CDP in front of ALP, but I think CDP is a bit on the nose at the moment.
It’s optional preferential, so I don’t want my vote to exhaust. I’ll bet a lot of people get confused over that.
I disagree Ros - I reckon that most voters ( especially ) in the lower house will want to make an emphatic statement - and just vote for 1 candidate in the lower house
I meant in the upper house - which should have been clear from the context. And I was thinking of: 1. The possibility of splitting the Christian vote, because there’s no automatic preference flow-through. 2. There’s always leftovers from quotas - so your second preference will count - at least if it’s done the way it is in the Senate, but actually I don’t know how it will be done with preferences exhausting, and don’t have the time and energy to find out at the moment. I don’t like the idea of a Green (whom I dislike way more than I dislike the Liberals) getting in because people didn’t allocate preferences. Because if your vote doesn’t count, someone else’s will.
Thanks for that Ros. I must confess that when I posted this morning I had only had 3 hours sleep -after driving 400 kms yesterday - so I might have been a bit hazy in my thinking and wording. I too have reservations about CDP at the moment, but they do have a track record of voting more in line with Christian values than the ALP.
I reckon that the strength of the election trend against Labor will be known before 8pm. The interest in the lower house will be in individual seats. There will be huge swings - but will it be big enough to dislodge an ALP local member on 11.1, 14.5, 18 or even over 20% ? To quote Rob Oakeshott ( for which I apologise ) “it will be beautiful in it’s ugliness”
I only heard this once, but it is said that tomorrow there will be no printed rolls - only computer ones - and you will need to state your name and birthdate to get to vote. Has anyone else heard this ?
Lower House ... am voting Liberal but since I live in the Auburn electorate now, my vote doesn’t count anyway, bah.
Upper House ... because of both major parties’ reluctance to phase out the atheist ethics classes I’m going with either the CDP or Family First as one. CDP has a much greater chance of winning Upper House seats in NSW (Family First nationally) so I’m leaning towards them, then Family First second.
As clarification - Despite the CDP’s controversy over the years, they polled much stronger than Family First in NSW in the 2010 Fed election so I’m basing the “much greater chance” analysis based on that.
I’ll stick my neck out - and place all my political credibility - on a change of government today. Against all the odds ( wink, wink ) the Liberals will just ‘scrape’ in - with DAYLIGHT a distant second ;)
I arrived home yesterday to find a thick glossy Labor “WARNING” card in my letter box - warning that “The Liberals will hurt our area”. Page 2 repeated the same 3 areas from their TV, radio and newspaper ads. I was particular taken with their second “fact” ( = lie ) :
FACT The Liberals will outsource local jobs to overseas countries
Especially when I go inside and find that some ‘silly old codger’ named Bod Hawke had lefta squeaked message about work choices ( or was it the Crimean war - it definitely had NOTHING to do with the 2011 State election - unless SMEARS. LIES and INNUENDO are Kristina Keneally’s choice of weapons these days. )
Anyway, as many other callers to talk back radio attested yesterday, all these LABOR phone calls using Bob Hawke’s ‘personality’ ( if an old sponge can be said to have a personaliy ) - were shown on our phones to have come from ... wait for it….. O-V-E-R-S-E—A-S !
Yes, folks, LABOR has OUTSOURCED the local jobs of spruiking Labor to OVERSEAS.
HYPOCRISY - thy name is KRISTINA !
I think that’s GAME, SET and MATCH. Bye bye Kristina ( and about 40 other Labor prospects -
please close the door behind you.
Hi Kevin,
What has the other guy promised again? This NSW election is one of the biggest examples of the incumbents losing the election, not the other guys winning it. The irony is that Barry is going to win with one of the biggest swings in history, and will have one of the biggest ‘mandates’ to do ... what was it again? Someone just whisper it in my ear. And where are the costings?
We don’t have a clue what this guy stands for other than being ‘not Labour’. So other than a few extra nurses and cops (if I remember correctly) I have no idea what Barry actually thinks he has a mandate to DO.
I am embarrassed to be Australian every time I see a State politician standing there lying to me through the TV. I don’t care what they say or what flavour of party they represent; they are all lying 100% of the time. Why? Not because I am prejudiced against all politicians and am attacking their character. No. I’m attacking the system. Whenever they stand there making their election promises, I’m being asked to suspend my disbelief that they actually have the power to deliver.
The reality is that the Australian Federation is broken and needs overturning and fine tuning. We can keep the lines on the map for sporting and cultural and historical purposes, but otherwise we need to abolish the states and roll them over into a National / Local 2 tier government system.
We don’t have a clue what this guy stands for other than being ‘not Labour’
Dave,
Repeating Kristina Keneally’s “bland” mantras does NOT constitute RESEARCH.
If you have been too lazy to look up the Liberal website ( policies have been there for months ), read actual transcripts of speeches, read electoral blogs ( Antony Green’s ABC blog has been an excellent resource for linking to all that’s been happening or said by all sides in recent months - then no wonder you are ignorant of what is about to finally happen in NSW.
Most folk in NSW are thinking that “I’m NOT Labor” ( BTW Dave, note how it’s correctly spelt - more laziness on your part ) is not such a bad thing.
I won’t even bother considering your last two paragraphs - just dismiss them as the raving words of an embittered rusted-on leftie - whose pet parties are about to be experience their judgement day.
BTW if the Greens win Balmain and Marrickville, will that be because they have said loud and clear ” I’m not Labor” . ( Pot calling the kettle black I’m afraid, Dave. )
Now I ( and about 66% of the state’s voters ) are going to pick up our baseball bats - walk out the door - and deliver our verdict to the “most incompetent and scandal ridden governments in Australian history” - and that’s what readers in the UK are reading today - and who would truthfully say that it’s not true.
Now now, let’s not get too sensitive. Just because the muscle memory in my fingers typed Labour instead of “Crazy scandal ridden party full of promises but without delivery” doesn’t mean I can’t spell Liberal “Climate Denying party full of promises but without delivery”.
As friends on facebook have concluded of the Libs:
They have made no promises and will keep every one of them!
But other than a bunch of over-sensitive hyperbole, what 2 actual improvements do you think Barry will bring? Answer the question please. What are you looking forward to?
Hi Kevin,
I was giving you an opportunity to rave about this particular policy, because I was genuinely exhausted after a bad Friday — and rushing out the door to help run our school fete during the election. In other words, at 7:49 in the morning I wasn’t in the mood for googling the particular web page I was after and thought you could anticipate the kind of policies I was after.
So, what excuse will they have?
“The Labor government left us in too much debt ...”
“It is not yet the fullness of time or the appropriate juncture ...”
“Construction costs have risen during the GFC ...”
“China did something and now we don’t feel like building it ...”
Or do you actually think our State can afford these 2 rail lines?
Lastly, can someone from the right help me out here ... did Barry Ofarrell really vote to support same-sex adoption rights? I thought that was only the province of those ‘maniacs’ the Greens. But hey, it seems you’re allowed to criticise your cake and eat it too!
Or do you actually think our State can afford these 2 rail lines?
Answer : YES, of course.
Dave, you’re obviously upset and jaded that your beloved Greens will (probably) NOT win Balmain or Marrickville - where common sense seems to have broken out among the local community. And the Upper House result seems to have neutered the Greens’ chance to bludgeon any deals ( unlike Gillard’s capitulation in the Federal arena ).
However, your negative questions and scenario do your cause no good at all - so now is the time to just step back, breathe in - and SUCK IT UP ;) ( Sorry, just couldn’t resist. )
OK, so now gay is good because the Libs are OK with it? Just how does Fred Nile reconcile working with the Libs now? ;-) Come on Kevin — how many Lib voters have SHOUTED me down on Sydney Anglican’s in the past over Greenie issues because the Greens are ‘pro-gay’. I smell hypocrisy here.
Gay adoption is OK now, but gay marriage isn’t? Run for the hills if that ever happens — from what I read on Sydney Anglicans from your sort.
I’m upset and jaded because there was a 1.5% increase towards the Greens yesterday, but;
* because we don’t have Proportional Representation we don’t see that in the seats; which reflects a weakness in our democracy
* because the Greens don’t support nukes I can’t vote for them anyway!
Oh boy, it just gets better and better. Gay-marriage would be the end of the world, but gay adoption seems AOK.
When is Fred Nile either going to admit that public policy is different to private morality and get his head around separation of the church and state?
POLICIES in line with a Christian agenda will be easier to achieve under a Coalition government, the Reverend Fred Nile told an anti-abortion rally in Sydney.
Yes. PR is a method of counting who won out of a sample group and we already do it for the Upper House of NSW. So I guess the smaller the region, the smaller the number of people the PR can select from, otherwise each time the region gets smaller the House will get exponentially more politicians.
My favourite alternative Constitution for Australia abolishes the States and has the one Parliament making unified laws across the country.
Then the National electorates are amalgamated into 40 seats, each of which must elect 10 representatives to sit in the one National Parliament (no Upper House), and must be 5 men and 5 women via PR.
400 Australians then represent us in the one National Parliament.
Too easy!
The other interesting thing about this alternative government is rolling elections. With 40 electorates voting for 10 MP’s each having 4 year terms, that would mean one electorate votes about every 5 weeks. There would be no election day hype, just a continually evolving Parliament accepting the a mix of old and new 10 members from each region roughly every 5 weeks.
There will probably still be people who complain that they aren’t appropriately proportionally represented even with a system like that. You’d still need 9.1% of the vote to get a seat.
While such a constitutional change might be great, I don’t see how it would ever get voted in. Would it be more realistic to get everyone focusing more on locational representation as we’re supposed to have now, instead of what we really have which is vote for your local representative of your party and hope that they put in a good word to get that road fixed near you - that wouldn’t need any constitution changes!
[null]Catholics File Suits on Contraceptive CoverageNew York Times[{}]At least 11 other Catholic and evangelical organizations had already filed lawsuits challenging the birth control mandate, but those cases are still pending. The White House declined to comment on Monday, instead providing President Obama's comments ...
[null]Catholic Groups File Suits on Contraceptive CoverageNew York Times[{}]At least 11 other Catholic and evangelical organizations had already filed lawsuits challenging the birth control mandate, but those cases are still pending. The White House declined to comment on Monday, instead providing President Obama's comments ...
RSS Feed