The forum has currently 1313 entries. (It has been, in my view, needlessly bloated with trivia as well as the transparent efforts of others to simply overwhelm the informative content with spam. Still I have tried to help people navigate past the spam, by providing links to what I consider useful posts (obviously includint my own and those who agree with me) and to posts which I am arguing against.)

In January and February this year, there was a brief discussion on 9/11 on Andrew Bartlett’s own blog, and for allowing this topic to be discussed, Andrew Bartlett should be commended.

Unlike on LP, the discussion was calm, civil and relatively brief.

I hope, as a result, Andrew Bartlett will begin to take a good look at 9/11 which remains the principle jusrtification for the war in Afganistan and the rmoval of guarantees of democratic freedoms in recent years.

Andrew Bartlett, as the Greens candidate for Brisbane, you would be more than welcome to attend the meeting featuring Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to be held in Brisbane at the Clayfield Bowls club next Thursday 19 November from 7 PM.

I hope your friend is doing well.

James Malcolm Peter Brian Telescope Adrian Umbrella Stand Jasper Wednesday (pops mouth twice) Stoatgobbler John Raw Vegetable (sound effect of horse whinnying) Arthur Norman Michael (blows squeaker) Featherstone Smith (blows whistle) Northgot Edwards Harris (fires pistol, then ‘whoop’) Mason (chuff-chuff-chuff-chuff) Frampton Jones Fruitbat (laughs) (squeaker) Gilbert (sings) ‘We’ll keep a welcome in the’ (three shots, stops singing) Williams If I Could Walk That Way Jenkin (squeaker) Tiger-drawers Pratt Thompson (sings) ‘Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head’ Darcy Carter (horn) Pussycat (sings) ‘Don’t Sleep In The Subway’ Barton Mainwaring (hoot, ‘whoop’) Smith Sinnamon….

Standing at the Back Dressed Stupidly and Looking Stupid Party (Independent)

Now back to the funny money…

Has Andrew Bartlett been hitting the airwaves in the last few days? Press coverage?

Because an anti-semetic organisation once had CIR’s on it’s platform, CIR’s are inherently a bad idea.

Presumably Ambigulous would also be against the standardisation of German manufacturing standards, legislated by Hitler, that remain in place to this very day.

Methodology fail. Even if here was the right place – and you never know, Andrew might pop in – you are clearly just spruiking your own agenda.

The way to find answers to questions might involve asking those questions of those whose answers you would have to them.

I think it is unlikely that Andrew Bartlett is not reading this forum or at least not now aware of its content. I think the questions are reasonable, and he could choose to answer or not answer as many of my questions as he wishes.

If you had carefully read my posts, you would know that they were not just electioneering on my own behalf. They were a genuine attempt to get a candidate standing for a party that many see as the most obvious alternative to the two party system to adopt policies that are both in the public interest and which would help him get elected.

If Andrew Bartlett was to adopt the most important policies I intend to stand for, I would gladly withdraw my own nomination (or more, correctly my own stated intention to nominate) and campaign on his behalf in the forthcoming national elections.

In any case, where else is an appropriate place to discuss what policies a given candidate will stand upon than on a forum to discuss his candidacy?

the evidence “from another place” suggests that Mr daggett may be ‘in for the long haul’.

Personally, I think the candidature of a former Senator and thoughtful contributor to LP is of more interest.

I note that the idea of Citizen Initiated Referenda was a key plank of the old “League of Rights” (in the 1960s? 1970s?). I think they set up “front” organisations too: Citizen’s Electoral…{something}.

The League of Rights was a tiny anti-semitic grouping which contributed vitriol and hate to Australian politics, albeit from the fringes. I trust Mr daggett is not an adherent or a political descendant of those shockers.

Oswald Moseley was similar.

You didn’t, and on top of that Andrew Bartlett is not participating in this thread to answer such questions. If you plan to use this blog to electioneer for the next however long, please say so now, and I’ll remove this site from my bookmarks.

I accept that there needs to be some threshold of effort that would prevent mischievous and disruptive opponents of the Government from forcing new elections all the time. I would suggest that for one seat the requirment of requiring roughly 1500 signatures or (very roughly) 76,000 statewide would be a that threshold.

I think it would be very hard to find 1500, even amongst people who voted against their local member, who woud be prepared to sign a petition, and a suffiecient number of people prepared to make the effort to collect the signatures, if there was not very good reason for doing so (and currently there is not just a very good reason for callng for new elections in Queensland, but I, believe, a necessity). The same would apply to the necessary effort to collect 72,000 signatures statewide (or 96,000 if it were to make it 4%).

If it were possible to do that there is no way that Fraser or Bligh would have even contemplated their fire sale at all, let alone, so soon after their re-election. There is no way that all but two members of the Parliamentary Labor Cauus would have voted in caucus, let along on the floor of Parliament for a policy that was both against the Labor Party’s own platform as well as Queensland public opinion and the public interest.

In the unlikely event that this led to a large number of new elections with no changed outcome, then the required number of signatures could be made higher. Such a proposal to raise or lower the threshold, could even be put to a citizens initiated referendum.

On a statewide basis, the threshold should be lower, say 3% to force the calling of a new election.”

daggett, since it goes without saying at least 3-5% of voters strongly did not want so-and-so elected in the first place, wouldn’t the only conceivable outcome of your policy be a new election called after every single election, ad infinitum.

FDB, why is it off-topic for another candidate standing for the seat of Brisbane to try to find out what policies Andrew Bartlett and the Greens intend to stand for?

FDB, why is it off-topic for another candidate standing for the seat of Brisbane to try to find out where Andrew Bartlett and the Greens on what policies they intend to stand for?

—

Another issue I will be standing for is Citizens Initiated Referenda (see http://www.cir-australia.net) and, again, I would be interested to know the Greens stance on this issue. As almost no politicians and no Greens responded at all to a survey by CIR Australia, I fear the answer will be that they oppose the right of citizens to initiate referenda.

We also need constitutional guarantees for citizens to be able to remove politicians who have blatantly betrayed the trust of the people who elected them as is the case of the Queensland Bligh Labor Government at the moment, largely as a result of its fire sale plans, opposed by at least 84% of the public.

It should be possible if, say 5% of voters sign a petition to recall an elected representative fora new election to be called.

On a statewide basis, the threshold should be lower, say 3% to force the calling of a new election.

I’d imagine Andrew and other Greens will be using their candidature to be drawing lots of attention to this, and making the labor party, via the rest of their state government examplars, look very backwards on the green economy.

So much so they will have to step up too.