Should the Liberals change leader, No and for one simple reason it’s not the leader that’s the problem, it’s the policies or lack off.

We have discussions abut the Kennett era and what or hasn’t been done since but what the voters want iasn’t talk about yesterday but how will Government fix the mess with Public Transport, fix it’s planning plicy an how will it improve Hosptial and Schools.

There is a danger that the Government could make the mistake that the Howard Government made and that was talking to it’self while the problems went unaddressed.

Of course you wouldn’t express this doubt on account of Cate is a woman, JOM, so I’m wondering what she’s done wrong apart from being clever, accomplished, successful, Artistic Director of Sydney Theatre Company? Oh, and rich (you’d have to like that).

I would agree with that, we saw a lot of it during the Howard years:

Abbott views on RU486, termination counselling stem cell research became government policy even though his views represented a small fraction of society.

Similar with the National Party, they get only about 5% of the vote but their views on the the one wheat desk and AWB determined govt policy.

Same with Kyoto and the apology, overwhelming majority of Australians for both but a small group within the libs were able to impose their view onall.

I’d far more be able to reason with someone from Labor as i most of my friends vote ALP than somebody who votes Greens. Sure the Greens have their place but to say that a small fraction of society should have say the balance of power in deciding whether bills become law is a bad idea. Look it might be unfair to the very small percentage of society but more than 85% voted either Tory or ALP thus their views count far more than yours.

Glen makes the mistake of assuming that whoever has balance of power is pretty much in charge of the joint. They are not: The Government is. And even in the upper houses, the major parties have the vast majority of seats. If the major parties agree, the legislation gets through, and there’s nothing the Greens can do about it. Having the balance of power is only useful when the majority disagree. They act as a tie-breaker, a third opinion. This means that decisions the Greens arbitrate are agreed to by a majority of the voters: around 43 per cent from one major party and 10 per cent from the Greens, for a total of 53 per cent community support. Of course, this is less than the 85 per cent support you can get when the major parties agree and the Greens disagree, but what would you prefer? That 43 per cent walk over potentially 57 per cent without regard for any other opinions?

By having a third party hold balance of power in the parliament, you will have majority community support for decisions much more frequently than with only two parties. It is simply another way of achieving the same goal as preferential voting in the lower house, and surely you support that?

Quite right Zoom,
Any drongo can slash jobs and spending to create a surplus, no skills required for that.

Bracks/Brumby have not repealed any of Kennets reforms.

Rubbish. As soon as Labor got in they reversed his manic rules which forced people working in local govt to tender for their own jobs. This was a massive waste of time and resources and good people lost jobs.

198 Jen

I guess at lesat [Kennett] is fulfilling his role as a crusader for understanding depression- afterall, he caused enough of it.

Absolutely true. A lot of people had their lives turned upside-down by Jeff’s heavyhanded ‘reforms’

Jeff Kennett was a complete prick.
One of the happiest moments in my otherwise sad, tragic life was when he lost to a complete unknown. Still makes me laugh just thinking about it so I guess at lesat he is fulfilling his role as a crusader for understanding depression- afterall, he caused enough of it.