On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Michael Scott < luv@inoz.net > wrote:

I'd vote Green if their policies only related to their green matters. Unfortunately they don't. They are able to come up with unfunded policies which they never have to justify in practice.

I'd vote Labor if they weren't backed by corrupt unions (and I'm not saying all unions are corrupt).

I'd vote Liberal if they weren't backed by corrupt big business (and I'm not saying all big business is corrupt).

I would vote for a party which plans are working in my interest;-) Which are not necessarily "mine" only. Sometimes a "broad view" about society values can be more important for me than just to look after my wallet. BTW: To a certain extend you may be right about the "unfunded ideas" of the Greens. Not being in power (and not close to it) gives them more freedom to dream. "Reality" will interfere with them early enough - as it shows when they have the balance of power. Some dreams come true, some don't. The Victorian standards of pollies seem to be very low at the moment. E.g. handing over parts of a National Park silently to a developer 2 days before going in caretaker mode or signing contracts weeks before an election to promise hundred million dollars of taxpayers' money (our money) to a consortium if his successors decide not to clear the way for a project which is still before the courts.. I would like to see Denis Naphtine in jail instead of in government, to be honest. BTW: I am pretty sure some of it would not work in Germany. These kind of contracts are "sittenwidrig" there (http://www.dict.cc/german-english/sittenwidrig.html: unethical, improper..) and can be nullified in court. Has Australia similar lows to invalidate clearly improper contracts? Anyway, I cannot believe that Australians ignore such behaviour. Naphtine should be unelectable.

Is that far enough Left for you, Russell?

Stay calm and carry on;-) Greetings Peter