You can view our question list for all candidates here.
—–
#1 on the ticket for the Senator Online Party, Simon Lang, in South Australian responded :
“Thanks for your email. I would gladly answer your questions but ironically our position on almost all the questions you have presented can be answered with one blanket statement.
The SOL party does not hold any position or opinion on these issues. We believe that Australians should decide these issues directly. We in no way create legislation, we feel our role in the senate is to act in the interests of the Australian people. Through a secure online polling system we want to involve Australians on a much deeper political level. Australians should be the ones to approve legistation that will directly affect them. Too often senators will approve legislation because their party created it. As a result, politicians often tow the party line and cater to minority groups rather than the majority. This kind of politics distorts the democratic process. We want all Australians to have a direct say, no agendas, no policies, no backroom deals, no special interests, just the voice of the Australian people, the way government should work.
Regards,
Simon.”
He said “tow the line”, so he is immediately way down on this grammar nazi’s preferences.
Chris! Don’t be so hard.
That is /not/ a gramatical error, it is a busy person’s micro-typo! He at least only missed by one key.
I frequently manage up to 3 keys out
Jen the Dem (of Q)
These guys are almost worse than the major parties.
“Policies? We don’t need no stinking policies!”
I like the concept, but the grim reality of this party is that they are more windsocky than the current ALP, and less principled than the Liberal Party. No thank you.
Since apparently calling myself a grammar nazi didn’t make it clear enough, I shall append the following:
/joke
Hi, SOL SA candidate here. David, the central idea around the SOL party is to help restore trust in government and politics in general. Our party constitution strictly outlines that any candidate that is elected must vote in accordance with the majority for every on-line poll. Unlike all other senators, SOL members have NO conscience vote. I don’t have the power to veto any vote because I don’t agree with an on-line poll result, or the SOL party disagrees with it. Failure to do so means I must resign my senate seat IMMEDIATELY and resign membership from the SOL party, no exceptions. Our constitution is on our site, please check it out if you are curious. No majority (70%), or high enough polling participation (100,000 votes) means we abstain. These are very stringent rules, all part of our party constitution, with many other checks in place to ensure interest groups, as well as ourselves, don’t interfere with the view of the majority of Australians. All other political parties pursue an agenda, which is in part the result of their policies, agendas usually override common sense, stifles bipartisan co-operation, and generally devolves into self-serving, dirty politics.
Considering newspaper polls struggle to get a few thousand, I foresee a lot of abstention if you need 100k. Not to mention the 70% standard. On the other hand, your website says: “When less than 100,000 votes are polled, the SOL executive, including senators, will determine if a clear majority view is reached”. Who are the SOL executive, and what criteria will they use to make such a judgement call? Your constitution even gives them the power to disregard a vote and make up their own mind if they ‘believe’ the poll has been unduly influenced. Is that not wide open to abuse?
I’m also curious about how your preferences were determined if you have no set agenda. Your website claims “How SOL allocates its preferences for each state will be determined by how these parties preference SOL.” However, the Climate sceptics (who you gave preferences 11 and 12 to) preferenced you 16 and 17, while the Greens gave 15 and 16, and received dead last. The same inconsistency is also true for Mark Alridge’s ticket, Labor, Liberal, One Nation, DLP, CDP, Shooters, Socialist Alliance, Secular Party and Family First. In fact only 5 of the 18 groups gave you higher preferences than The Greens. I haven’t done a full comparison of all parties, but I noted the secular party was also placed below groups that provided you with lower preferences. Care to explain?
Also, I’m not sure how binding party constitutions are. David Winderlich certainly had no trouble freeing himself of the Democrats because – contrary to popular belief – the individual holds the seat, not the party.
How are you accounting for the concept of the ‘silent majority’? One example would be gay marriage which is consistently supported by most Australians, while those opposed are arguably more politically motivated.
You propose balanced argument. Is this balance based on credibility of viewpoints? Equal airtime?
Your site states “SOL will not be influenced by party politics, by political deals or by a vocal minority”. The vocal minority is the big problem I see with this plan. SOL depends on people being motivated to be involved. Given the general lack of engagement in the political process among Australians, how will voluntary polls that require relatively onerous registration represent anything but the vocal (digitally speaking) minority?
In your constitution, “Senior members” of the party are given 10 votes on internal party matters – one assumes in contrast to ordinary members getting 1. How does this compute with representing democracy? That same document prohibits participation in polls for people who are members of another political party (or is poorly worded). For members of parties without anyone in parliament, would this not deny them democratic involvement?
Chris just raised some issues i’ve been meaning to take up with SOL too, I eagerly await the response… SOL currently sits at 24th/25th on my personal preferences… perhaps it can be raised (hopefully not lowered ;p).
Hi Chris, Glad to see people not only showing interest but also reading our constitution (!).
Q: Considering newspaper polls struggle to get a few thousand, I foresee a lot of abstention if you need 100k. Not to mention the 70% standard.
A: Regarding your first point, we abstain if a majority is not reached or 100,000 votes is not reached, this is the consensus among the party. This is not hard coded because, there could be some really nasty/brilliant legislation that might hinge on our one vote, and an abstention may be an unwise move. When the votes reach less than 100,000 votes, but reaches a majority of more than 70%, this is probably a less than ideal cross section of the Australian public so we’d have to make a judgment call as to whether the general public is being correctly represented. Obviously both of these are tricky situations, I personally do not have the power alone to change my vote, and I think generally any move away from abstention to another position taints the party reputation. But yes the wiggle room is there in THOSE situations. But be absolutely assured, once 100,000+ votes are polled and a majority (70%) of those 100,000 is reached, our vote is iron-clad, not the party, myself or anything can change that. Regarding your skepticism, we have a population of 21,431,800 , and rising. 1% of the population is 214,318 people. Thats a little over 0.5% (!!) that is required for a valid vote. Frankly 100,000 is a bare minimum, and I have seen many Internet polls where the number of counted votes is much much higher. There are 14,030,528 people enrolled to vote nationally who would also be eligible to vote in our on-line polls which means 0.6-0.7% would be required to vote to make the decision binding. Frankly, It should probably be higher than 100,000.
Q:… Who are the SOL executive, and what criteria will they use to make such a judgment call? Your constitution even gives them the power to disregard a vote and make up their own mind if they ‘believe’ the poll has been unduly influenced. Is that not wide open to abuse?
A: To quote from the constitution “6.2 All office bearers and Executive Committee members are appointed by majority vote at a SOL AGM or SGM. The term of the appointment shall be five years. Sitting SOL Senators will be deemed Executive Committee members.”. Currently the SOL founder Berge Der Sarkissian Susan Kluss and Matthew Der Sarkissian are the Executive Comittee, with Berge being the Chairman. Any decisions are made by majority view with the Chairman having the casting vote (gets an extra vote in case of a tie). Your second point regarding disregarding polls because we believe the poll was tampered with. We would take tampering with the polls very seriously, such that yes, there is a provision for disregarding a result if we believe it has indeed been tampered with. Belief = evidence. In no way would a poll be disregarded because we had a gut feeling. There would absolutely have to be solid grounds for dismissing a poll result. How we disregard the result may be handled in various ways though, to ensure that this never happens, we will thoroughly audit polls to ensure all polls are valid and fair. Your argument that this could be abused by the party is a valid concern, but if we did, do you honestly think we would EVER get voted in a second time? Far more likely is the possibility that outside parties will try to abuse the system, key-loggers could scoop voting accounts and do mass automated voting, or identity thieves could commit identity theft to try and create fraudulent accounts. These situations are more likely and there must be measures in place to ensure vandals or criminals are not able to trounce a system, while we stand by and watch it burn. So yes, there is wiggle room to disregard a poll IF we know something is amiss.
Q: … I haven’t done a full comparison of all parties, but I noted the secular party was also placed below groups that provided you with lower preferences. Care to explain?
A: Our preferences were made to have no overriding preference for any of the major parties. Greens, Libs and Labs all got equal preferencing. Funny thing about politics, when preferences are submitted nothing is set in stone, which means parties can bait and switch as they please. When the founder (who was organising preferences) contacted us regarding how our preferences were set, we announced our preferences to any party that contacted us, and honored what we agreed on with that party. Some parties didn’t. Unfortunately it’s not illegal to play dirty.
Q: Also, I’m not sure how binding party constitutions are. David Winderlich certainly had no trouble freeing himself of the Democrats because – contrary to popular belief – the individual holds the seat, not the party.
A: Your worries regarding how binding the constitution is, is valid. I have already signed (and had witnessed and sent to SOL) an undertaking binding me to the SOL constitution, and I quote: ”
4. If elected to the Senate, I undertake to resign if I am not willing or able to act in accordance with the constitution of SOL.
5. If elected to the Senate, I undertake to vote in accordance with the majority view even in circumstances where a conscience vote would have resulted in my voting to different effect. Further that in no circumstances will I ever vote against the majority view.”
Q: “How are you accounting for the concept of the ‘silent majority’? ”
A: Funnily in many ways we can better cater to the silent majority than any other party. Not just people that don’t have the time or feel their opinions are ignored, but also severely disabled persons, like those with MS, paralysis, and others. They can finally have their voice heard just like everyone else. Those who can’t walk don’t need to go to protests, those who can’t talk, don’t need to use phones, those who can’t write, may find it much easier using a mouse. Vocal minorities, which is what I think you are referring to, should have their say too, but it is the influence that they have that is not proportional to the group they represent. Politically motivated vocal minority groups distort the will of the people, and often try to influence politicians for the betterment of themselves only. We believe on-line polling will represent all groups as they actually are and be a true representation.
I’m not sure if this is relevant but I will add it anyway. Sometimes the majority of people don’t see some pieces of legislation as concerning them either way, so realistically they don’t need to vote, however some Australians will find some pieces of legislation to be exactly what they want and vote for it, likewise others will abhor it, and will vote against it. If a majority can’t be reached in an on-line poll and the majority of Australians don’t care, then abstention from voting on the legislation means the Australians that are voting and fighting it out need to find a compromise. If the SOL senator had the deciding vote then the legislation would need to go back to the lower house for revision. The silent majority can just sit back and watch and see what happens next. Just because the silent majority does nothing, should not mean a piece of legislation should be passed anyway. Passing legislation just because no-one can agree or disagree on it is dangerous and not good lawmaking.
Q: “You propose balanced argument. Is this balance based on credibility of viewpoints? Equal airtime?”
A: Not just balanced argument, but unbiased information needs to be available if truly balanced arguments are going to happen. Information that focuses on just the facts, with none of the spin.
Q: Your site states “SOL will not be influenced by party politics, by political deals or by a vocal minority”. The vocal minority is the big problem I see with this plan. SOL depends on people being motivated to be involved. Given the general lack of engagement in the political process among Australians, how will voluntary polls that require relatively onerous registration represent anything but the vocal (digitally speaking) minority?”
A: What we want is proper representation. One of the beauties of Internet based polling is it requires very little time (or more depending on how thorough you are) to make your vote count. Motivation, particularly dislike of something done in parliament will obviously drive people to the Internet polls as well. Aside from the effort perspective, I honestly believe people don’t bother to be involved in politics because many voters are jaded and have no faith that their voice will be heard. Participation = trust. If we want people to be involved and invest their time and effort in the political system it needs restoration of trust. That is why SOL is trying to bend over backwards to bring that trust back. It is bleedingly obvious people have given up trusting politicians, I have for a long time felt the same way, and frankly the Australian people shouldn’t need a person doing the thinking for them. If we want to restoooe rust in plitics we need the people to know that their opinion does count, not just every 3 years. We have the infrastructure available to allow the majority of Australians to make decisions on legislation for themselves. Regarding your skepticism on the registration process, we would only allow a person to register to vote if they are already an enrolled voter. We will also endeavor to put other checks in place to ensure identity of the voter and ensure the vote is secure.
Q: In your constitution, “Senior members” of the party are given 10 votes on internal party matters – one assumes in contrast to ordinary members getting 1. How does this compute with representing democracy? That same document prohibits participation in polls for people who are members of another political party (or is poorly worded). For members of parties without anyone in parliament, would this not deny them democratic involvement?
A: Trust. You may have missed that every year an SOL member remains a member they get an additional vote. Let me ask you this, if you wanted to avoid being trolled by someone, would you trust an account that had 1,000 posts and been a member for 3yrs or the new guy who’d posted 10 times and registered yesterday. The fact of the matter is everything in life is based on trust, and trust should come slowly. Don’t forget that a senior member can only have a maximum of 10 votes, so if no new members joined after 10yrs then everyone is on equal footing. The other thing is that our constitution can be changed, it needs an 80% majority to make any changes but it is there. We want things to be stable in the early years, and as time passes and we get used to things, then, if absolutely necessary, changes can be made. I doubt you’d appreciate gate crashers at your party (pardon the pun), and would rather get to know them first. Please keep in mind though this does not apply to on-line voting, only to SOL party membership.
Whew, hope that answers your questions and clarifies things for you.
“Funny thing about politics, when preferences are submitted nothing is set in stone, which means parties can bait and switch as they please.”
This is incorrect. Once your preferences are submitted, they are set in stone. You can negotiate and haggle with the other parties as much as you like prior to submission to the AEC, and those negotiations are fluid and non-binding and some have been known to lie to others to gain advantage, but once you submit them to the AEC, that’s it.
As a concept, Senator On-Line is fine. As a party with no policies other than “vote for us and we’ll do what you tell us, and you’ll just have to trust us and everyone else on that” I can’t take you seriously. I could be in the minority, who knows, but for a party called Senator On-line to not even have a policy on the internet filter seems weak-willed, and your preferences are too dubiously conservative for my liking.
Whatever. Go roll your dice at the election. You’ll still get my preference below the line ahead of a whole lot of other candidates, if only because they have policies with which I disagree.
that’s what i think a lot of people i know are doing. above the majors, below those with actual policies.
Regarding preferences, I fail to see how the preferences you submitted are in line with the party’s constitution. And it concerns me, as someone who would like the general idea of SOL to work, that even at this early stage the constitution seems to be ‘optional’. Yes, there is dishonesty in how preferences are negotiated – I know from personal experience. But the constitution says nothing about placing the Greens at the bottom, only Lab/Lib. If you’re including the Greens because they’re an established parliamentary party, why not Family First? (Even though this would still be outside what is expressly called for in the Con.)
If you’re blaming people doing a bait-and-switch, are you alleging that everyone that is above the Secular Party, who provided a lower preference than them in the final voting ticket, in fact offered higher and then went back on the deal?
You didn’t really address my concerns about the prospect of lobby groups with large membership bases abnormally influencing results. This would not, I don’t believe, be covered by the fraudulent aspect of your wiggle room, as it is legitimate voting. The scenario that I’m imagining is on a contentious issue such as gay marriage. There are a lot of people out there – primarily in the fundamentalist and conservative churches – that have very strong opinions on this. They are also, historically, very well organised. If there was a concerted effort under the banner of, say, the Australian Christian Lobby to encourage people in affiliated churches to vote, would this be considered ‘inappropriate tampering’? Because gay marriage is an issue where, generally speaking, the opponents are much more motivated than the supporters – or at least there are *more* motivated people. Such a poll would, I suspect come out clearly against gay marriage, despite opinion polling consistently showing general support for it.
The fact that you freely admit that internally ‘older’ people (longer-standing members) are given more power is quite concerning. You alluded to this not being a problem over the long-term as people stop joining and everyone levels out. This, I assume, is based on the limit of 1000 members. This practically ensures that the internal politics of the party will not be representative. Hypothetically, if only a handful of members leave over the course of 20 years, that all but excludes people who are currently not of voting age from participating. While I can understand the desire to keep things manageable, isn’t this kind of exclusivity entirely anti-democratic?
Hi David and Chris, I probably wasn’t clear regarding preferences. I was referring to before submitting preferences to the AEC, not after the preferences were submitted to AEC. I had very little to do with the selecting of preferences, the founder, Berge, handled this aspect. Preferencing is not optional so SOL had to have a set of preferences, philosophically we are even against the whole idea of the preference system, but if we didn’t submit preferences then we wouldn’t be on the ballot. Keep in mind you have the power to preference as you like, preferences shouldn’t be the be all and end all, I personally will vote below the line in any case, so don’t think I will tow the party preference line.
As far as your concern regarding lack of policy, you can only please some people all the time, never all the people all the time. Politicians jump around trying to please everyone, then break promises left right and center in order to get in everyones good books, ironically getting most people on their bad side in the end. David, you certainly seem like jaded a voter, but you seem to find ill in the fact that the SOL holds no position but the majority position in every matter, if that is your bone then I guess you are content to have a spokesman rather than be involved in the senate process. We have no intention of steering decisions according to a set of policies, we want to let the Australian people do the decision making, not us.
The SOL constitution it not optional, especially not for me, no ifs, buts, or maybes. I obey the rules, or I resign, fullstop.
Regarding lobby groups I think I made it clear that we want “proper representation”, please see my second to last answer in my previous post. Also keep in mind that by having on-line polls it moves power away from Canberra and into the public, thereby making the efforts of lobbyists much, much more difficult. Can you imagine the amount of money and organisation that would need to be spent on ad campaigns and such to sway people? Advertising for an election once every three years is expensive enough. Keep in mind we want to represent the majority view, maybe the majority view is still conservative enough to not want gay marriage, I personally have no issue whatsoever with gay marriage but my job is not to ram my opinion down peoples throats, we get that enough from regular politicians and lobby groups. My job is to represent the majority, we want proper discourse and the facts rather than scare tactics and badgering. On-line polls gives people the ability to vote on each issue according to how they feel, not how they should feel.
Regarding your concerns about, quote “The fact that you freely admit that internally ‘older’ people (longer-standing members) are given more power is quite concerning”. The end of my last answer in the previous post stated that this is only regarding membership into the party, and has no connection to on-line voting. The membership you are referring to only involves voting to change the party constitution and nothing else. It does not involve matters regarding the senate. In all on-line polls everyone gets one vote of equal value, none is preferenced above others or given greater weight.
I know that submitting preferences is not optional. What I am saying is that the preferences that SOL submitted for SA appear to violate your own constitution. I am also aware that preferences are entirely up to the individual. That is not the point. The point is that despite the fact that you say your constitution is not optional, it has not been followed in regards to the allocation of preferences, as far as I can see. Please address this, don’t give me a standard politician answer of a lot of words and no meaning.
Regarding “lobby groups”, you also fail to address the point. I am not talking about a certain political party advertising on an issue. I explicitly used an example of church-based lobby groups because they do not need to spend a huge amount of people motivated. Also, the majority view in this country is for gay marriage, so the hypothetical situation I presented would be a poll where the result was different to the majority view. It’s all well and good to say that online polling allows people to vote how they feel. It does. But you are assuming that the people who vote are going to be a representative cross-section of society. You have not provided any indication of how SOL would deal with situations (such as the gay marriage hypothetical) where there is a particularly motivated voting bloc.
As for the amount of money needed to sway people, you raise another problem, the most recent example of this being the mining tax. The mining industry’s advertising was so effective it effectively killed a Prime Minister. We’re talking about industries worth billions of dollars. To suggest that they’re just not going to campaign to change people’s minds and get people motivated to vote is incredibly naive.
I am fully aware that the different value voting is for internal party matters. That’s why I said “internally”. But even if it is only internal, that internal politics can change the party constitution. Which can change how the party operates. Which can change the representation people get from SOL. Aside from the fact that it *does* matter even if it’s ‘only’ internal matters, it shows a disregard for the very basic one vote, one value principle at the heart of democracy. You have provided no reason why this should not be of concern to people, when SOL purports to be bringing democracy to the people.
You also didn’t address my concern about the membership limit.
Every time you dodge a question it makes you look more and more like just another politician.
I am disappointed that the debate on this website puts forward information about parties but not about INDEPENDENTS, who are often the best advocates of all for their electorates: no party line to toe (or tow, depending on your take on it) and no guarantee of financial and in-kind support. This means that they are free to actually THINK about the issues and NEGOTIATE with the community and other elected “representatives”. The quotation marks are there because our “representatives” seem to have forgotten that we actually vote them in to represent us… So please mention the independent candidates somewhere – they more than deserve it!
frogprincess: http://bothkindsofpolitics.org/?cat=32 There are a number of independents who have responded to our questionnaire.
If anyone – independent or party candidate – doesn’t want to respond, that’s entirely up to them, but we can’t cover responses that we don’t get.
@Frogprincess – You know why it’s difficult to find out about independents before their details are published by the Electoral Commission?
Because a lot of them don’t have websites, and the ones that do, the majority of those don’t reference the election, and those that do still look like ass.
After this morning, I can hand on heart say that I’ve tried to contact the vast majority of those running for this election. Stay tuned for a plethora of responses from the House of Representatives candidates.
Have you even bothered trying to use our search function with the term “independent”?
@Simon – I’m not jaded, if anything, I’m (one of) the most engaged voters I know. Given that I’m across more policies from more parties than the vast majority of the population, it’s a hilarious proposition you’re making. And trying to suggest that I don’t understand how the preferencing system works, when I clearly demonstrate how it works and even give you an allowance that it can be mistreated by party deal brokers, is just as bad.
The reason I’m so ‘meh’ on your party is because it doesn’t stand for anything. There is no conviction at all. You’ve managed to set the bar of accountability so low that bacteria would have difficulty slithering under it. Like it or not, the chance to have the majority pass judgment is election time.
I’ve already said that as concept, it’s fine and dandy, but the grim, shocking reality of it is that it’s clearly unworkable. What are you going to do when division is called? Get on twitter and implore your followers to vote immediately? And worse, is if (theoretically) a shit-tonne of hyper conservative, “party-unaffiliated” voters sway every decision you have to make against the civil liberties that a lot more people are coming to demand, all you have to do is shrug your shoulders and say “will of the people” and dust your hands of it as though you weren’t personally responsible.
That’s why I want to vote for someone that has a policy I can read. Not some nebulous ideal of democracy within democracy. If they go against their word and break a policy promise, and mark my words I’ll be paying attention, I will make sure that everyone doesn’t hear the end of it and I’ll never vote for that candidate (and likely, party) again.
Even your call for candidates was more about highlighting the gravy-train salary and perks of being a senator, than actually standing up for something you believe in.
I reiterate – “You’ll still get my preference below the line ahead of a whole lot of other candidates, if only because they have policies with which I disagree.”
Hi Chris, please don’t think I’m dodging questions, I’m doing my best to answer your questions in full.
Chris: I know that submitting preferences is not optional. What I am saying is that the preferences that SOL submitted for SA appear to violate your own constitution. I am also aware that preferences are entirely up to the individual. That is not the point. The point is that despite the fact that you say your constitution is not optional, it has not been followed in regards to the allocation of preferences, as far as I can see. Please address this, don’t give me a standard politician answer of a lot of words and no meaning.
Simon: OK, Berge, our the SOL founder handled preferences. I didn’t. He can give you a much straighter answer because he was actively involved in preference choosing, I will email him on your behalf and forward his response to this forum if you like. I can only give a general response to your concern because that is what I know. Obviously you’ll probably accuse me of dodging by actually being honest, but I simply don’t know.
Chris: Regarding “lobby groups”, you also fail to address the point. I am not talking about a certain political party advertising on an issue. I explicitly used an example of church-based lobby groups because they do not need to spend a huge amount of people motivated. Also, the majority view in this country is for gay marriage, so the hypothetical situation I presented would be a poll where the result was different to the majority view. It’s all well and good to say that online polling allows people to vote how they feel. It does. But you are assuming that the people who vote are going to be a representative cross-section of society. You have not provided any indication of how SOL would deal with situations (such as the gay marriage hypothetical) where there is a particularly motivated voting bloc.
Simon: I guess propaganda and fear mongering in politics and media can sway people’s opinions in vocal minority group’s favor. Yes, its a problem. Sensationalism of contentious topics is rife in the media, politics and among the religious. I guess if we disregarded a vote because the christian lobby group did a mailout encouraging people to oppose legislation regarding gay marriage, does that mean we should do the same when GetUp! does the rounds to oppose Internet filtering? That is a very dangerous and slippery slope. Can the SOL party head off knee jerk reaction voting? I think only partially. Once legislation passes the lower house it has a cooling off period, according to this site http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/1stRd.html it is three months. This means if an SOL member was in the senate they would immediately post the proposed bill to the site for people to peruse. We would hope that once people are well informed about what is in a particular bill (over three months), we could overcome any knee-jerk, or sensationalist response the public might have. We aren’t just going to let people vote according to their whims, we want to help people understand the legislation they are voting for or against.
Chris: As for the amount of money needed to sway people, you raise another problem, the most recent example of this being the mining tax. The mining industry’s advertising was so effective it effectively killed a Prime Minister. We’re talking about industries worth billions of dollars. To suggest that they’re just not going to campaign to change people’s minds and get people motivated to vote is incredibly naive.
Simon: Backroom politics outed Rudd. People voted him in and the party unseated him. It was hardly democratic, the people had absolutely no say as to whether Rudd was right or wrong. The advertising campaign was run by lobby groups to stir up discontent regarding the legislation that had been introduced. But did you ever get to read the legislation? Did anyone explain who was being taxed, how much the mining industry would eventually have to pay? etc. Do you actually know anything more about the tax other than that it was 40% and that it was to tax the mining industry? If you do please let me know (seriously, I’d like more info on that). We had absolutely no say about whether we approved or not, and no-one got easy access to the legislation or have it explained to us. It was all spin and sensationalist reporting. In no way am I saying the lobbyists won’t try to sway the public. But I also think it is naive to think politicians or the big mining industry gave a damn about our opinion. We have absolutely no control over the legislative process, other than every 3 years. The mining tax only got “fixed” because it would look bad for the government coming into the election. Filtering only got shelved because it may have affected this coming election. Believe me, they’ll dust off the Internet filter after August 21 and it will be business as usual, because the public’s opinion really doesn’t have that much sway when it comes to legislation. A case in point, Liberals tried to introduce the GST and got hammered in the election, but once they got back in they implemented it anyway. In no way did our opinion or outrage change party opinion.
Sorry I’m getting off topic here. If lobbyists want to spread propaganda, let them. SOL will provide not just the legislation, but also provide all the facts regarding a piece of legislation. If people want to believe the media spin it’s their prerogative, but SOL will always provide impartial facts about what is being voted on.
Chris: I am fully aware that the different value voting is for internal party matters. That’s why I said “internally”. But even if it is only internal, that internal politics can change the party constitution. Which can change how the party operates. Which can change the representation people get from SOL. Aside from the fact that it *does* matter even if it’s ‘only’ internal matters, it shows a disregard for the very basic one vote, one value principle at the heart of democracy. You have provided no reason why this should not be of concern to people, when SOL purports to be bringing democracy to the people.
You also didn’t address my concern about the membership limit.
Simon: Yep, people should be concerned. People need to pay attention and be involved in politics so that things don’t get pear shaped. What you are saying about the skewed internal democracy highlights the delicate balancing act SOL has to contend with. Sure, the SOL party COULD get eaten up from the inside. Its not an iron clad constitution, but in its current form it has many checks in place to prevent corruption from inside influences. Please keep in mind that we have to balance stability, internal party democracy, flexibility, and maintain the integrity and philosophy of the party. Yes, *pure* internal democracy takes a hit in order to maintain what was mentioned before. I won’t argue or make excuses for that. Please see section 3 of our constitution for the checks we have regarding membership to the SOL party (its too much to quote here).
Regarding membership limit, once an ordinary member becomes a senior member they are not counted towards the 1000 member limit (see 3.3 of the SOL constitution). So even if we reached 1000 ordinary members, and none of those members left the party, ordinary members would be promoted to senior members eventually and slowly empty the pool of ordinary members. That way we can accept more SOL party memberships.
Chris: Every time you dodge a question it makes you look more and more like just another politician.
Simon: …
@David, I’m glad you take a sincere interest in politics, me too.
Just to clarify. I’ve only known about SOL for around 3 weeks. I never put my hand up to be a candidate because of the “perks”. Undoubtedly, it probably got people’s attention and interest though. I found out about SOL via Reddit. I have extremely strong principles regarding democracy and in no way enjoy ramming my opinion down other people’s throat. I am anti-Internet filter (also anti-Conroy), pro-women’s rights, pro-gay marriage, anti-lobbyist, anti corporatism, anti-party politics, pro-green energy etc etc. However I believe my views are absolutely secondary to the democratic majority.
I think the no-policy position releases the party of ego and actually works to ensure more honesty. Sure we can always make the excuse that we “are just doing the will of the people” but by that same token we can never disagree with the people like most parties now do. I guess when politicians make bad decisions its easy to point the finger and assign blame, but yes, in my case being an SOL senator, hand dusting would be in order. But if I voted according to the majority, wouldn’t that mean that discontent with my voting would actually encourage people to participate? Because really, if people want to point the finger, but hadn’t voted themselves, aren’t they in part responsible for the lack of result in their favor? Wouldn’t this in fact drive people to encourage others to vote, to actually CARE about what is being voted on? As opposed to the reality, where every promise is kept, ten are broken. Forget taking politicians to task, seriously, if that worked, I think you’d agree politicians would be a lot more honest, and actually follow through. Labor and Liberal have broken thousands of promises and backflipped ad nauseum. Politics as it stands is not accountable. But if you can prove me wrong, please point it out.
BTW I do appreciate your views, both you and Chris have brought up a number of things I’ve had to spend hours mulling over.
Regarding your “imploring the followers” idea. No, I wouldn’t, I’d suck it up and follow through. I would not let my ego override my integrity. It’s not MY country, its OUR country. My opinion only accounts for a 14 millionth of the overall opinion.
I don’t think saying you don’t know is dodging. I think it’s honest. But until now you haven’t said that. You just named Berge and did what I suspect you’ve seen politicians do before: talk on the same subject and hope you either answer the question by mistake, or that people will be intimidated by so many words.
I was not suggesting that any poll affected by a lobby group should be tossed out, I was asking how SOL will deal with it.
I wonder, is SOL not concerned about the ‘tyranny of the majority’? I know it’s an extreme example, but if it came to pass that somehow the majority of Australians got whipped into extreme xenophobia, and supported a repeal of non-discrimination laws, and requiring non-whites to be sterilised (I know, I know), would SOL vote in favour of that sort of legislation? In the off chance that that example would be prevented by some aspect of the Australian constitution I’m overlooking (which I don’t think I am), a more general question: What does SOL value more – voting as its polls tell it, or fundamental human rights? I would hope the latter. But in that case, at some point there’s a line between human rights and following the poll. Who draws that line, using what standard?
The mining tax was an example, not the question. I mentioned it as an example of the expensive lobbying that you said would not occur.
As for the details of it, in basic terms it was a tax to be implemented on mining companies’ super-profits. In the original proposal I believe this was profits in excess of 10%. So if a companies profit margin was 15%, it would pay 40% tax on 1/3 of its profits – for an effective rate of 13.3% A profit margin of 20% would mean an effect rate of 20% of profits. Also, because it is only taxation of profits, all the claims about it costing jobs and ruining the industry and driving up prices are bullshit.
In response to the internal vote weighting, are you basically saying that you’re using a non-democratic system to make it easier? Cos the system is unavoidably undemocratic, I’m just trying to get a grasp on the rationale behind the apparent contradiction.
I must have missed the bit about the 1000 limit only applying to standard members. However, it still places an artificial ceiling on who can join. Which, again, is another issue with contradictory standards internally and externally.
You kind of were sounding like a politician. I’ve been there, I know it’s easy to slip into for hard questions that you’re not sure how to answer. But you’re pushing honesty and openness and all that, so you need to work on it, or you *will* get called on it in a far more public setting than this. Call it equal parts “answer the damn question” and “learning experience/trial by fire”.
Thanks Chris, Still waiting on a reply from Berge BTW.
Chris: I don’t think saying you don’t know is dodging. I think it’s honest. But until now you haven’t said that. You just named Berge and did what I suspect you’ve seen politicians do before: talk on the same subject and hope you either answer the question by mistake, or that people will be intimidated by so many words.
Simon: Still waiting on a reply from Berge BTW.
Chris: I was not suggesting that any poll affected by a lobby group should be tossed out, I was asking how SOL will deal with it.
Simon: Well, we want the Australian people to vote without pressure, and certainly no-one will be standing over their shoulder while they vote in their own home. So people can take in as much or as little of lobbyist propaganda as they please, the way we aim to offset this is, as I’ve said before, to provide as much information about each issue or bill being voted on without any spin or bias. Naturally when people vote they will have this information at hand while voting, so it’s not like people will have to look for it. Legislation in full will be posted, verified impartial experts will be brought in to explain things or answer questions, and most likely lawyers too to give a practical breakdown of legislation so there are no surprises. Forums will also be available to raise concerns, ask questions, and so on.
Chris: I wonder, is SOL not concerned about the ‘tyranny of the majority’? I know it’s an extreme example, but if it came to pass that somehow the majority of Australians got whipped into extreme xenophobia, and supported a repeal of non-discrimination laws, and requiring non-whites to be sterilised (I know, I know), would SOL vote in favour of that sort of legislation? In the off chance that that example would be prevented by some aspect of the Australian constitution I’m overlooking (which I don’t think I am), a more general question: What does SOL value more – voting as its polls tell it, or fundamental human rights? I would hope the latter. But in that case, at some point there’s a line between human rights and following the poll. Who draws that line, using what standard?
Simon: Firstly keep in mind I am a computer scientist, not a lawyer. But I do recall in the constitution that the lower house can legislate against certain groups of people. As outlined in our SOL constitution, we only contest seats in the senate. Our role in the senate is to act as a check for legislation that is to be passed into law. So in order for your scenario to play out you’d first need a majority in the house of reps and then in the senate a hung vote, with SOL senator(s) having the deciding vote. It’s true that a lot of Australians could be fixed in their thinking. But the minute I deviate from the majority view I’m indulging in my own selfishness. But maybe the legislation would result in war, genocide, etc. A conscience vote would be useful then. But lets face facts, all politicians have conscience votes currently. To quote an article from 2003 on the Iraq war: pulled from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2765215.stm
“In Australia, more than half a million protesters jammed the streets of the six state capitals, with more than 200,000 protesters taking part in one of the biggest popular protests ever seen in Sydney.
However, Prime Minister John Howard – the only leader apart from the UK’s Tony Blair to have sent troops to the Gulf – said he would not be swayed by the size of the demonstrations.
‘In the end, my charge as prime minister is to take whatever decision I think is in the best interests of the country,’ Mr Howard said in a television interview. ”
And lets not forget about the large push by the public there was not so long ago with the help of GetUp! for a bill of human rights. Which got shelved, y’know, because politicians thought it was a bad idea, without even a skerrick of debate in parliament.
I would find it hard to believe the majority of Australians are cold hearted SOBs. Your point is valid, but ultimately don’t forget about the 3 month cooling off period before voting, and the fact that politics as it stands right now is probably just as bad. Politicians currently don’t think with their conscience, and I doubt they’d use it anyway. However, I DO believe Australians have a conscience. Sure I don’t see eye to eye, but damn, I’m more concerned with the ‘tyranny of the powerful minority’ that currently has all the keys to the castle rather than the potential ‘tyranny of the majority‘.
Sorry I’m getting sidetracked again. To answer you question directly, the polls would have it. Certainly not palatable if the Australian people demanded we go to war, or wanted to pass legislation persecuting the religious (like what may happen regarding the burqua), but remember, 3 months cooling off period. I should also note, people could change their vote at any time during polling (so they could come to their senses). In extreme cases I could resign my seat in the senate. That would be the only way I could refuse to vote according to the majority.
Chris: The mining tax was an example, not the question. I mentioned it as an example of the expensive lobbying that you said would not occur.
As for the details of it, in basic terms it was a tax to be implemented on mining companies’ super-profits. In the original proposal I believe this was profits in excess of 10%. So if a companies profit margin was 15%, it would pay 40% tax on 1/3 of its profits – for an effective rate of 13.3% A profit margin of 20% would mean an effect rate of 20% of profits. Also, because it is only taxation of profits, all the claims about it costing jobs and ruining the industry and driving up prices are bullshit.
Simon: Thanks for the background, I had very little idea how the tax was composed. Yep, lobbyist and media spin with no substance. All I kept hearing was 40%! 40%! 40%!!! When people come to vote on these things via an SOL senator we’d have explanations like you provided right next to the yes/no buttons.
Chris: In response to the internal vote weighting, are you basically saying that you’re using a non-democratic system to make it easier? Cos the system is unavoidably undemocratic, I’m just trying to get a grasp on the rationale behind the apparent contradiction.
I must have missed the bit about the 1000 limit only applying to standard members. However, it still places an artificial ceiling on who can join. Which, again, is another issue with contradictory standards internally and externally.
Simon: I didn’t help write or approve the constitution, so I can only speculate. I’m assuming it’s to help ensure stability in the early stages. It seems to be crafted to ensure the party grows not only slowly, but stably. As I’ve stated in previous posts, it is a matter of trust of older members over relatively newer ones. And yes, people can call on the hipocrisy when it comes to internal/external democracy. The party itself does require stability, and it requires like-minded individuals that believe in the spirit of what SOL is trying to achieve. If we allowed every man and his dog to help dictate how SOL runs it could become quickly overrun and subverted by malicious elements, a true democracy is not as squeaky clean as you may think it is, https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nazi_Party. And in no way has SOL (as far as I’ve seen) been crowing about it’s internal democracy being as democratic as how it runs externally.
Chris: You kind of were sounding like a politician. I’ve been there, I know it’s easy to slip into for hard questions that you’re not sure how to answer. But you’re pushing honesty and openness and all that, so you need to work on it, or you *will* get called on it in a far more public setting than this. Call it equal parts “answer the damn question” and “learning experience/trial by fire”.
Simon: Yep, its not all fun and games having to defend/justify the Senator Online party. I any case thanks, you’ve brought up many important things which have required quite a bit of deep thought and research on my part. I appreciate it.
Hi Chris, I am the founder of Senator Online. You have said 5th August “appear to violate your own constitution” I am not aware of where in the SOL constitution we refer to how we will preference parties. We did unlike any other party on our website (FAQ #31)indicate – in broad terms – how we would preference parties. And further in FAQ #36 what we actually did. I am not aware of how our preferences were not inline with what we indicated.
Berge:
Apologies, yes, I meant the FAQ. I had both FAQ and Con open in separate tabs, must have gotten them mixed up for that. (Though, I’m a bit startled that your candidate didn’t know the constitution well enough to call me on my mistake earlier). This still does not address the issue of Family First being treated differently, despite being a parliamentary party just like the Greens.
I am under the impression from what your FAQ (>.>) says that the higher a preference a party gives you, the higher they will be in your own preferences. I would interpret that to mean that no party should be preferenced below another party when they gave SOL a preference higher than the other party.
A specific example of this in SA is the Secular Party, who preferenced you SOL 15 and 16, while being preferenced by SOL at 22 and 23. Climate Sceptics preferenced SOL 16 and 17, while receiving 11 and 12. CDP offered 26/27, and got 20/21. Family First offered 24/25 and got 15/16/17. DLP offered 29/30 and got 18/19
And while the climate sceptics got 11/12 for 16/17, the Sex Party got 13/14 for 11/12.
I can’t see determining the order to be a particularly onerous task, where a simple sort would have been mostly sufficient, and would certainly have illustrated these inconsistencies with your announced policies. There are far too many irregularities there for me to believe it was just a mistake, so I would like to know why you differentiated from your declared policy?
Simon:
Lobby groups: That sounds a lot like SOL is going to ‘deal with’ the problem by hoping it doesn’t happen. The idea that people will be swayed by reason is wonderful. But how does that help with the people who are voting because their pastor told them to? And I can assure you that is a far more common occurrence than I (and I expect you as well) would like.
Human rights vs the Poll: A question specifically for you, as the candidate, then: where would your tipping point be? At what point would you resign rather than vote with the poll? Ban on gay marriage? New White Australia policy? Ban on interracial marriage? Deportation of all non-Europeans? State-sponsored eugenics? I ask not to be a prick but because you’ll be on my ballot paper.
Godwin: I know true democracy isn’t squeaky clean. That’s mostly why I’m concerned about SOL.
Hi Chris,
Lobby groups: That sounds a lot like SOL is going to ‘deal with’ the problem by hoping it doesn’t happen. The idea that people will be swayed by reason is wonderful. But how does that help with the people who are voting because their pastor told them to? And I can assure you that is a far more common occurrence than I (and I expect you as well) would like.
No, no, lobbyists can lobby (personally I think they should be banned outright). But remember, there will likely be hundreds of pieces of legislation and millions of minds they will need to sway. People can smile and nod in public, then vote out of spite for the people that tried to sway them, theres nothing to stop them doing so, even though you say it might not be common. Admittedly it MIGHT be tough for such a new and untested system to be embraced by the greater public, but if we DID get a seat, then people are obviously actively saying they want, and will use the system. Sheep want a shepherd, not a system to project their own voice, sure religious leaders will jump on it too and use it because they blithely believe it is a tool they can overrun and subvert. The christian lobby group has the ears of many churches, GetUp! has, and is guided by, the hearts of the people (375,000 of them). Not to mention the media will probably get in on it too. If there are heaps of lobby groups from opposing sides (and yes, there will be opposing lobby groups) then we’ll start to see opposing opinions, suddenly people can compare opinions and vote according to their own set of principles. Yes the christian lobby group will rouse their “flocks” to vote in favor of something, likewise GetUp! will ping their followers to do the same, thats when the game will be afoot. To make this even slightly useful for lobbyist’s ends we’d need several SOL senators, otherwise it would probably be far cheaper and easier to lobby normal politicians. Doing this online also makes it insanely easy to cast a vote, after verification all you’ll need is your account info and an Internet connection. I’m expecting that mobile apps/access could also be used, making it even easier. The key here is ease. Make it easy, and people will do it just because they can. Maybe out of idealism, maybe spite, maybe cause it entertains them, as long as it is easy. I can’t count how many protests I’ve missed because it was too far away, conflicted with my schedule, was busy at the time, insert excuse here. With SOL there are almost no reasons NOT to protest/advocate/decry legislation in parliament. Hopefully this will drive debate, politicians will be asked to explain themselves in the house of reps, especially if it is controversial, remember now, even the house of reps will get nervous if they see crappy bills get rejected by the populace. Whether it is for or against, the media and public will eye an SOL senator carefully, simply because their behavior will be completely unpredictable. Attention will likely beget voting participation which should even the score.
Human rights vs the Poll: A question specifically for you, as the candidate, then: where would your tipping point be? At what point would you resign rather than vote with the poll? Ban on gay marriage? New White Australia policy? Ban on interracial marriage? Deportation of all non-Europeans? State-sponsored eugenics? I ask not to be a prick but because you’ll be on my ballot paper.
Ahhh, yes, indeed, I have considered this. What would make me resign, or at least make me consider resigning. I’d like to clarify first, the stars would have to align in just the right order for this very delicate dance to be pulled off. First the very heinous bill would pass the house of reps, then we need a hung vote, and me having the deciding vote with the poll showing a majority vote hugely OPPOSITE to my own moral compass. Time to break out the popcorn and watch me sweat, seriously, you could probably make a tv show out of it titled “Will the SOL senator crack”. These would be my top picks:
Actively annexing another country’s territory through military occupation against the will of the people being occupied.
Legislation that obviously violates Australia’s constitution which would would restrict the liberty of citizens.
on a more personal angle,
Advocating the use of torture, in any way.
Aparthied-like laws, which made one particular race “more equal” or “less equal” than others. In other words, legislation that targets persons simply because of their race. That provision AFAIK is still in the constitution (worrying).
Legislation that would obviously and actively oppress one gender over another, whether that be man or woman. For example, I’d probably quit the senate in a heartbeat if I was forced to help pass a law that actively forced a woman to take a pregnancy to term against her will, or if legislation tried to criminalise abortion. In other words, any legislation that treats a persons body as property of the state rather than a sovereign individual.
Legislation that specifically persecutes or oppresses a person purely based on their religious or non-religious VIEWS (not practices).
TOTAL Internet/Electronic surveillance of all citizens (shudder).
Dismantling of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of expression etc.
For me these would be gotcha moments, but mainly, any law that would result in severely unjust suffering, or obviously undo the freedoms we enjoy, would definitely make me pause. I guess the politically correct answer would be “I would do my duty on behalf of the Australian people”. But everyone has a price, everyone regardless of whether they deny it or not will crack at some point. The above, MIGHT not make me walk, (depending, maybe theres a pandemic, military invasion, state of emergency, people are turning into zombies…), but frankly a conscience vote is so abused by politicians, it currently only serves to undermine trust and give rotten pollies all the convenient excuses they can put their hands on. I’m GLAD I don’t have a conscience vote. I’ll have the integrity to stand by my actions and say I would rather quit than act against the will of the Australian people, the senate will be hung, and the bill can go back to the lower house for changes, or be reintroduced when a new senator is elected by the people. Either way the voice of the people will determine whether the bill should pass or not, not the pollies. And hell, if the legislation is that bad, maybe they SHOULD have an election (for my empty seat) before a rotten bill is passed.
Hi Chris,
No apology necessary – I didn’t mean to catch you on a technical point – I was just trying to make sure that I can answer you accurately. And whether it is on our website in the FAQ’s or our constitution – both would be adhered to.
In fairness to suggest that Family First are in the same league as the Greens is a bit of a stretch – We are not of that view. Family first will poll less than 1% nationally Vs the Greens polled around 85 last election and could be well over 10%. Steve Felding was extremely lucky to get in poling 1.88% of the Victorian vote while the Greens polled 8.8%. With the Preference deal the the Greens/Labor have done in the Senate means Steve Feilding WILL NOT get in in front of the Greens and the Greens almost certainly will gain extra senate senates and likely to hold the balance of power in the Senate.
So in our view The Greens are a major party – Family First are not
also in our view – if there is any chance a minor party can get over the majors in the senate – they MUST preference each other ahead of the majors (including the Greens) even if they do not agree with their ideals
I did the ‘negotiation’ of preferences with all the other parties – and it was not an easy job. Except – for the fist 1 or preference spots -No party was in a position or willing to – mainly because it was too difficult to agree EXACT preference
numbers. As such our discussions/agreements were that if you preference us eg 5-8 , or middle of the minor parties -will u do the same. ALWAYS we asked if it was to be before the majors (including the Greens). In quite a number of cases the minor party did not commit to preferencing the majors last or indicated that they would be preferencing a particular major before us – this meant that even though their prefencing of us looked high/good – in fact it was pretty useless. In these case we preferenced that minor party towards the end of the minor parties but still before the majors.(The Secular Party, the DLP, the Shooters)
Other parties indicated particular preferences and did not do what they had indicated to me
Some parties are there to get their cause noticed, others look to be there to collect preferences for majors they beleive in – we are there to get a seat.
There was no mistake with our preference policy- The majors were last, the minor parties we gave preference based on how they were to preference us – As indicated above – this does not mean the approx same number – which is different to your interpretation. AS minor parties who put us after any major – effectively might as well have put us last.
I hope you will now have a better appreciation of our thoughts.
I genuinely would welcome you to suggest a draft preference policy for 2013
-must put the majors last
-must allow for the fact that negotiations with parties (except for maybe the first few spots – will not result in agreed preference number swaps
- must allow that parties in many instances will not give u any specifics and even more that they might alike your party and give what appears as a high preference but be after a major party – which is useless
With next to no budget we do what we can-
As for Simon – although you were startled that like you got a little confused between the Constitution&FAQ. Simon was aware was our public position which probably made the distinction even less relevant. Simon put his hand up to help at very late notice and the effort and time he has put in has been huge and much appreciated.
Simon:
You obviously have far more faith in the concept of direct/pure democracy than I do. Prop8 was basically putting the rights of a minority up for majority vote. Thankfully for the people on the receiving end, the US has greater constitutional protections against such discrimination than Australia. But prop8 is a perfect example of ‘Christian’ lobby groups’ power. Yes there are organisations like GetUp and MoveOn on the progressive side of things, but they are only as effective as their members allow them to be. I’d be willing to bet that far fewer GetUp members than members of ACL affiliated churches think a supreme being wants them to vote how they’re told to.
And Australia doesn’t come close to having the strong constitutional protections that the US does.
As for new Senators, they’re not elected. If you were to get elected for SOL, then resign, the South Australian parliament would decide on your replacement. And that replacement would have to be from SOL. Which in effect would just mean that the contentious issue would just get shopped around until someone willing to screw over human rights was found.
berge:
If it’s getting elected that you’re after, putting the majors last on principle seems a bit stupid, as it immediately precludes you from doing a swap along the lines of the Green/Labor swap. “Majors last” increases the chance that “a” minor will get elected, while arguably decreasing the chance that that minor will be you.
Hi Chris,
I am not sure your comment can be really that naive, particularly given the level of detail you go into with your questions/comments. To think we will be able to do a deal along the lines of the Green/Labor swap is being overly generous to say the least.
I do agree absolutely with part of your last comment that “Majors Last increases the chance a minor party will get elected”
I did not say that you would currently be able to do such a deal. I said that putting the majors last precludes even the possibility of such a deal.
Selective reading really doesn’t do you any good.
Hi Chris, thanks for clarification on process regarding what happens if I resigned my seat. My previous answer still stands though. I have faith in the Australian people, far, far, FAR more that politicians. If anything GetUp! has demonstrated that Australians aren’t ready to let minority groups take over, nor stand for corruption of parliament. SOL offers a new approach to politics, and I believe doing nothing will lead to far worse outcomes than even the worst case scenarios you have so far outlined. So I’m taking a gamble, I want to make SOL work, and I’m willing to help work out the kinks. I’m disillusioned and desperate for better politics, but not defeated and resigned. So I will do what I can to make politics better, even if it is a small contribution such as this. I’m probably going to take a step back now (from the forum), since I think I’ve contributed all I can regarding my beliefs and hopes. I’ve been neglecting my PhD work in preference for answering your queries, so yeah, time to get back to work. I hope that what I have contributed here gives most readers a fairly good perspective on what I, and SOL are about. Thanks again.
Signing off,
Simon.