Hey again,

I've become too distracted by all the side issues and regretably have written far too much on far too little.

So back on track.

Basically I agree with Margo's overall plan as outlined. The major aim of that plan is to take back our government and that is what I am interested in.

I can see value in having members of such a group as this in as many electorates as possible, the more the stronger the group is. I can also see the value to such an organisation/group in having reporting mechanisms in each electorate.

But I see little value in any of that unless there is an actual plan of what to do, how to do it and when to do it. That's what I'd like to kick off here.

Firstly, any plan/strategy espoused by me or this site or anybody must rely on numbers. If there are few we might as well meet in a phone booth and bore each other, in my opinion.

We need to be doing everything to encourage and allow as many as possible to join in so they can at least get involved before they decide to stay or leave. That is another part of why I am opposed to real names on the web. It will simply reduce numbers and potential success.

OK, so assume we have the numbers to actually lobby on an issue or within an electorate. Or even run a candidate for the Senate or a Council etc. If we did run in an election, using our most prominent member or most prominent willing member what would it achieve if that person got elected?

About as much as the few independents do now. Yes you would get some media coverage and you would have a public figure to spread the word so on that part alone it could be worth thinking about.

Politically though such a person would have no power, no ability to affect much at all as we have seen. In fact such a person may become a target to be extinguished as in One Nation. So any person taking such a role would expose themselves to much personal risk ( the hidden slush funds and Premiers with agendas remember ).

So, on balance I can't see that as much of an idea. To sustain such a person and the interest in such a group is difficult if you are standing for elections and never attracting votes. That would kill us of.

So, my aim is to attack the allegiance to the parties of current members of parliament and new candidates at election time rather than the individuals or the parties. We would lose those battles.

So how do we attack and change their allegiance?

Firstly they all swear with hand on heart and bible that they will protect and serve the Australian people. They don't, they do what they are told by the back room boys who we never see.

Secondly there are many current MP's and Council members who are fed up with compromising themselves. They continue to do it as they know if they don't obey orders they are finished.

So we have to give them an alternative. We have to push for changes in law, particularly voting and election issues so that they MUST respond to their electorates. If we achieved that then the big parties die quickly.

One simple change ( but very hard to get in of course ) would be to form a group in each electorate that has dismissal powers over the elected candidate during a term. Why would they dismiss the member? Maybe they promised roads would be fixed and they are not. Any similar issue where it is seen they have voted the opposite way or actively opposed the original promise etc. Part of that dismissal process would be automatic loss of superannuation entitlements if a member is dismissed by the electorate other than during an election. If we had that change who do you think MP's would respond to?

Who would be in those groups? I'd suggest anybody except members of political parties would be eligible and would be unpaid, part time, replacing paid councillors and hiring managers for councils instead. So the people could be elected as council members are now, except I would want a maximum period on such a panel for obvious reasons.

Yes, it's a big jump and MP's would actually have to bring that in so how do we get them to firstly listen and secondly to stop laughing.

A demonstration of people power is required. Just one mass demonstartion of people power is all it would take to shake the major parties out of their comfortable seats.

I'm not talking about waving flags and banners or huge meetings in parks where police can practice their new weapons and tactics.

I'm talking about an issue which will attract a majority of public support regardless of whether they belong to this site or not and can be effectively run simply through the media. No mass meetings required.

For example, if we raised the issue of scrapping bank fees and pushed it, how many of the public would support that? 80 - 90%? You decide. It's a majority, easily regardless of your guess which is what I have done.

If we want a hot topic, simply listen to all the talkback shows and we can pick one a week if we needed. What I think though is necessary is a topic that won't fade after a week. Bank fees is a good one as everyone gets upset every time they pay it or hear about it.

There are plenty of other such topics though, such as Education, Health, Infrastructure, Public Transport, Politicians perks etc.

See what I mean?

Clearly a lot of work would be needed to get going on those topics but once a site was prepared and material gathered all we would need to do would be to hit the talk back shows at the same time in each State and the Letters to the Editors in each State.

I'm of the belief that simply the threat of such a mass demonstration would be enough to turn the allegiance of many current members.

Let me return to the bank fees issue as that's one I've spent time on.

Say we had twenty members in one bank branch somewhere in Australia. Each of those members has a mortgage of $100,000 , a credit card debt of $5000 and $10,000 invested. Modest claims and well below the average for mortgages for example.

If you add those figures for twenty people you come up with a product sum of 2.3 million bucks of business for that branch.

So a rep of those twenty trots in to the branch and says " I represent twenty people with 2.3 million bucks worth of business in your branch. We want accounts with no fees or we are off to another bank. Can you help please?".

How many times would that need to happen before banks and politicians and the media become very interested.

OK, that's my first surge of thought and I'll stop here to see if this appeals to anyone else.