They have got to be kidding!

I am in utter disbelief at the pathetic low Kristina Keneally, Barry O’Farrell and that other one who comes from a party that should stop pretending they are a serious home for a protest vote, Lee Rhiannon from the Greens, have stooped.

In the lead up to a by-election which has been brought on by the corruption of a NSW state Labor politician (Karyn Paluzzano), Lee Rhiannon acted on a brain explosion and challenged Mrs Keneally and Mr O’Farell to a debate on Twitter. In an attempt to look young, cool and relevant they accepted. This is the first time  that Twitter has been used for this purpose in Australia. I have a desire for an increase in debate in our society, a desire to see an increase in accountability of those who represent us, a desire that those who represent us actually represent their electorate’s views or at the very least act in the best interests of those that elect them. However a Twitter debate uses the cover of promoting democracy through debate to actually erode further the strong foundation that is crucial to all democracies; the belief in the system by the citizens.

I don’t understand why the “debate” or question and answer session or whatever it was, was the leaders of those three parties. If it was a debate for the by-election then why wasn’t the debate by the candidates standing for election in the by-election? Or is it a case of the candidate is irrelevant, it is only the leader of the Party that counts and the local representative is just there for show? But if it was a debate by the leaders of the major political parties in our state, why weren’t the Nationals included? Or even the Shooters party? On a brief count of the members of the NSW Parliament there are:

• 
  
  Independent                   7
• 
  
  Greens                           4
• 
  
  Nationals                       18
• 
  
  Labor                            69
• 
  
  Liberal                          32
• 
  
  Shooters                        2
• 
  
  Family First                   1
• 
  
  CDP                              1

So if it is a leaders debate the Greens have no more right to be included than the Shooters Party, Family First or the CDP if we are going to include the one member parties then all the independents should have been included. So it must have been a debate for the by-election which takes us to the question, who is actually standing in this election on Saturday? I doubt the majority of those being asked to vote will have a clue.

I said in a recent update that I was tired of the constant self promotion of those who are elected to represent us. I am sure that if each of us were running a business and we had employees who each time they communicated with us they spent the majority of the time saying how good of a job they are doing and how poor of a job the others are doing, while being incompetent, we would fire them pretty quick. Twitter has its use and its places as a communication/social network medium, yet I don’t think any great insight, of any depth can come from a political debate held on Twitter. Rhetoric without substance should be the domain of taxi drivers, not decision makers.

http://www.tallyroom.com.au/penrithdebate has a transcript of the debate.