Today I am resigning my position on the National Council of the Wikileaks Party.
There are several reasons for this resignation, detailed below, but they have been simmering for some time. The Wikileaks Party has arguably suffered serious problems from the outset, being pulled in radically different directions from its base and membership, on the one hand, and the figurehead and associates on the other. These contradictions must eventually resolve themselves, and my resignation today is part of that resolution.
The immediate cause of my resignation, however, is the recent fiasco over senate preferences. The preferences submitted to the Electoral Commission caused a catastrophic loss to the party, including a great deal of distress for members and volunteers who I greatly respect. I have given the party time to put out a statement on the matter, and an independent review has already been announced. However it was immediately undermined. In a desperate move, several members of the council attempted to convene an emergency meeting — to no avail. The public, and supporters, deserve to know what has happened. As such, I have written this account myself, alone.
Preferences had been a simmering issue for some time. Views differed within the party, but in order to understand what follows, it is important to note the structure of the party.
Under the party constitution, the National Council of the party is its governing body, ultimately responsible for its actions and overall direction. Its decisions are binding on the party. It has 11 members, including myself — a founding member of Wikileaks — as well as the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and his father John Shipton.
At one end of the spectrum of views within the party, I was of the opinion that we should not do any preference deals at all. We should simply preference the parties in order of our values. We have respect and goodwill across the spectrum. We are a new party, without a record of established electoral enemies, without grudges against us, beginners’ goodwill. We did not project a particularly ideological image and so would not immediately alienate Left or Right. We could plausibly expect relatively high preferences across the spectrum — especially from the Greens, left and libertarian minor parties, and perhaps even other parties too. If we played our cards right we could perhaps pull off an historic result like the Movimento Cinque Stelle in Italy.
And though I saw this strategy as the best one to present a principled position and attract the highest possible primary vote, as well as the best possible preferences from others, I considered also that that even if I were wrong, and we had a higher chance of getting elected by doing preference deals, that we should also consider the long-term prospects of the movement which has sprung up around Wikileaks, and the broad social questions to which the party is committed. The party is committed to many social goals, including transparency, accountability, justice, and self-determination, as well as promoting candidates for electoral office. Moreover, pursuing deals with those who oppose our values would compromise the party and alienate those who have joined a movement that they saw as unique for its integrity and courage — our supporters being highly intelligent, activist and committed.
I could countenance some slight modifications to this pure position. For instance, there is an argument to move otherwise mediocre minor parties higher in order to give new voices a better chance and undermine the two-party monopoly. But the outline of my position was clear and I made it well known to the council. No doubt many saw it as profoundly naive and idealistic. But at least I thought it was useful to have such a voice on the council of an electoral party.
(I should also add that my own philosophy is skeptical of electoral politics per se; but that depending on circumstances it can be effective to seek change inside or outside the system. I thought the Wikileaks party presented an historic, strategic opportunity for an intervention into electoral politics.)
At the other end of the party the view on preferences was essentially a view of playing the game. Hardly an unusual difference of opinion. Entering this arena, we were playing to win, and in order to win we need to make the appropriate deals. We probably don’t have the primary vote to do it alone, and so we need to make deals. Julian and Greg Barns (who is campaign director but not on the National Council) essentially held this view — though I do not pretend to present their views fully; they are perfectly able to present their own opinions themselves. Greg, as part of his role, talked to many parties and proposed to the council several deals, including with fundamentalist and far-right parties.
In between were various shades of idealism and pragmatism, of preferences as a moral statement through to preferences as a matter of technical expertise.
National Council meetings have been held at least weekly for several months. Until last Friday, Julian had attended precisely one meeting. He is extremely busy, of course, and has many important things to do. Helping Ed Snowden is surely more important than attending a council meeting. But still, attending 1 out of the first 13 National Council meetings of the party (all of which he could call in to) is a fairly low participation rate in one’s own party, for a man confined to an embassy equipped with a telephone.
On 6 August, at a National Council meeting, Greg Barns proposed a deal with a group of small parties, organised by Glenn Druery. It is of course his job to talk to other parties and I have no doubt he has worked hard and honestly to do his job throughout. This group, including several far right parties, proposed to deliver 7%-9% of the vote to us if we preferenced them all highly. The National Council rejected it.
At all meetings on preferences, Greg Barns spoke repeatedly of his conversations with Julian, but it seemed to me that much less communication apparently occurred between Julian and the National Council. As such, in my view, a divide started to appear between an insider group, including Julian, John and Greg, and the rest of the National Council.
Julian, John, Greg and others, with various degrees of enthusiasm and qualification, were in favour of concluding preference deals with parties that might not otherwise preference us, such as the Christian right and the Shooters & Fishers. They thought it was the only way to win, and they were prepared to do deals with those parties. They argued, roughly speaking, that the average punter cares nothing about preference deals, the impact on primary vote will be minimal, and only with the extra preferences will we be able to get over the line.
Several on the National Council, including myself, were concerned to maintain the integrity of the party, concerned for the effect on our membership, volunteers and activists of damaging deals, not to mention the compromises we were making ourselves.
At a National Council meeting on 12 August, there was spirited argument between Greg Barns and several members of the National Council regarding a deal with Family First. As part of its decision at that meeting, the National Council requested Greg to provide certain information.
Although Julian had not attended the meeting, after receiving the council’s resolution by email he quickly wrote a long email entitled “NC micromanagement of preferences”, in which he expressed his displeasure with the council in making such requests, and proposed an alternative structure for preference decisions. Negotiations would be done by lead candidates, with no restraints on them, and Julian having a right of veto. He proposed giving the National Council a role in rubber-stamping the results of this process.
Thus, one member of the national council was proposing to grant themselves a right of veto and to reduce it to a rubber stamp. Given the eagerness of some to pursue deals even with the far right, I and several others on the National Council were keen to retain the National Council’s role in these important decisions.
I told the Council that the party could have been set up autocratically, but it was not set up that way. It was set up with a reasonably democratic structure, with a governing council with membership and representation from various sectors supportive of, and related to, Wikileaks. If it could be overridden by the lead candidate when he disagreed, it would be a sham. This received the support of several others on the council, and it thus appeared that the Council would not be reduced to a sham.
On Friday 16 August, the AEC officially announced candidates and parties rapidly negotiated their final deals. At this point the Wikileaks Party had potential deals on the table with Family First, Shooters & Fishers, the Greens, and others. As one might imagine, the National Council, including some candidates, were strongly interested in the outcome of those decisions.
A marathon series of meetings was held through the day, beginning in the morning and running all the way through to the evening. The National Council essentially spent the whole day on the phone. The situation was fluid, with several deals on the table, decisions contingent on others, three states to decide on, and full information not always available.
Nonetheless, most of the council managed to stay on the calls throughout the day. Julian was present at the first meeting but not subsequent ones; John became his proxy. Discussion was occasionally difficult and testy, but votes were held on all questions where there was a difference of opinion. The democratic procedures of the party were followed.
At length, it was decided for NSW to put the Greens above the Shooters & Fishers and the Christian Right — with whom deals had been considered and rejected.
WA was the easy case, because we had a pre-existing arrangement with the Greens senator, Scott Ludlam. They would clearly be ahead of the major parties, and Family First and the Christian Right. This was presented as uncontroversial and little argument was made.
Victoria was the most difficult. There was a vote on a resolution, which was complicated and contingent upon another deal, but roughly the question was whether or not to do a deal with Family First and put them in the top 10 preferenced parties, if we didn’t get a better offer.
The vote went 3 yes, 3 abstain, 5 no. John and Julian (via John as proxy) voted yes.
As further deals with right-wing parties fell through, what emerged as the National Council’s decision was one that I found quite a relief, a result that had seemed barely achievable the day before. In each state, Greens were to be above Labor/Liberal/Nationals, and the far-right were to go low. Small left and libertarian parties were somewhere in between. The council could not practically decide the precise ordering of all parties, and some discretion was left to the candidates and/or campaign teams to establish the details. Nonetheless clear instructions were formalised by Greg in an email sent at 8:16 pm Friday night, which said the following.

I would have preferred to have had Shooters and FF in the mix but the final deals are:
Victoria – Greens put WLP at number 2 and WLP has Greens first of majors and drops Shooters and FF/Christian groups below majors.
NSW – Greens preference WLP at 3, with Pirates at 2, and WLP puts Greens above FF, Shooters and Christian Right.
WA – Greens preference WLP at 2 and WLP puts Greens first of major parties and above Christian right and Shooters.
The Shooters and some parties on the right will probably put WLP below the majors as a result of these deals.

Nothing further was heard until Sunday, when I woke up to find that the WLP ticket in NSW had the Shooters & Fishers — and the Nazi Australia First party! — above the Greens. In WA, the Nationals were above the Greens.
I was dumbstruck.
Over the next few hours, social media exploded with outrage — in my view, much of it justified. Supporters melted away. Our base evaporated. The view within the party that preferencing the far Right would not lead to any mass outrage, but that average punters couldn’t care less about preferences, was comprehensively demolished by the course of events.
Members resigned en masse. Volunteers and Volunteer coordinators were heartbroken and could not bring themselves to work for the cause to which they had previously devoted themselves selflessly.
A statement was put out about an “administrative error” in NSW. I do not know precisely what happened, but I can say what I know — taking precautions, as one must, to protect the presumed innocence of individuals.
In NSW, I cannot imagine that the preferencing of the Nazis was anything other than a mistake — as far as I know nobody ever contemplated putting them anywhere but the bottom. As for the Shooters & Fishers, there was a deal on the table but it was rejected; indeed the Shooters & Fishers preferenced Wikileaks very low. The initial view was that the party had submitted a mistake; and indeed on it face it looks like it could not have been anything else. Possibly from a prior draft preference list, right-wing parties were mistakenly not moved down. But subsequent evidence has come to light that it may not have been entirely a mistake. What combination of factors, however, I cannot say — and an independent review was called for precisely to establish what did happen.
In WA, in my mind there was no doubt that if there had been any suggestion of Labor, Liberal or National parties being placed above Greens, the council would have exploded in uproar. Certainly I would have fought tooth and nail to stop it. The State was presented and discussed as if it were uncontroversial. The instructions were worded to put “Greens first of major parties”. Gerry, the WA lead candidate who was entrusted to fill in the remaining details of preferences, does not think the WA Nationals are a “major” party. He says he checked to confirm the Nationals were not to be understood as a “major” party. The National Council, however, was not asked to confirm.
What combination of factors, again, I cannot say — an independent review would establish that. What I can say is that it was a disaster and a betrayal to Scott Ludlam, and I can only apologise for not having been more proactive in defending him.
As things have turned out, given the views and the people within the party, and the response as received, and it was always going to be difficult to achieve a non-catastrophic outcome. Strong commitment at the center of the party to deals seen as unscrupulous and unprincipled by supporters was a train wreck waiting to happen. Having to fight such outcomes so hard to avoid them, only to see them reappear, while fighting a decline in internal democracy, shows the dysfunction of a party of which I can no longer be a part.
The final straw for me was Julian’s explanation of the fiasco on Triple J hack on Tuesday night — after a full day of frantic communication within the party, including to his inbox.
He said the following, in flagrant contradiction of everything that had been happening within the party, going to him and his inbox.

There was a decision that preferences would be done by the states, by the candidates in the states.

This is wrong. Preferences decisions were made by the National Council and were binding on the party. It was only in Julian’s proposal that candidates were given free rein over preferencing — and that proposal also gave Julian veto power and reduced the National Council to a sham, and was rejected.

In WA there’s no decision to preference the nationals ahead of Scott Ludlam. There was a decision to preference a new entrant into the WA political field, an Australian Aboriginal, who happens to be a member of the National Party, and to symbolically, I suppose, display him in the preference list… Where possible, where we see shining stars in individual parties, like Scott, or this guy from the Nats, we should individually preference them higher.

This might be interpreted as a poor excuse, but it is also wrong. It was not just the Aboriginal Nationals candidate referred to, David Wirrpanda, who is above Ludlam. Both Nationals candidates are preferenced, as are the candidates of several other parties.

Now what happened in WA was not a mistake, it was a reflection of my mandate to WA, that Scott Ludlam as an individual was to be preferenced highly, but minors who didn’t have a chance of getting elected would be put in front of him, which is normally what is done.

If Julian has talked to anyone in the party at all within the last several days, or checked his email inbox, he knows at least the outline of what is going on. And he should know that the perceived betrayal of Scott is precisely one of the factors causing members, volunteers, coordinators, and now National Council members to desert the party. He upset already-heartbroken volunteers and activists further with this statement.
Nor does Julian have any mandate of his own over preferences. He could have set up a party where he had autocratic power, the power to mandate preferences. But he did not. He and his father set up a party that had a reasonably democratic structure, with a democratic National Council. Without that internal democracy I would never have agreed to join the Council, and as it is reduced to a sham I must leave it.
The National Council this morning put out a statement calling for an immediate review. Immediately it was undermined from within the party, with calls for delays and more. I needed no further confirmation. But I still waited until concerned council members had exhausted all possible options. They are now exhausted. I must resign.
I feel very sorry for all those who remain behind in the party, or who have left because of the disillusionment this has caused them. I know that dozens have put their heart and soul into this party because they believed it to be a party of principle, a party of integrity. I know thousands rushed to join a party they thought they could believe in, and millions around the world have been inspired and have taken courage because of the actions of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. I can only apologise to them for not having worked harder to defend the principles of the party; but I know that, had I stayed on, it would have been an increasingly losing battle.
I know I may be criticised for jumping ship instead of weathering the storm. But the public, and especially the party’s supporters, deserve to know what happened and what has happened behind the scenes in this fiasco within the party of transparency, and I have decided that this is the best course of action.
For those that continue in the party, I wish them luck and all the best. The candidates are without exception remarkable people, highly qualified, experts in diverse fields, committed, hard-working, outstanding, talented human beings. If nothing else, I am glad that a party has arisen which has attracted people of this calibre to stand for electoral office. I continue to support all the party’s candidates.
Hopefully the revelations here help those inside and outside the party to clear the air and decide their own next move. They now know something of the internal structure and politics. Hopefully those who stay can reclaim its internal democracy and rebuild the support base from the movement that has swept it into existence. I will continue to support that movement as best I can, but now from the outside.
* * *
Having resigned, I can now say that in WA I would encourage voters to put Scott Ludlam first, and the Wikileaks candidates next. Scott’s unrelenting support for Wikileaks and Julian Assange, for transparency and civil liberties — even as against a stonewalling government, even as against a bipartisan consensus, and even as the Wikileaks party apparently betrayed him — speaks volumes about a man who I must now endorse even above my own previous party.
The two Wikileaks candidates in WA are excellent and if they stay on, I have great respect for them, although I disagree with Gerry’s decision to preference the Nationals. Gerry has his reasons and he has stated them repeatedly; he has his principles and I respect them. His record of courageous journalism and transparency fully qualifies him for the #2 spot. Suresh Rajan is also an excellent candidate and deserves #3.
In NSW, the Wikileaks candidates Kellie Tranter and Alison Bronoiwski are fantastic people for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration, and if they continue, I recommend giving them the highest preferences. I would recommend putting the Greens above the major parties, and obviously Australia First and Shooters & Fishers down the bottom.
The Victorian candidates Leslie Cannold and Binoy Kampmark are top-notch thinkers, deeply committed, remarkable human beings and would shake this country up as senators. I am not sure they will stay on, but I wish them the best in any case.
As for Julian, I am afraid that my experiences with this party are not all positive. It pains me, as we have been friends since university days, we used to make maths puzzles together, and I helped him in the founding of Wikileaks — from 2006 until 2008, when I was outrageously sued by a Swiss bank over some Wikileaks publications, and won. I am sorry that I must leave the party under these circumstances.
He really ought not to have set up a party with internal democracy. As his own political self, he has many innovative ideas, influence, eloquence, knowledge, and skills. Despite recent events, his election as a senator is still probably the most potent possible outcome of the upcoming election. And of course, we must never forget that the publications of Wikileaks have changed the world, and Julian has become an historic figure and icon. His potential extradition to the US must be resisted at all costs.
He is, however, his own man, and not one suited to a party with democratic National Council oversight. I wish him luck and all the best for the election and the future.
— Dr Daniel V. Mathews, 21/8/13

Statement of Resignation from Wikileaks Party National Council
Tagged on:

### 156 thoughts on “Statement of Resignation from Wikileaks Party National Council”

• 2013-08-21 at 9:19 am

Thanks for explaining this. I’m quite insulted that people in the Wikileaks party thought I would not care what the preferences were (perhaps they got me confused with Liberal National Party voters).
I have asked to be removed as a party volunteer and will change my vote.
It’s very disappointing.

• 2013-08-21 at 10:00 am

thanks, very informative. Like you I am disheartened and disillusioned. I had already decided to put Scott first and wikileaksparty second.

• 2013-08-21 at 10:09 am

There is no doubt that giving preferences to the right has two isues, one is negative media coverage and core members leaving the party. You are correct in that Julian clearly did not setup the party correctly forwhat he clearly wanted, however, the autocratic system would become a negative aspect that again media would pounce on.
I have sent email after email to wikileaks party with not one answered. I am keen to learn the ropes of being a candidtae and potentially a politician, however, being wet behind the ears I offered to be directly involved with the candidates, sort of like a gofer. But alas no reply.
I am a strong believer in your ideas of how a party should be run, even though I understand Julian’s desire to ensure the party is directed the way he wants it; but choosing right wing parties? Left to central by all means but more importantly ensuring all candidates are forewarned of the party’s policies and directions. I do believe in working with similar minds to achieve an end point, unlike the Greens who don’t know how to compromise to gain a foot hold in decision making.
I voted Greens in 2007 then Labor in 2010 because Greens either don’t understand politics or they were too cocky in thinking they would gain more votes and wield more power, thus the shift to Labor.
If you are considering forming another party I would be interested.

• 2013-08-21 at 10:37 am

Thank you for sharing, Daniel and for what must’ve been an amazing amount of time and energy put into this campaign and organisation. I am wondering where to from here and what the right form of resistance to the power grabs, the secrecy and the lies, the warmongering and all the Realpolitik by our governments is…

• 2013-08-21 at 11:33 am

Such a pity after so much promise. Live in NSW and like both Kellie Tranter and Alison Bronoiwski. Will still vote for them.

• 2013-08-21 at 11:49 am

The honesty and conviction in this statement is almost art. Congratulations on making a stand and for doing your best in the first place. Thank you …

• 2013-08-21 at 1:13 pm

Well done for speaking out, and for all of your attempts Daniel. Thank you for trying, we know our disappointment is nothing compared to the disillusionment that you and other former party members must be feeling. Julian may loose a great deal of his support in Australia over this.

• 2013-08-21 at 2:40 pm

I joined Wikileaks on 01 Apr 13 and have donated $700 as well. However I will remain in the party. Actually I voted in Victoria on 20 Aug 13. I was suspended from the Liberal Party in June 2003 (over 10 years ago)for 1 year (never rejoined)for publicly opposing the proposed Iraq invasion a few months earlier. I am a former Australian Regular Army officer (23 years service from 1972 to 1995). I was right on Iraq as predicted. Good luck. Regards Adrian Jackson (Melbourne Ports electorate) PS: I put Sex Party 1st and Greens 2nd (as they preferenced Wikileaks high up in Victoria) but I put Michael Danby ALP 9th (last) in Melbourne Ports so my vote will flow to the Liberal who I put 5th. The ALP have some good people but Danby is useless. Reply • 2013-08-21 at 4:36 pm Permalink Thank you for speaking now and thank you for your honesty, Dr. Matthews. Don’t put the torch down just yet, though. This event is a growing pain, a reality check on ego and commitment to ego, equating a person with a cause. The cause remains and fortunately people can learn from hard lessons so they can carry on. With respect to all involved, to onlookers I suggest breaking away from bad habits and inherent human traits is not an easy thing for anyone to do. Yet we must keep trying. Adversity, breakdown and failures present opportunities. That’s where we go from here. Perhaps you will help identify those for us in the same way you have written to us here. Reply • 2013-08-21 at 5:13 pm Permalink I read of your turmoil and am feeling sad for you. You obviously believed in the cause and put your heart and soul into your commitment to the institution that you thought would work for change and the good of Australia. That sounds exactly like me. I thought I could too but when you see the secret deals being made and realise you have been out of the loop, there is a sense of Why bother? I suggest that there is always a reason and a cause worth fighting for regardless of how many follow you. May you find the right cause and may God bless your endeavours in the future. Reply • 2013-08-21 at 6:08 pm Permalink lot of problems seem to me to be caused on ground that assange is deprived of his physical presence in the procedures and processes of the WLP. That is an exceptional circumstance, well the whole birth of the WLP is exceptional… imho there should be an evaluation of the whole matter that would open the possibility to restart, recommunicate the arrangements. assange must be convinced that he might not have the “whole picture” after being excluded from the “outer world” for so long. we need him. and we need the WLP. we need everyone who can produce the hope, that change is not impossible. please dont throw your chance into the river mr. mathews, mrs. cannold, et al. Reply • 2013-08-21 at 10:59 pm Permalink Thank you Daniel. I joined my first political party in 2013 – my 7th decade on the planet, & now just feel like cursing for being so gullible in believing that ‘things’ could change. Reply • 2013-08-22 at 12:20 am Permalink Thank you Dan for an honourable and thoughtful account of recent events. I am deeply disappointed and perplexed (I, too, am probably naive) by the preference deals/debacle. It seems so obvious to a punter like myself – that of course supporters want the party organisation to act with integrity over and above strategy! I agree with you that it is a long-term struggle we are engaged in, and not a hasty overnight battle. I also had the thought that perhaps Wikileaks et al is not made for mainstream politics, and that its best work is best carried out in its current mode – independently. As a volunteer, I have certainly lost some of my mo-jo, and will wait to see how things develop. All the best to you, Elizabeth Newman Reply • 2013-08-22 at 1:00 am Permalink “Helping Ed Snowden is surely more important than attending a council meeting” – NO! Attending to the Australian people’s future government elections is far more important to Australians than helping someone from another country who has voluntarily gotten himself in trouble. This attitude, (along with Julian Assange’s breathtaking arrogance on proposing his own power of veto on preferences), is precisely why fence sitters like myself are not convinced that Julian Assange regards Wikileaks as his own personal toy/tool to used for his own selfish ends. Reply • 2013-08-22 at 3:34 am Permalink Wow,the temerity to refer to others as “mediocre minor parties”. Although I guess with the wikileaks party, the more apt descriptors would be along the lines of “pompous”, “self righteous” and “narcissistic”. Reply • 2013-08-22 at 4:43 am Permalink I strongly supported the leaks from Wikileaks. It not clear why Julian wants to stand for the Australian Senate when he is clearly a global player? I never intended to vote for Wikileaks as I was concerned that there might be a right-wing libertarian element in the party. These preference decisions increase my suspicion that this is the case. The high quality candidates and executive members resigning over this affair should joins the Greens and seek to achieve their aims from that platform Reply • 2013-08-22 at 6:31 am Permalink Are you able to tell me if Alan Dershowitz is still on Assange’s legal team? It is a huge issue if he is. Reply • 2013-08-22 at 7:01 am Permalink Thank you for this detailed explanation. I am a great admirer of what Julian Assange has achieved and believe that he has shone a light into dark corners of the worlds governments. What a terrible irony for him to fall into the same trap of believing he knows best for us. Scott Ludlum is a dedicated and hard working senator and the epitome of what we could wish for in a politician. I’m sure that he is used to the vagaries of the political game but this preferencing decision still must rankle. More than that it makes a mockery of all the ideals and hopes that many of us had for this party. Thank you for your good work. I am heartily sick of political parties and behind the scenes power brokers playing the political game for their own ends. Reply • 2013-08-22 at 10:44 am Permalink Daniel, Thank you very much for your account of the unhappy proceedings and even more so for representing the core values of such a large part of the WLP membership with such integrity. I wish you all the best. Peter Bryett. WLP NSW. Reply • 2013-08-22 at 11:03 am Permalink Thank you, Daniel, for your explanation. I was very disappointed to read of your resignation as I agree with and support the fundamental stance of the Party. Your explanation has really helped to put into perspective what has happened and why. I also share your frustration for I had a similar experience recently with ALP stalwarts who would not accept that Principle could be more important than Pragmatism – even when that Pragmatism was at odds with the fundamental base of the Party. It seems, today, that: “The end justifies the means” is a ubiquitous belief. I don’t happen to share that view and feel sad if this is indeed the view of Julian and others in Wikileaks as surely that is one of the very flaws in government actions that they have exposed and decried. I can only hope that time will see a more level headed view of how important it is to stick with Principle, even when it may not be the most pragmatic of choices. Sometimes it is better to lose the battle to win the war – as unpalatable as that might be at the time. Reply • 2013-08-22 at 1:38 pm Permalink Daniel, My first comment here dated 21 Aug 13 is still awaiting release but other comments are printed. Wikileaks website has displayed their explanation today of the events of 21 Aug 13. In summary the other 6 candidates remain (2 per state) less that half the NC have resigned along with some campaign team personal and some members. Leslie Cannold was on ABC TV so I will try to catch it late on Channel 24. The Age and Australian newspapers put a small column on page 12 and 8 about Cannolds “resignation”. She is still on the ballot paper and perhaps if she was not happy she should have resigned a week earlier before nominations closed so another member could be added to the 3rd spot on the Victoria ticket. Regards, Adrian Jackson Reply • 2013-08-22 at 1:40 pm Permalink My first comment on 21 Aug 13 and some by other people are displayed now, thanks Reply • 2013-08-22 at 2:05 pm Permalink I dont care who Wikileaks preferences as long as it get good results in election day. It will be intersting to see how the preference players they bein Wikileaks, Greens, Nationals in WA (they are seperate from the Liberal Party in WA) and the so called “Nazis” in NSW. I thought that phrase was a bit telling. I dint even know which NSW party you are referring too and I think the average NSW voters would not know or care much either. Reply • Pingback:WikiLeaks Party falls apart • Pingback:WEEK #3: ENERGY DRINK, ANYONE? • 2013-08-23 at 5:48 am Permalink You are wrong about Gerry Georgatos. Gerry is a Marxist with his own political agenda. He was one of the founders of a now defunct party that was intended to represent indigenous Australians. Unfortunately, under his influence it became a Marxist party run by white people with white people as its candidates. I cannot see how a Marxist, with all the shameful history that accompanies that sphere of politics, can credibly represent a party that is supposed to be the exact opposite of communism. There are many examples of Gerry’s adventures that demonstrate his near desperate ambition to become a political mover and shaker within the establishment. Just ask around those people who know him, worked with him and dealt with him in the past. I am now an ex-Greens voter (of 18 years) at state and fed level, because of the dishonesty that the party has shown in the issue of asylum seekers. Gerry Georgatos is a player in this issue and his sentiments are more in tune with those of the Greens. The shameful manner in which the Greens and the likes of Mr Georgatos have conducted themselves in relation to asylum seekers is neither transparent nor disposed to the revelation of truth. All attempts to discuss the working dynamics of people smuggling are squelched by these players because it does not suit their political agenda. Therefore, sadly, I will not be voting for Wikileaks or the Greens at this coming election. The choice is a pretty poor one now between two corrupt political majors. But then, that’s politics for you – same old, same old. Reply • 2013-08-23 at 11:47 am Permalink Much has been made of the “democratic” credentials of the national council but who elects it? Is it another case of democracy later as it is with the WLP candidates? Similarly were party members asked to elect their party leader? I’d really like to know. Reply • 2013-08-23 at 11:19 pm Permalink Jemand, you have written: “I am now an ex-Greens voter (of 18 years) at state and fed level, because of the dishonesty that the party has shown in the issue of asylum seekers.” I am interested to know to what dishonesty you refer as my impression is a different one to that which you have expressed and I wonder what it is that I have missed. I’d really appreciate an explanation, if you are prepared to take the time -either on the blog or, if this is off-topic, directly t me at roger@hawcroft.net Hope to hear from you Reply • 2013-08-23 at 11:27 pm Permalink I can certainly appreciate the incongruity and inappropriateness of a supposedly indigenous party being run by and standing candidates who are white. However, in what way is “Marxism” shameful and why do you appear to mistakenly see Marxism and Communism as synonymous? Reply • 2013-08-24 at 2:25 am Permalink Hi Dan, Thanks for your explanation on what you’ve seen from the inside. From my point of view (Vic supporter) it just looks like the proverbial political sausage factory, with most people blissfully unaware what goes in regards to Politicking & Back Room Deals, which is at odds with the Party’s core values of Transparency & Accountability and hence opening up the charge of hypocrisy. In regards to the resulting preference ‘deals’/cock-ups, here are my thoughts: NSW – Given Shooters & Fishers have preferenced the Wikileaks Party last in all states I doubt there was a deal finalised. The problem is that due to all other preference flows, S&F have a chance of getting the final seat off the back of WP preferences. This would be a pretty bad scenario. In terms of Australia First, they’ve preferenced us higher than the majors but whether this is due to a deal or general distaste at the others it’s hard to say. It stinks pretty hard though. WA – From the outside, it looks like the instructions from the National Council weren’t clear enough. Gerry obviously doesn’t consider the Nationals a Major party based on their low primary vote in 2010, and the fact that they’re not part of a coalition agreement with the Liberal Party in WA State Parliament. However Gerry should have been aware that the WA Nationals are affiliated with the National body which is part of the coalition. He also can’t count if he believes it makes no difference, a swing of 2% to the coalition could deliver them that 6th seat. Would like some further analysis on this but he’s not releasing his maths, any chance of you doing something prior to Antony Green coming through with the goods? Vic – Pretty happy with this. In terms of preference deals in general, I lean to a more pragmatic than ideological approach but with the requirement that we put the extremes such as Australia First, One Nation after all the majors. Hard to say what I’d prefer of the following though: 1) 10% chance of winning a seat with a 1% chance you’ll help a non extreme Micro type party getting one 2) 2% chance of winning a seat with a 0% chance you’ll help a non extreme Micro type party. And side note, Antony Green’s Senate calculator is out: http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/senate-calculator/ Reply • 2013-08-24 at 5:36 am Permalink “I cannot see how a Marxist, with all the shameful history that accompanies that sphere of politics, can credibly represent a party that is supposed to be the exact opposite of communism.” And which party do yourcommend? I mean, youcouldn’t get more shameful than the way western capitalist countries have put corporations wealth over people’s health and finacial position. Maybe you need to remember how the various bubbles, recessions and deprssions have been manipulated by bankers and other greedy financial instituitions have run. As for Indigenous politics,for the life of me I can never understand their support for Liberals, the same people who wouldn’t say sorry, and didn’t push for changes befoe and after the Marbo case. It’s bad enough having the christian churches supporting Liberals but then that’s where the bigots run to. Reply • 2013-08-24 at 5:37 am Permalink sorry for the errors, got a dicky keyboard and I clicked send before spell checking… that’s life 🙂 Reply • 2013-08-24 at 6:41 am Permalink Look you people the preferencing arrangements in Australia are not about supporting Communism, Fascism, left, right, progressives or reactionaries. It is a silly system that wastes a lot of time as well as being a vehicle for endless media chatter. A party or independent will preference anyone if they think that it will assist their party – end of story. Also the former Country Party now The Nationals were often referred to as “Agrarian Socialist” with all that socialist protectionism of home grown produce over those nasty imports Reply • 2013-08-24 at 6:44 am Permalink • Fooled citizen such as myself awaited in vain to receive the membership card, yet instead of the formally issued attestation by the WikiLeaks Party having to face the cavalier styled email: “With the election date set for Sept 7 exciting days lie ahead as we take the fight to Canberra. We’re proud to have you with us! We’re pleased to link to your WikiLeaks Party membership card. Simply fill in your name and your unique membership number 645 and you are ready to print or share a copy on Facebook, Twitter and beyond. Let everyone know you’re part of the party that stands for Transparency, Accountability and Justice”! Although earlier, 18 Apr 2013 email dispatched from John Shipton, Secretary WikiLeaks Party informed me: “Dear Leo, thank you for your application to join the WikiLeaks Party, I am pleased to advise that your membership is now confirmed”. “As a foundation member of the party you may be contacted by the Australian Electoral Commission to confirm your membership for the purpose of registering the party. The AEC will check 50 of our first 550 members by phone or email. Your assistance in providing this confirmation to the AEC is appreciated”. Reply • 2013-08-24 at 6:49 am Permalink The Liberals put the referendum to Australian to get Aboriginals the vote and equal rights and In my state of Victoria the Hamer Liberal Government decriminalised homosexuality. All this was in the 1960’s and 1970’s respectively. Also Sir Rupert Hamer abolished the death penalty. Reply • 2013-08-24 at 6:59 am Permalink Leo – Wikileaks members were issues with a membership number via email. Even the Liberals don’t has membership cards. When I was a member over 10 years ago (I left in 2003 as I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq) members were put onto a local branch membership list (chosen by the new member) held by the branch secretary or for a member at large was placed on the state HQ list. Reply • 2013-08-24 at 8:19 am Permalink Nick, no worries – we all do it. I also agree fully with your post. I’m still awaiting an answer to my question from Jermand. Adrian, you are right to note that the Liberals have occasionally done something worthwhile and not simply to further their own, elitist, wealth orientated agenda to serve their privileged, profit orientated mates. However, the fact is that they have rarely done so and when they have it has usually been with a pragmatic motive that the act would, in some way, benefit them. Taking the reality into account, it *is* almost unfathomable as to why any average worker would vote for the Liberal Party as, in doing so, they almost invariably vote against their own best interests. The Liberals have never actually acted with the aim of improving the lot of the Aboriginal population and the “Intervention” is a complete travesty. As for the vote and equal rights – Aborigines may well have the vote, just as do women – but also just as it is with women, equal rights remain elusive. Reply • 2013-08-24 at 9:57 am Permalink Put your clipboard away, Roger. I posted a very specific statement, not an invitation to a debate about Communism or interrogation of my political sentiments. And I’m not inclined to reply to questions posed by people who snidely refer to me as “Jermand”, as in German? I guess you think that’s witty. You can pretend all you like that there is a world of difference between Marxism, Communism, Stalinism, Trotskyism et al, but like vicious dogs of any breed, they have common roots. But then, it depends on which historical readings you prefer. I should also point out, that my comment was primarily about Mr Georgatos and the suitability of his appointment as a candidate. Roger, what can you offer this blog by way of a refutation of my comment on this matter? Do you even know Mr Georgatos? Someone else asked me what party I recommend before spiralling off in a raving tangent of anti-Western commentary. Quite clearly, I never even raised the issues of corporate corruption, bubbles, recessions, banks etc in my comment. Was that a preemptive attack on what is imagined to be my political sympathies? Of course, I don’t recommend any party and nor should I have to for the purpose of engaging in criticism of the Wikileaks Party. Unfortunately, WP is experiencing the usual pangs of birth that other parties experience but with the added burden of being in the spotlight and under the microscope. Nobody, especially Labor’s friends in the media, want to cut them any slack. The manner in which the preferences were handled was appalling – no excuses acceptable. Dan’s approach to the preferences issue, as he described, was reasonable but I would have offered this advice – copy the preference arrangements of another mainstream party and only change it if there is a political advantage without any political embarrassment. Preferences is a dirty game and WP should have played it safe. So when you get idiots like Georgatos making symbolic gestures like preferencing an indigenous candidate who apparently had “no chance of winning”, at the cost of WP’s political credibility, then you realise that this guy is not fit for the job. I hope Wikileaks Party sticks around. But they’re gonna learn the hard way that you can’t enter politics without getting your hands dirty. Reply • 2013-08-24 at 10:06 am Permalink Roger – workers (tradies) are also small businessmen. At the end of the Cain/Kirner government in Victoria in 1992 the workers voted in a Liberal MP in very working class Broadmeadows and many other worker electorates. The ALP can’t necessarily count on the workers vote these days as the workers become more middle class. Reply • 2013-08-24 at 10:35 am Permalink Jemand, I apologise for mis-spelling your name – it was a mis-reading, not a snide usage, as you suggest. By all means criticise me for the lack of sight in my one (barely) working eye but please don’t make presumptions as to my motives. I didn’t introduce the references to Marxism, you did, as a snide aside, to use your terminology, and therefore it is inaccurate to claim that you made a very specific statement about Wikileaks. If you don’t want discussion of something then it is best not to introduce it – it added nothing to your argument and has caused this aside and conflict. My question was a genuine one because I don’t believe that communism and marxism are synonymous and anyone with a knowledge of politics and history would be aware of that. However, because i am always willing to learn and reappraise what I believe I know, I made a genuine enquiry to see whether you could give me evidence and argument for your assertion. So please don’t berate me for following up on something you, yourself, introduced. As for the clipboard allusion – I have no ideas whatsoever it is that you refer to. I don’t have a clipboard. I asked a simple question of clarification with no ill intent. I am sorry that you took it in different light. However, I realise that this discussion was intended as relating to Wikileaks and so, although I didn’t begin the excursion into political and economic ideology, I am happy to end it. Reply • 2013-08-24 at 10:44 am Permalink Adrian, tradies are workers, I agree, but they are not them majority of such. As for whether or not tradies voted in favour of a Liberal government at one time or another – well they did for John Howard – the worst and most parsimmonious PM in Australia’s history and are about to do so, in all probability, for TA – another of Howard’s ilk. The fact is, as I said, that any worker that believes they will improve their lot under a Liberal government is likely to be sorely disappointed. They will not. The LIberal Party is supported by the big end of town and beholden to it. I a well aware that the working classes have been wooed by soporofic tv and gadgets and this illusion of becoming “middle class”. That “middle class” is just a set of unknowing lackeys who have fallen victim to the Liberal Party spin and who are now so conditioned to a selfish society that they see nothing wrong with tramping over the less fortunate to get what they want. It is a sad state of affairs and until we are rid of the self-serving in politics, of which the Liberals and Coalition give us the best examples – not only will the lot of the average Australian not improve but Australia will not survivee, as neither will the world. Reply • 2013-08-24 at 11:30 am Permalink Roger, I accept your apology re my name. As for the Marxism/Communism allusion in my original comment, you clearly do not undertand that I was indicating the incongruity between Georgatos’ long-standing political loyalties and the libertarian values of the Wikileaks Party. The specific point I am trying to get through is that Georgatos is not interested in Libertarianism or WP, maybe not even truly in Marxism – he’s interested in a big career in politics and WP is a vehicle. So I reject you nonsensical suggestion that by mentioning something like Marxism, I am implicitly availing myself to have an extended conversation about it. God help anyone who alludes to Quantum Mechanics here! Regarding the Greens dishonesty, consider this – Asylum seekers make an application for asylum by presenting a story of persecution and supporting documentary evidence, if any, to the authorities. They do not have any special right to be taken at their word, anymore than anyone else telling a story. The authorities make an imperfect assessment of the veracity of claims because it is, quite obviously, impossible to check the veracity of many thousands of claims to the high standard that we hold others, such as stories told to the police about crimes. So they reject some claims that are evidently false and others that have security and character objections. All other claims that present as plausible with no evidence of security or character issues are “deemed” acceptable and claims are successful. The problem here is that the Greens have been lying, repeatedly, about the determination process as being one that “proves” that claimants are genuine. You might think this is a petty objection to semantics. I consider this a misrepresentation of a process that is seriously flawed and exposed to abuse. Why would this be any different to any other avenue of opportunity? Secondly, the Greens megaphonically grandstand on politically intractable and subjective concepts such as “compassion” while cold-bloodedly remaining silent on the 1000+ deaths of men, women and children at sea, save for the perfunctory expressions of sadness prior to a reflexive accusation of blame at the government (as bad as they are). I wash my hands of them. Reply • 2013-08-24 at 1:53 pm Permalink thanks Jemand – I have a better understanding now of what you intended and though I don’t agree with the validity of much of your arguments, nor appreciate your jibe re the Marxism mention, I do appreciate your taking the trouble to respond. Thank you Reply • 2013-08-25 at 1:26 am Permalink It appears to me that the baby has just been thrown out with the bathwater !! Anger between National Council members is divisive and unproductive. I ask all those who resigned to seriously consider withdrawing their resignations and for the National Council to focus on the person(s) responsible for the Group Voting Ticket issue and try to teach those person(s) some sense and not nepotism or entitlement in their thinking. Yes their thinking! because that’s what is missing. THINK please- T H I N K ! ! Julian please consider asking those involved to consider withdrawing their resignations – it is in your persona to do so. Reply • 2013-08-25 at 2:41 am Permalink Adrian Jackson wrote: “I joined Wikileaks on 01 Apr 13″… Care to reveal your membership number? Granted to The WikiLeaks Party foundation member who donated$700 as well.

• 2013-08-25 at 3:04 am

The donation was made a month after I joined and I bought some merchandise too

• 2013-08-25 at 5:31 am

Dr C – The focus for the next 13 days should be the election not personal issues with some former party members and current members. Perhaps this could be looked at after 07 Sep 13. Same with the proposed review. Now is not the time for distractions to the main game, the election

• 2013-08-25 at 10:14 am

How does Gerry manage to belong to two different parties?
From the facebook page of The Ecological, Social Justice, Aboriginal Party … one would be forgiven for thinking Gerry Georgatos is still an active member of that party. Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest while he is a candidate for the Wikileaks Party?
It had completely slipped my mind, but about four years ago, Gerry was a preselected *Greens* candidate for the seat of Willagee – but they dumped him!
It was quite a falling out with Gerry making accusations of his ousting having been “engineered” and then storming off to form yet another party, The ‘Real’ Greens.
This now leads me to wonder whether Gerry had thoughts of vengeance in mind when he preferenced the personable Nationals’ David Wirrpanda over the more valuable Green’s candidate, Scott Ludlam. Whether Gerry acted out of malice is, of course, unprovable. However, risk management is not about absolute knowledge, but calculated uncertainty. The Wikileaks Party really needs to perform extensive background checks on its would-be candidates before endorsing them.
It’s now too late to ditch Gerry, without further embarrassment, but I hope they do so soon after the election to prevent further damage to the party’s credibility.

• 2013-08-25 at 10:29 am

Oh dear, now we have a conspiracy theory. The Nationals in WA get about 4% and the Greens 14%. The Nationals will exhaust first before the Greens but if some Nationals preferences go to Wikileaks all the better for Wikileaks.

• 2013-08-25 at 11:21 am

Back to preferencing, the below link by “@ndy” lists the WPL NSW preferences.
Most people, for good reasons and despite the descriptive names of political parties, would not know what many of these political parties stand for. And, without knowing any more than the parties’ names, people would see many of them as a bunch of crackpots, weirdos and extremists.
So why would the Wikileaks Party elevate these parties in their preferences if the objective is to attract the vote of ordinary people who are crying out for real change? It simply beggars belief that a party can be so naive and incompetent.
For the Wikileaks Party to win the trust of the average voting Australian, it MUST NOT spook them off with the *appearance* of endorsing strange parties that have little or no resonance with the average intelligent voter.
@ndy’s listing of WLP’s preferences for NSW –
http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=34582&cpage=1
This is the sloppy website of the Aust. Electoral Commission listing preferences for NSW. For party preference ordering in other states, change that part of the URL where it shows “nsw”. Unfortunately, the AEC is so shabby, they don’t have a clear link to each state’s preferences –
http://www.aec.gov.au/election/nsw/gvt.htm

• 2013-08-26 at 2:34 am

Litigation, Adrian, is what Libeals feared when there was an opportunity to do so. Speaking of a bygone Liberal era is not relevent, we are talking about the current obnoxious band of right wing bigots who as many a previous Liberal leader has said are not of the old brigade.
“I cannot see how a Marxist, with all the shameful history that accompanies that sphere of politics” Jemand you made the statement in a public arena makes it fair game.
WLP should play it straight or play the game, no in betweens like has happened as canbe seen by the MSM taking pot shots at them.
makes no sense being on the National Council when you have no authority, the whole lot should resign. I am a full supporter of what Wikileaks has done including Snowden and Manning but the transparency of teh party has contradicted WL philosophy

• 2013-08-26 at 2:39 am

I agree wholeheartedly Nick with your last sentence. I am also a fully paid up member and was a volunteer until last week, but the lack of transparency has contradicted what I thought the wikileaks party was about. I cannot get over the betrayal of Scott Ludlam the only politician who stood up and spoke for Julian. Shameful.

• 2013-08-26 at 3:03 am

I think a few of the malcontent here are not really Wikileaks supporters by stooges for other parties like the Greens. The Greens infected the Democrats and destroyed it and now the Greens are on the decline. Don Chipp was to the Democrats as Bob Brown was to the Greens. Both are now gone.

• 2013-08-26 at 4:39 am

Judging by your opinionated comment and introduction of material which you are subsequently unable to evidence and dismiss as irrelevant, I would say that you are the major malcontent posting here.
Your statements regarding the Greens are false. The Greens are not on the decline and they did not destroy the Democrats.

• 2013-08-26 at 4:40 am

Assange has never advocated for wholesale transparency – that’s a myth. He advocated for transparency of governments making decisions on behalf of the people they purport to represent. So the practice of observing transparency does not apply to his personal affairs nor to the internal machinations of the Wikileaks Party – and nor should it.
As for statements made in public forums, such as this blog, being “fair game”, I can simply ignore those impertinent overtures to dead-end debates that attempt to defend pet political ideologies. But don’t let my disinterest discourage anybody who wants to honk on about the latent virtues of communism.
I agree with Adrian’s observation that the Greens are now in decline after the departure of the popular Dr Bob Brown. So much of the political appeal of a party is connected with the personal appeal of its representatives. And you really couldn’t find much less personable politicians than Christine Milne and Sarah Hanson-Young. Their tactic of grandstanding and berating on emotional issues such as sea-journeying asylum seekers is discordant with so many ordinary Australians.

• 2013-08-26 at 5:34 am

Roger – the Democrats were formed by small L liberals but later the green/red left took over. They even had a “compliance committee” in Canberra that monitored what the Democrat Senators could say in the end. When Don Chipp formed the party the Senators were free agents in the parliament.
They even got rid of Chipps great slogan “keep the bastards honest”. In my 40 years as a voter there has only been 3 great slogans in Australian politic. The other two were Labors “Its Time” in 1972 when Whitlam was elected and Kennett’s reference to the Victoria ALP as “the guily party”

• 2013-08-26 at 5:37 am

that should be “the guilty party”

• 2013-08-26 at 8:06 am

surely the running mates of the wikileaks party are obliged to be truthful when making decisions on behalf of the people they purport to represent, members of the party and volunteers. The wikileaks party brochures I have been asked to distribute quote Gerry Georgatos “The ability to discover the truth is outstripped by the capacity to manifest deceit”…”The wikileaks party is an opportunity to challenge this premise”. Another general quote about what the party stands for… “What does The Wikileaks Party stand for?” The Wikileaks Party believes that truthful, accurate factural information is the foundations of democracy and is essential to the protection of human rights and freedoms. Where the truth is suppressed or distorted corruption and injustice flourish.” Unfortunately some members where not told the truth.

• 2013-08-26 at 11:07 am

Colleen, I’m sorry that you feel like you’ve been jerked around. Georgatos is not the right guy for the Wikileaks Party. But stick with them if you can, provided that their policy details conform with your values.
What they are going through is the normal process of self-realisation for a new party. What I mean by that is every new party attracts a lot of idealists, crackpots and control freaks who need to be weeded out by those who founded the party to allow it to settle into its own personality. It takes time, patience and a few setbacks before a party reaches some level of maturity.

• 2013-08-26 at 12:43 pm

I think there a number of people here who are showing some very conflicting views on the Greens.
Personally I see them as a party still with a long way to go to have the maturity to provide government, but certainly well advanced on giving the thinking left a sensible voice in parliaments. But struggling with balancing pragmatism and idealism.
Their adherence to grass roots democracy does occasionally make them seem intransigent, such as an inability to agree to the least-worst Malaysian option, as they cannot nimbly move their principled position to suit short term deals.
But to then condemn the Greens for this, and decide to vote for either of the majors instead is surely the height of hypocrisy. Both of them are engaged in a totally unprincipled race to the bottom to be most against asylum seekers.
The Greens will never be perfect, but do they have to be perfect to gain idealist votes, whilst the old parties can pick up your vote by just being not as bad as the other party.
I call on people who are disillusioned with Wikileaks party to join the Greens and try to help the Greens reach a higher level of political maturity, balancing pragmatism and idealism. Unless you really are happier having Abbott or Rudd dominating our politics, instead of voices like Scott Ludlam, Adam Bandt, Christine Milne, etc. The Greens are a proven party of principles and values that aren’t for sale or bargaining away.

• 2013-08-26 at 3:08 pm

Dear Dan,

• 2013-08-26 at 9:48 pm

Well said, RichardB. However, It is good to read a measured viewpoint – they are so rare.
I agree that the Greens are an immature party but am not sure that maturity can really be gained without substantial experience in office. Neither am I sure that maturity is a necessity for making sound decisions.
The established “mature” parties now demonstrate neither idealism nor honesty and both have indulged in some appalling decision making. The ALP, in addition, has abandoned the fundamental principles on which it was founded.
Although you couldn’t pay me enough to get me to vote for the LNP, I am saddened that so many ALP supporters are so misguided as to see the principled stance of the Greens as, in some mysterious way, aligning them with the LNP. They are not.
The WLP is even less mature than the Greens and while I admire JA and his like for obtaining & releasing information that should be in the public domain (IMHO) one has to be concerned by any party which feigns inclusive and democratic process on the outside but operates dictatorially on the inside.

• 2013-08-27 at 2:52 am

Adrian Jackson wrote: “Wikileaks members were issued with a membership number via email. Even the Liberals don’t have membership cards”!
• Adrian, unlike the ordinary members, 500 foundation members participatory role is crucial in theory to uphold the political party democratic values. Consonant with AEC prerequisite for the Party to be registered. Yet amazingly no supervision to ensure that the foundation members (used for the purpose of registering the party) received a letter of attestation. Accompanied by the membership card, pertinent info apropos induction process, spelled out rights & obligations!

• 2013-08-27 at 3:00 am

• Adrian, why would you — as a part of the Party that stands for transparency and accountability — coy about your membership number? Sought to figure out the reason behind the foundation member (such as myself) being granted membership No 645? Though applied on 3 Apr 2013 to join the WikiLeaks Party.
Confirmed as received by the membership officer on 5 Apr 2013, in an email dispatched at 20:15 …”Thank you for your application to join the WikiLeaks Party. We will send you a confirmation message once it has been processed. Please be aware this may take a little time as we are dealing with a high volume of applications. Thank you for your support”.

• 2013-08-27 at 3:10 am

Leo – Yawn; you and afew other here are becoming a boring.

• 2013-08-27 at 3:30 am

… perhaps you should take a close look at yourself, Adrian, rather than put down others.
As for boring – well you certainly never get sick of listening to yourself – that’s clear.

• 2013-08-27 at 3:35 am

• Adrian, try to understand, I am actually not after the precise number, and would be content to find out just the location of your membership number within the initial 10 groups of 50. Where 7th group for example to indicate the spot of your membership number between 300 and 350.

• 2013-08-27 at 3:50 am

I am a member and received confirmation and my member number … 187…My problem with the coming election is in all honesty I find it difficult to be party to maybe unseating of Scott Ludlam The wikileaksparty fiasco could also hand the senate to the coalition and that would be an even bigger disaster. In my personal opinion,

• 2013-08-27 at 5:49 am

As a Victorian I have never heard of Scott Ludlam. Anyhow if Scott is not re-elected in WA it will be the voters of WA who voted him out not a HTV card the no voter has to follow if they choose not too. Yes I have voted below the line in an election before but I early vote to do it. There is postal voting too.

• 2013-08-27 at 6:36 am

Political transparency has nothing to do with personal transparency, so anyone being asked to reveal their personal details, membership numbers etc — REFUSE.
RichardB is obviously a Greens flunky trying shift support away from WLP to his preferred party. Don’t be fooled. The Greens have had plenty of time to mature and yet, they contine to kill workable solutions because those solutions are imperfect – ironic really, because RichardB was suggesting that the Greens shouldn’t have to be perfect to win your support.

• 2013-08-27 at 8:46 am

If you are a supporter of wikileaks and Julian Assange you should know what Scott has done on behalf of Julian. He has been Assange’s strongest supporter inside federal Parliament, hounding the government over its lack of support for him and its dealings with the US over its campaign against Assange and WikiLeaks. Ludlam travelled to Europe at his own expense in 2011 to talk to Swedish authorities and Australian officials in the UK about the case.

• 2013-08-27 at 8:53 am

Sweden is a non entity as a country. We should ban SAAB car imports – opps we dont have to as SAAB buggered up their company by getting into bed with a Ysnkee car company and went out of business.

• 2013-08-27 at 9:12 am

Is that really the extent of your ability to analyse the situation of the various political parties in Australia?
It is an appallingly shallow and extremely false interpretation of the reality.

• 2013-08-27 at 9:20 am

Sweden is far from a nonentity and to suggest so is to show your appalling narrow-mindedness.
I firmly believe that JA was right to release the information he did and that the US will do their very best to influence other countries to cooperate in having him extradited there for trial.
However, I have no knowledge of the situation which led to the Swedish case he has to answer and to demean a whole country on the basis of your own prejudice has no validity whatsoever.
Your derision of SAAB, and of the US as “Yankee” has nothing to substantiate it and your endless nonsensical invective is a complete waste of space and time.

• 2013-08-27 at 9:29 am

Roger – boo hoo. I owned a SAAB Coupe once.

• 2013-08-27 at 10:25 am

Ok Adrian, fair enough, I’m far too serious and should never have given your contributions any serious attention.
I too have owned a SAAB, both a 99 and a 900. Two of the best cars I’ve ever owned.
I guess I missed the joke or whatever it was you were trying to say.
I just find that sweeping generalisations, particularly derogatory ones, contribute little to real understanding of any situation. Usually, in my experience, they simply reflect the emptiness of the mind behind them.
Don’t understand the “boo hoo” either, so please excuse me.
I don’t like much of what the US does nor much of the ethos it exports, particular that of capitalism, materialism and competition. However, I do recognise that not all those in the US have the same view, just as, if Abbott is elected PM, there will be 40 to 50% of Australians that don’t share his views or welcome or support what his government sets in motion.
You may consider it trite but, in my view, there is usually good and bad and in-between to be found in everyone (and countries are just everyone in a particular place).
However, I’m sure you can tell me why I have it wrong.

• 2013-08-27 at 9:38 pm

When the honey bees die off (as they are particularly in the USA) we will only have a few years to live according to that great Austrian scientist Albert Einstein. No more pollinating flowers and grains therefore not more Macdonalds burgers as the cattle will have no grass to eat.

• 2013-08-30 at 3:08 am

Adrian Jackson wrote: “Yawn; you and afew other here are becoming a boring”! Unlike the banning SAAB car imports? Sidetracked issue by Adrian (who used to brag in 2011 apropos owned Range Rover and Triumph TR3A), whatever it takes to deflect focus from the issue in question!
• Amazingly, in spite of the irreconcilable conflict of interest, Mr Jackson pander to the apparatchiks diametrically opposed to the freedom of speech by the Jewish dissidents, striving to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
Taboo to question zionist agenda by the retired Captain Adrian Jackson, ASM (SE Asia), DFSM & Clasp, ADM.

• 2013-08-30 at 4:43 am

Colleen Adams wrote: “I am also a fully paid up member and was a volunteer until last week, but the lack of transparency has contradicted what I thought the wikileaks party was about”. “My problem with the coming election is in all honesty, I find it difficult to be party to maybe unseating of Scott Ludlam. The wikileaksparty fiasco could also hand the senate to the coalition and that would be an even bigger disaster”.
• Colleen, your unwavering moral stance and selfless contribution has been much appreciated. Still, I would be grateful to know the date, you applied to join the Party. Sought to figure out the reason behind the foundation member who applied to join on Apr 3rd, 2013, being granted membership No 645?
Julian Assange duped supporter such as myself applied online on 3 Apr 2013 to join The WikiLeaks Party. Confirmed as received by the membership officer on 5 Apr 2013 in an email dispatched at 20:15. Consequently, 18 Apr 2013 email dispatched at 23:35 from John Shipton, Secretary WikiLeaks Party informed me that my “membership is now confirmed”.
Accompanied by the “Receipt” of the cash deposit made on 4 Apr 2013 to the Bendigo Bank WikiLeaks Party Account: 148 029 176. “Received from: Leo Braun The sum of $20 being for Membership of The WikiLeaks Party”. However, no membership card or a letter of attestation was ever received from the party that stands for Transparency, Accountability and Justice! Instead, 6 Aug 2013 dated email from The WikiLeaks Party suggested to the foundation member (used for the purpose of registering the party), “Simply fill in your name and your unique membership number 645 and you are ready to print your WikiLeaks Party membership card”. Yet the rational reasoning suggests that once the AEC registration process is completed, The WikiLeaks Party foundation members to received a letter of attestation. Accompanied by the membership card and pertinent info apropos induction process – spelled out rights & obligations! Consonant with AEC prerequisite for the Party to be registered. Reply • 2013-08-30 at 5:14 am Permalink Yes, the bee issue is another catastrophe of what is clearly a world too small. No one likes to think they are being manipulated and the general public who are being manipulated, prefer to ignore it unless a hole in the head suddenly appears. I voted Labor 2007 then Greens 2010 but this time it won’t be Greens, but still looking for someone to the left. The ABC Compass Vote placed me inbetween Labor and Greens and strangely I am a member of the Katter Party; try and figure that one out if you want! I think there should be one and only one government, a Yin-Yang government, reliant on not just independent, non-affiliated, non-conflict-of-interest advisors but also the people; issues brought to the attention of the public to mull over and decide. Then the Yin-Yang party implements the will of the people. Any issues by the people are brought to the attention of their locally approved “voice” that is then brought to the attention of the advisors and then up the ladder. Now, that more than likely looks like a totalitarian party sitting on the extreme left side of the fence. I see it as true democracy. The power of corporations is far too high, especially when it comes to corporations run by individuals (Murdoch) and without doubt such corporations should not have the power they do today. They do because of secrecy and members of parliament being too close to these bastards and thus like recently in NSW criminal government officials often destroy the integrity of our government system and people’s lives. I am one for removing foreign ownership (lease is more pertinent), massive support for manufacturing and innovation (CSIRO), policiticans at all levels should be totally devoid in any relationship with such powerfull corporate entities. So, now, which party should I vote for? Reply • 2013-08-30 at 5:24 am Permalink Better start your own, I think! Not sure how you got to Katter from Labor & the Greens… I think that one or more of the Scandinavian countries uses a device known as Citizen Initiated Referenda which is not too dissimilar from the notion you have but doesn’t involve the dictatorship. Someone else here may know more about this. Unless we drastically alter our capitalist economic system or replace it with something else then you’ll never get what you want. We now have a culture of individualism, competition, selfishness and success evaluated in terms of the$ or celebrity status.
There are some sound thinkers who are advocating that we begin to measure “well-being” rather than GDP, Growth and other economic indicators as a sign of the health of a country. For me, that’s a sound idea. Unfortunately, the Greens are the only party which seems to come close, other than the WLP and it seems they have degenerated into squabbling.
So, I share your concern – shouldn’t there be a “None of the above” option on the ballot paper?

• 2013-08-30 at 5:50 am

I liked Bob’s intensity/enthusiasm on manufacturing, suicide awareness and farming, but I don’t like his anti-gay stance although I do have probably uneducated reservations for gay couples adopting children, otherwise marriage should be open slather amongst humans… that is.
Ahh yes, I love referendums but many politicians don’t and corporates don’t either. Yes, the \$ or celebrity, what a nation we are, paid jack to those that do the most for our nation, but then this has been going on for thousands of centuries. People want rewards/entertainment for the “hard work” they have done for the nation. I replied to a comment in Linkedin about how Australians can learn from the Germans, I think we prefer to learn from the yanks or even the Poms. The control factor of the yanks and poms over Aussies is self evident since 9/11
I’m probably unique but I think Federal MPs are underpaid, although an easy stepping stone into the corporate world of government lobbying
Maybe governments need to stop putting their hands into our purse to pay for F1 to run in AU and other events like it. But the world of entertainment has stepped outside of the coliseum (colosseum, thus we can’t live on entertainment, so what is WLP’s policies on productivity, innovation and protectionism? Also, what is WLP’s policies on multiculturalism associated with religion?

• 2013-08-30 at 7:18 am

The former Country Party under John “blackjack” McEwan were often referred to as “agrarian socialists” and Bob Katter is one of the last of that generation left so it fits that supporters on vote compass may be near the Red/Green quaqrant. That said I like old Bob.

• 2013-08-30 at 7:24 am

I heard recently (and not from anyone in Wikileaks incidentally) that Dr Leslie Cannold may have resigned as a candidate because she would have to resign from government boards if a political candidate.
ADF personnel standing as candidates have to take leave and not wear uniform when campaigning and Jackie Kelly in 1996? had a hiccup as she was still a NZ citizen despite serving in the RAAF as a legal officer. I assume Cannold was a citizen as she immigrated from New York over 20 years ago.

• 2013-09-01 at 2:43 am

Jemand wrote: “Political transparency has nothing to do with personal transparency, so anyone being asked to reveal their personal details, membership numbers etc – refuse”!
• I guess you think that’s witty to ignore the betrayed WLP members plea as a result of being exploited for the purpose of registering the party, then discarded as an expendable pleb.

• 2013-09-01 at 3:14 am

Colleen Adams, your unwavering moral stance and selfless contribution has been much appreciated. Still, I would be grateful to know the date, you applied to join the Party. Sought to figure out the reason behind the foundation member (who applied to join on Apr 3rd, 2013) being granted membership No 645?

• 2013-09-01 at 3:51 am

Nice article in The Sunday Age today (01 Sep 13) about micro parties, including Wikileaks, controlling the Senate after the election. Abbott will win in the House of Representatives easily but the Senate??

• 2013-09-01 at 4:28 am

Adrian Jackson wrote: “Wikileaks will announce 6 Senate candidates (2 each in 3 states) tomorrow including Julian Assange in Victoria. This will mean that they can be placed above the line on the ballot paper”.
Adrian Jackson insisted: “The announcement is from 12pm (midnight) tonight so a minute later it is tomorrow and the names will be advise then. A silly pedantic point”!
Adrian Jackson elaborated: “The announcement was at 12 Noon today but Wikileaks got the time wrong: 11:59am is 1 minute before 12:00am (noon) and a minute later 00:01 is the first minute in pm”.

• 2013-09-01 at 8:19 am

Leo Braun, you are an idiot, a troublemaker or both.
Nothing in my commentary can be interpreted as ignoring “betrayed WLP members”. You simply do not like me advising discretion when responding to calls for members to reveal their personal details on a publicly accessible forum.
Leo, if you are authorised to conduct investigations into the grievances of party members then please post your contact details here so that interested parties can contact you, at their convenience, to discuss in PRIVATE those matters that they do not wish to discuss in public.
Of course, they are free to post anything they like here but wouldn’t it be more courteous to provide them the option of resolving their grievances with the benefit of confidentiality? But if you are not so authorised, perhaps you would care to explain why you are requesting information from party members and what you intend to do with it.

• 2013-09-01 at 10:03 am

“Leo Braun, you are an idiot, a troublemaker or both.” – Is there really any need for this comment? It appears to me that it adds nothing to your point but simply adds one more excuse for te two of you not to engage in rational dialogue.
The term “idiot” is particularly regrettable becasue, until very recently it was commonly used to refer to a person with some impediment to conventional behaviour and understanding – autism, aspergers, etc…
In fact, we all have our points of view, some of them shared, some not, but most held with some degee of conviction. Let’s respect that that’s a good thing and that we can learn from one another and that maybe collaboration is a good thing. Probably the least effective way to change someone’s opinion is to castigate them for it or belittle them.
For myself – I think this issue has run its course and is now contributing little – but that’s just my opinion – others may see it as very relevant to pursue it – in that case, I would say something similar to your last paragraph – O.k. but in private, eh?
With good intent 🙂

• 2013-09-01 at 3:27 pm

Are you the moderator here, Roger?

• 2013-09-01 at 9:24 pm

@Jemand: “Are you the moderator here, Roger?”
I’m confident that you know that I’m not so this question is clearly a sarcastic comment on my last post.
An unnecessary comment. Do you believe that I should not be allowed to post here? Are my comments not as valid as yours? Did you not read that I wrote, “For myself ….but that’s just my opinion …” and “O.k. but in private eh?”, i.e a question.
Obviously you prefer to pursue confrontational & largely personal agendas in public. As I said, my view is that these are neither enlightening nor useful and are counterproductive to the advancement of anything.
I am certain that if the moderator considers my comment inappropriate, it will not appear or will be removed.

• 2013-09-02 at 1:06 am

Leo Braun
I can’t remember the exact date I applied for membership. I did look into my bank account for the transaction details, but unfortunately I cannot see anything before 6th April, as my bankcard was closed on that date as it had been hacked…for the second time in six months. The previous time was just after I donated to The Bradley Manning Defence Fund. I don’t suspect anyone associated with either The Bradley Manning Defence Fund or the wikileaksparty but I do think that it is not a co-incidence. I remain a member of the wikileaksparty and hope that post election the issues that are of concern to me can be sorted in a way that would not compromise my belief system and make me more comfortable in my membership and support of the party. The preferences is not the only issue I have. And I don’t blame Julian or anyone else for my dissatisfaction. I can only blame myself for “assuming” I knew where Julian was coming from.

• 2013-09-02 at 3:30 am

Roger, why do you post comments presuming to know what is or isn’t neccessary? Certainly, there would be comments that you find unneccessary for your own purposes, but why should anyone here be interested in that? Your last comment is revealing of your own personality and tendency to project. But again, why should anyone here be interested in your small village-minded opinions? It’s almost as if you are looking for any excuse to post a comment.
Remember, Roger, intellegint people talk about ideas, common people talk about current events and stupid people talk about other people.

• 2013-09-02 at 3:33 am

.. or even ‘intelligent’

• 2013-09-02 at 4:55 am

There were and are serious issues concerning fraudulent identities. These fraudulent identities being used as so call covert communications.
It is not necessary to use fraudulent identities for covert communications. There are non-corrupt ways to conduct covert communications.
These fraudulent identities were also used to create a fog in a poor attempt to vet trust.
– Julia Clark

• 2013-09-02 at 6:11 am

@Jemand. My direct email address is: roger@hawcroft.net
I don’t propose to enter into a personal disagreement with you on this forum so please post any further abuse to me directly rather than polluting the forum with it.
In answer to your comment. I don’t post what you suggest nor in the way that you claim. You might like to consider what you’ve written as it is much more in line with your own posts than it is with mine.
Unfortunately, the Internet has given those,such as yourself, who have little more than personal prejudice to offer, a large space in which to air your bullying and invective peppered ranting, which in other mediums would never have passed the editor’s desk.
I will always expose you and the others like you for what you are and not shrink away because of your hurled insults and facile comments. I will do so because I abhor bullying and abuse, and have seen too many people hurt by it.
The comments that you appear to think are cleverly framed only show up your personal vanity and banal grasp of the world and those in it.
Given the content of the paragraph in which you tell me to remember certain views that you hold about differing types of people, you obviously consider yourself “stupid”. It’s not how I’d assess you but some might consider it a synonym.
So, given that you’ve taken the liberty of deciding to tell me what to remember; I will return the favour: remember, Jemand, that this is not a forum set up for personal dispute and hurling of insults and abuse and that I have given you my direct email so that you can do that.

• 2013-09-02 at 12:07 pm

Roger, by any reasonable definition, you are a troll. My posts are replete with references to politically relevant, topical and historic information. Your posts are about other posters and your opinions about blog culture.
Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion about WLP as a viable player int the political process?
Do you have any useful information regarding the suitability or otherwise of candidates?
Do you have anything at all to say about where this election is going?
Looking forward to an intelligent reply from you to prove you are not a troll pretending to be a casual poster who thinks he is a de facto moderator.

• 2013-09-02 at 1:43 pm

Crikey, we are getting uppity. Time for the popcorn I think. By the way Jemand, you need to loosen up as the mood started at the point you got quite narky over the misspelling of your name; what colour are your chill pills? You also need to frequent Youtube and see what real Trolls do; I beg to differ in your opinion of Roger.
I like the articulation of Roger too, a little bit philosophical but clearly driven to be a moderator; go get him tiger! Grrrr

• 2013-09-03 at 3:55 am

• Natural human reactions strike psychopaths as strange and therefore interesting, even comical. They therefore observe us, deriving conclusions, forming their different world of concepts. They become experts in our weaknesses and often run heartless experiments upon us.
In any society in this world, psychopathic individuals and some of the other deviants create a ponerogenically active network of common collusions, partially estranged from the community of normal people. Their world is forever divided into us and them!
They learn how their disposition can have traumatizing effects on the personalities of normal people, and how to take advantage of this root of terror for purposes of reaching their goals!

• 2013-09-03 at 4:07 am

• These types of people have no compassion, no consideration, no common courtesy and yes, no conscience whatsoever. These are signs of a sociopath, or the generic anti-social personality disorder. Psychopathy is defined by a desire to actually hurt physically. Both sociopathy and psychopathy involve lacking remorse and impulsive behavior, though.
Psychopathology doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is more violent. Somebody simply have no conscience, which may include violent behavior. Most are white collar psychopaths, highly functioning individuals … appearing to be “normal”, and are not violent.
Hurt does not necessarily mean to hurt physically. Yet predatory exploits consequences in social or structured terms as well. What can definitely be played out in a work environment. This is why many white collar psychopaths are so good at what they do.
Bear in mind that an unspecified or unknown person; somebody, someone, big shot, an important person … means Jemand in German!

• 2013-09-03 at 6:44 am

Ahhhh explains the known assumption. Jemand knows it is German and thus took offence when it was mispelt. Jemand has some quality strengths in his arguements, but I don’t think sociopath or psychopath can be included in that definition of strength, LOL.

• 2013-09-04 at 6:13 am

I would suggest that anyone who was previously supporting the wikileaks party take a look at the pirate party australia. Unfortunately they are not as well known as wikileaks but are doing everything the wikileaks party should have and are doing it much much better.
http://pirateparty.org.au/
also, for a quick comparison of the two parties see:
http://2013electionwatch.com.au/analysis/wikileaks-party-vs-pirate-party
Any ex-wikileaks supporters/volunteers who wish to still fight for their cause should consider pirate party australia.

• 2013-09-04 at 11:33 am

Leo, you are a strange fellow indeed.
Your reference to the German word “jemand” as meaning “someone” is correct but irrelevant – much like the word felicity means happiness but is meaningless when used as a nametag, especially by a severely depressed person. I have experienced sly attempts at implying that I am German before and thereby insinuating a guilt by false association with historical atrocities by our Belgian-baby-eating cousins in the far North. Is that what you tried to do Leo?
And this tactic of depicting a villainous persona in someone with a bizarre preamble about psychopathology says a lot more about you than me. Perhaps it was an unwitting manifestation of consciousness of your own guilt. I mean, your name ‘Braun’ is German for “brown”, right? As in brown-shirt?

• 2013-09-04 at 12:40 pm

If other parties preference Wikileaks then that is what its all about !!!

• 2013-09-04 at 12:46 pm

Anyhow the election is all over. The Liberals will win well in the House of Representatives and some micro parties, including Wikileaks, and Independents will get some Senate seats.
The Greens may lose some current seats like in SA, Qld and Tas were no Wikileaks candidates are standing. The malcontents won’t be able to blame Wikileaks for that either.

• 2013-09-04 at 1:16 pm

I think you will find Katter and Palmer will get some spots too.
Has anyone looked at the Australian Independents Party? I know this is straying from the original blog post, but hey, the past 30 comments have too 😉
For some reason it seems WLP is looking at a central position, but so is the Democrats and the Australian Voices party and probably another dozen.

• 2013-09-04 at 2:06 pm

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Jemand, you wrote, “Remember, Roger, intellegint [sic] people talk about ideas, common people talk about current events and stupid people talk about other people.”
It’s been quite a few posts since you’ve talked about either ideas or current events. (Of course I’m talking about you now, but I’m not the one using that quote to justify some half-assed trolling.)

• 2013-09-05 at 2:45 am

“As in brown-shirt”?
• Jabotinsky formed youth groups (Betar) whose practices, patterned after the tactics and symbols of fascism, included wearing brown shirts and using special salutes!

• 2013-09-05 at 3:09 am

“As in brown-shirt”?
• The first convention of Betar (Vienna 1928) resolved that the Betar uniforms especially the brown shirts (adopted by the Nazis) should be made by Jewish weavers in Eretz Yisrael.

• 2013-09-05 at 6:09 am

I previously ripped into Gerry Georgatos for reasons that included an inexplicable preferencing for the Nationals’ David Wirrpanda over a more prudent arrangement in favour of the Green’s Scott Ludlum.
After listening to David Wirrpanda on Russell Woolf’s Drive program on ABC 720AM, the other day, I have to admit that Georgatos could have made a much worse decision in his preferencing. David Wirrpanda is clearly intelligent, articulate, well informed and appears to be sincere in his political agenda. It looks like the Nationals scored well in getting Wirrpanda onto their ticket.
If anyone resides in WA, please consider David Wirrpanda as a worthy recipient of your vote.
Useful resource – select your state to find the senate candidates –
http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/snsw/
A little gem of a website for novices –
http://www.virginvoters.com.au/

• 2013-09-05 at 10:19 am

Hugh Boss (1985-1948) designed the uniforms of Nazi Germany. The company prospered after WW2 although Hugh was not allowed to run a business and was stripped of voting rights.(source: Hugh Boss Wikipedia).

• 2013-09-05 at 10:21 am

Opps, that should be (1885-1948)

• 2013-09-05 at 4:34 pm

Dominic A couldn’t resist – “It’s been quite a few posts since you’ve talked about either ideas or current events. (Of course I’m talking about you now, but I’m not the one using that quote to justify some half-assed trolling.)”
I think you just did. You’ll notice that many of my comments are in reply to impertinent ones like yours while I’d prefer exploring the viability and prospects of WLP. Maybe you should just try resisting more next time.

• Pingback:Ein Kreuz für Wikileaks?

• 2013-09-17 at 4:17 pm

I wonder why u had to rehash your pov on the WLP preference debacle if you agreed with the NYTs account anyway. You seem to be disappointed that the public statements by those who resigned didnt create more negative publicity for the WLP. Seems the only explanation why you would adress an article you basically agree with anyway was just to add more damaging details.

• 2013-09-19 at 4:42 am

Julian Assange wrote: “I just don’t like lying arseholes! When I’m feeling less combative and more cerebral, then I just think I like educating people. I mean adult education: what kind of world do we live in? How does it actually work? If you do this what happens”?

• 2013-09-19 at 4:48 am

Andrew Crook wrote: Although Julian Assange has claimed the WikiLeaks preference deal was an “administrative error”, leaked emails reveal Assange was behind the controversial deal. A damning internal email trail from inside the WikiLeaks Party has revealed that Julian Assange was intimately involved in the Senate preference debacle that led to the party’s implosion.
Leaked emails sent by Assange (obtained by Crikey) lay bare the internal war that consumed the transparency advocates and show how the self-described “president” and “party leader” tried to railroad democratic processes and impose the will of a small clique of acolytes.
Under the subject line “NC (national council) micromanagement of preferences”, Assange, the lead Victorian Senate candidate, slammed the council and suggested it should become a rubber stamp for decisions taken by individual candidates!

• 2013-09-19 at 4:52 am

David Haidon wrote: Meeting Monday 19th of August. We start at 11:30 amish when everyone gets there. After much yelling and tears we decide on the idea of an independent review. It is agreed that it is the only way to get this all sorted out with any integrity intact. Myself, Sam, Kaz, and the others in the office leave Greg Barns and go to discuss details of the review to present to the NC. There is resistance from some on NC.
Tuesday morning: Review has more traction now. NC have basically agreed it shall happen. Just working on the details. I’m fielding phone calls from volunteers wanting to know what is going on. We have a volunteer meeting that night, 50 odd people are there. Spend most of the time discussing what has happened. People are pretty upset, but say that we should have the review as soon as possible.
Wednesday morning: John Shipton tries to call me, but I’m in the city loop and can’t take his call. I get to the office and see Sam, Kaz and Leslie Cannold are at a cafe across the road. Daniel Mathews joins us. Review looks in jeopardy again. Then it’s not. Then we are waiting for Julian to have a say on the statement. It goes out. Ok again we can get back to work. Leslie is having continued doubts about what is happening. I leave a message with John Shipton that he can call me back any time.
John calls Sean Bedlam, social media captain, and says that he is taking direct control of the campaign and is circumventing the National Council. He then calls me back and says the same thing to me, “You and Sean have to make myself and Gregory the point of reference and bypass the National Council because they are a bunch of raving fucking lunatics”! Huh? Is he saying that we now need to circumvent the democratic processes of the party?
Resignation statements start being written! The small office we are in starts to smell of sweat and tears. Pete Green, National Volunteer Coordinator, say he has to leave, he doesn’t want to be a part of this. He was originally hired by Greg, so we are not sure if he will go straight to him and tell him what is happening. Pete insists that he won’t, I believe him, but it is making everyone very nervous.
People are insisting we give the NC one last chance to fix this. Sam and Kaz email everyone. No answer. Greg calls Leslie to scold her for sending out a tweet he didn’t like earlier this day. They start calling other council members, discussions are held. Time to call London. They message Julian’s assistant, it’s 7am there, he should be able to answer. Nothing!
John Shipton calls Kaz and threatens her with legal action if she opposes him running the internal review. Has he gone mad? Leslie says she can’t wait. She posts her statement … http://cannold.com/articles/article/leslie-resignation-statement-of-fact-on-candidacy-re-thewikileaks-party

• 2013-10-28 at 11:53 am

sadly, we Queenslanders had no opportunity to support the Wikileaks party at the polls … next time perhaps.
i predict that the Wikileaks party will become the first real Global Political Party with representation in the parliaments of multiple nations.
whatever has happened … whoever has been offended / disrespected / hurt / deflated … whatever … get over it.

• Pingback:Wikileaks: a few secrets | issued

• 2013-11-03 at 2:23 am

Wikileaks came 7th (primary votes) out of over 35 Senate parties and groups in Victoria. Not bad for a first attempt. Except for PUP who got more all the 6 parties with more primary vote were well established parties including the Sex Party and Family First.
In WA the Greens finally got the 6th spot despite all the hype about preference deals in the media.

• 2013-11-03 at 9:05 am

It is not possible to support a party when the party does not function democratically. Just saying. The core issue of The Wikileaks Party are fine by me a member of the Party. But ….and that is a big BUT…the members are entitled to transparency ….and a clear manifesto of all policies and aims, especially those issued before an election by the party and candidates.

• 2013-11-08 at 5:35 am

The latest AEC media release on the WA Senate result shows that of the missing 1200 odd formal votes over 800 were for the Liberal Party who won 3 Senate seats anyway. The other missing vote included over 100 each for the Greens and the ALP. The remaining missing vote were for a number of minor/micro parties but in small numbers, mostly less 10 per party.

• 2013-11-08 at 8:59 am

so excuse my ignorance, would that have changed the latest count..

• 2013-11-11 at 5:19 am

Lest We Forget
• Surely the greatest problem, so far as this mess is concerned, is that a party claiming to be the Party of Transparency has to live up to that claim; indeed, live that claim! Deceit has no place in a party purporting to shine a light on the dishonest and underhanded practices evident in the conduct of the major parties. To immediately resort to deceitful and duplicitous politicking to attain an otherwise unachievable but preferred outcome, as seems to have happened with the preferences fiasco, is in truth to achieve nothing more than to wreck the authenticity and moral and political capital of the party. If the Wikileaks Party is in fact a party of deceit, then there is no point to it. And that is a crying shame, and a stupid fucking waste!

• 2013-11-17 at 6:11 am

We still have some Danby (ALP) and Kroger (Lib) stooges on this webpage !!!

• 2013-12-18 at 6:28 am

“OK, so we have a national council. All right you’ve got to kick off somewhere but if this is to be a ‘party’ in the true sense of the word then we all have to have a voice”, insisted Scott Dunmore early in May 2013. “What sort of blog site is this? No discussion thus far and no editorial feedback”. Seconded by Linda Steven: “I agree with Scott Dunmore on a number of his points, I too think a members only area of the site would be appropriate”!
“Well said Linda, at least I know someone is out there. You understand where I’m coming from. Until I have assurance that this so called ‘party’ is more than a clique asking for foot soldiers, I’m not about to vote for it, let alone part with my hard earneds”, declared Scott Dunmore. “Am I correct in thinking that this was originally going to be Julian’s Blog? I joined the Party because I believed in many of the principles that Julian has voiced”, wondered Linda Steven.
“I think we all understand the principle on which the party was founded, but if you think Wikileaks is going to swan into the senate without disclosing where it stands on a range of issues, forget about my vote. Let me explain how democracy works: You get a bunch of people together that share a commonality of mindset, stiff them twenty bucks, come up with proposals by consensus, find out where the common ground is and move on from there”.
“What’s coming across is a self serving clique disdaining all outside opinions and touting for money and canon fodder”, concluded Scott Dunmore.