Yenn Posted November 29, 2015 Posted November 29, 2015 the only way to cure our ills is to get rid of the politicians. What have they done for us. Taken us into numerous wars without parliament voting on it. Conservatives every time. Spent billions on arms, nearly all with the USA and for things we didn't need. To make sure they get re elected they allow importing of cheap foreign materials, so goods are cheap. they encourage mining and exporting of materials we should be using and did use a few years ago, just so they can get the royalties. If the price to foreigners is too low they encourage exporting more, to further depress the price. Worst of all is they have a policy of compulsory voting. Sit back and look at the governments we have had in the last 50 years and you will see that compulsory voting is the thing that ensures mediocrity in politicians. Maybe I am wrong. our politicians are not even as good as mediocre. Finally has anyone ever wondered why we need a submarine fleet. We no longer have a merchant fleet to look after and I havn't noticed the terrorists using submarines.
Bruce Posted November 29, 2015 Posted November 29, 2015 Yenn, I agree with you but I have to repeat he old saying.. . " democracy is the worst system except for anything else".
Bruce Posted November 29, 2015 Posted November 29, 2015 As for the submarine fleet, I totally agree... 50 billion wasted dollars.
Marty_d Posted November 29, 2015 Posted November 29, 2015 the only way to cure our ills is to get rid of the politicians. What have they done for us. Taken us into numerous wars without parliament voting on it. Conservatives every time. Spent billions on arms, nearly all with the USA and for things we didn't need. To make sure they get re elected they allow importing of cheap foreign materials, so goods are cheap. they encourage mining and exporting of materials we should be using and did use a few years ago, just so they can get the royalties. If the price to foreigners is too low they encourage exporting more, to further depress the price. Worst of all is they have a policy of compulsory voting. Sit back and look at the governments we have had in the last 50 years and you will see that compulsory voting is the thing that ensures mediocrity in politicians.Maybe I am wrong. our politicians are not even as good as mediocre. Finally has anyone ever wondered why we need a submarine fleet. We no longer have a merchant fleet to look after and I havn't noticed the terrorists using submarines. Yenn, I agree with most of what you say, but I believe compulsory voting is far better than non-compulsory. The trouble with non-compulsory is that only the strident nutters on each side get out and vote so you end up with more polarizing politicians, and corruption - sorry, "political donations" having more influence than the apathetic population.
Litespeed Posted November 29, 2015 Posted November 29, 2015 It may seem off topic for some but this is exactly the right place for the above discussion. Why- Economics as practiced here in OZ is the dismal science which has all the characteristics of a Religion. Completely devoid of any real relationship to facts and reality.And massively destructive because of it. I do agree we have a income problem and a spending problem, we get most of our income from those that can little afford it and spend the majority on those that don't need it and will not benefit the whole of the economy. We run the country to benefit companies and not people. We have allowed privatisation run rampant- profits before people and services. This had led to less service and higher cost with a large dose of corruption breed in. We subsidise mining to mainly foreign companies and then allow them a huge tax free profit ride. All we get is holes in the ground and the budget- and few jobs which come with huge environmental costs. We have actively destroyed our education and health systems to make private profits for the few and destroyed the chances for education and good health for the many. Education and health are public goods and all money invested in them must be for public good not profit. Science is a joke,the uni's get bugger all for research and only in certain areas, CSIRO has had its balls removed and much funding. The funding mainly goes to- fossil and extractive industries. THE state governments are all to happy to say we must sell the sliver to have infrastructure but then go private at great expense and we are stuck with tolls, and sham contracts we can never see. All at a time when money has never been cheaper for gov to borrow. But we will sell our stuff and give the NRL billions of our bucks to build new stadiums, that are luxury items for their benefit- not ours. We happily allow vested interests to game the system and get billions in subsidy, tax breaks and monopolistic law changes. And make sure the real risk and cost is passed to the public but all profits are private. We have a massively distorted investment system that actively rewards non productive investment and punishes productive investment. Examples are negative gearing, super rules, share market rules, the investment in vapor derivitives etc. All things that make housing expensive and increase the gap in wealth, whilst creating very few jobs. We allow anyone to come her and buy our assets and claim it is good for us- bullshit- it only benefits if new assets are created. Anything else is just recycling the money- and pushes prices up. All whilst sending the profits and benefits overseas and not even tax is paid most of the time. Stupidly for big business the best profits are to invest O/S and for the foreign companies to invest here- because of distortive tax and company rules, so we sell everything for quick non productive gain and then get no tax. The list is long and my brain hurts
bexrbetter Posted November 29, 2015 Posted November 29, 2015 This can be an emotive topic, I think these weeks will see a lot of frustration from members close to Maj so I for one will drop all emotive topics for the time being.
eightyknots Posted November 29, 2015 Posted November 29, 2015 ... Many Australians could give less a toss about anything to do with policies and actual knowledge of how a country actually works and hence we got popular clowns like Hawke for 3 terms whereas Keating was far smarter but hated more than even Abbott. .... What has often been forgotten is that, Paul Keating, as treasurer ran surpluses (yes! Labor ran surpluses but that is so "last century") and used the surpluses to retire an enormous amount of debt. This gave Howard and Costello a fantastic start ...again, a fact largely forgotten. What a pity that government indebtedness is increasing almost every year since the turn of the century, both under Liberal/National and Labor administrations. The Australian economy is going down badly at present, well below estimates and of real concern and policies such as marriage equality are NOT front line issues in this economic climate, Corps/large Companies supposedly underpaying tax are just some of many examples of how the Greens need a reality check and how they grovel for dirty grubby votes by way of social guilt tactics. "Oh you're against marriage equality then you must hate gays you bigot". "Oh you don't think Companies should pay more tax, then you're a grub against the common working man who pays his taxes". "Oh you don't believe in climate change (as presented) then you don't care about our beautiful earth you ignorant denier" blag blah ....... I fully agree. Unfortunately, many votes are captured by grubby politics. Sadly a number of voters are influenced by these hollow statements and, the way democracy works, you only need to capture a handful of voters to your side of the fence because there is the constant 'base-load' of National, Liberal and Labor supporters who will always vote the same way, regardless of the issues, the leader or the economy. The question is, how do you prevent this kind of grab for these votes by such misleading, simplistic statements? Could it be better Civics education at school? Could it be better, impartial education of adults via the media? Should there be an independent Truth Commission established who checks all the politicians' statements in the lead-up to the election and then publishes a easy-to-read analysis? There appears to be no easy answer to the problem.
facthunter Posted November 29, 2015 Posted November 29, 2015 It's simple. Check who funds them and benefits from their policies. If it isn't your average Australian chuck them out. Bigger distances between rich and poor make a bad future with more and more gaols. Seen it happening??. NO who you know stuff to get ahead. Work and ability only. Education planning and social responsibility. Train our own people and not steal them from countries that need them more than we do, so YOUR kids have job prospects. No job NO HOPE. Quality of life isn't rampant consumerism of basically short life junk. It's being involved with people and doing things. Nev
cscotthendry Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 It's simple. Check who funds them and benefits from their policies. Nev There was a joking push some time back to make politicians wear the logos of their sponsors to parliament. These days it is no longer a joking matter. The politicians of all stripe and flavour are so beholden to their big donors that there is no longer any hope of seeing reforms that are in the national interests get through the governmental sausage machine. Now, lobbyists write the legislation for the pollies and all our elected "representatives" do is present them to the party and vote on them. Things that are in the national interest rarely ever get looked at. The politicians are always too busy voting on whether the mega-rich should not have to disclose how little tax they pay, or whether Rupert Murdoch should be able to grab ALL the media in Oz, or whether Jaimey Packer should be allowed to build a casino on every street corner, or whether the taxpayer should buy a new railway for an Indian mega-coal mining company. If you believe that any Western "democracy" is still in any way democratic, you're a victim of propaganda.
hihosland Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 "If you believe that any Western "democracy" is still in any way democratic, you're a victim of propaganda." said Scott All those representatives in parliament only got there by virtue of the votes of people in whom the said representatives had so much faith that they went to enormous trouble and expense to issue "how to vote" cards. To my mind anyone who needs a "how to vote" card should be disenfranchised.
DonRamsay Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 oooooo . . . so tempting to weigh in on politics and economics . . . . but I won't. It would simply serve to divide us with no useful outcome likely. I've already p1ssed off the christians, not sure I can afford to lose all the commos as well. Much happier trying to relieve people of their superstitions. But, politics in this country (and probably all others) is a form of religion about as productive as Ford Vs Holden or Jabiru Vs everything else. Somewhere around 35% are rusted on ALP/Greens (now indistinguishable) and 35% rusted on Libs/Nats. The other 20% are largely in the don't know don't care class and draw symbols (e..g. cock and balls) on their ballot papers. Then there are perhaps 10% who are thinking voters who use their judgement based on a sound education and keeping up with current affairs. Democracy remains the worst form of government ever invented apart from pretty well every other form (apologies to Chirchill). I once thought that Democracy could be vastly improved by making the vote a privilege that you have to do some work for to be granted that privilege. But then some wanker would figure a way of rigging the system and stuff it up for all. I also once thought that I'd like to see people having to prove their genetic worth before being allowed to breed. But, fortunately, we all come from a much bigger gene pool than just our parents so that wouldn't work either.
cscotthendry Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 "If you believe that any Western "democracy" is still in any way democratic, you're a victim of propaganda." said Scott All those representatives in parliament only got there by virtue of the votes of people in whom the said representatives had so much faith that they went to enormous trouble and expense to issue "how to vote" cards. To my mind anyone who needs a "how to vote" card should be disenfranchised. Also agree. What is really telling though is that we only get to vote for the candidates the party (read the financial backers of the party) put up for election via the pre-selection process. And then, those with the most campaign funds can afford the most advertising and promotion and can afford the highest-priced PR firms. A really good example of the above is the American Presidential race. On the Democrat side, Bernie Sanders is widely acknowledged as the one who would most benefit the nation, but Hillary Clinton is attracting the Big Money because she is more "corporate-friendly" (particularly Wall Street) than Sanders. On the Republican side, The Koch brothers have pledged that they will spend up to US$960 Million to elect a "friendly" Republican in the 2016 election. Yes, you read that right. They plan to spend almost a Billion dollars to install a cooperative US president. If you don't believe that they will expect quid-pro-quo from their President, then you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.
eightyknots Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Also agree. What is really telling though is that we only get to vote for the candidates the party (read the financial backers of the party) put up for election via the pre-selection process. And then, those with the most campaign funds can afford the most advertising and promotion and can afford the highest-priced PR firms. A really good example of the above is the American Presidential race. On the Democrat side, Bernie Sanders is widely acknowledged as the one who would most benefit the nation, but Hillary Clinton is attracting the Big Money because she is more "corporate-friendly" (particularly Wall Street) than Sanders. On the Republican side, The Koch brothers have pledged that they will spend up to US$960 Million to elect a "friendly" Republican in the 2016 election. Yes, you read that right. They plan to spend almost a Billion dollars to install a cooperative US president. If you don't believe that they will expect quid-pro-quo from their President, then you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. The American presidential experience is the most extreme. But, make no mistake, here -Down Under- there are similar pressures but the number of dollars are different, that's all.
cscotthendry Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 The American presidential experience is the most extreme. But, make no mistake, here -Down Under- there are similar pressure but the number of dollars are different, that's all. The corporates are not quite so embedded here in Oz as in the US, but there have been attempts by the pollies (particularly the Conservatives) to "fix" that little oversight. Here in Qld, the LNP lifted the undisclosable donations limit from $1,000 to $12,500 in a single jump. Fortunately Anna P put it back to $1,000, but in my book, that's still $1,000 too much. To paraphrase Paul Keating "Never get between a politician and a bucket of money."
Yenn Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 I conducted a poll about those at the bottomm of the garden. 30% vote liberal. 30% vote labor, 30% don't know or care and 30%say the donkey vote is the only way to go. The remainder were still down at the polling booth trying to make up their minds.
bexrbetter Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 30% vote liberal. 30% vote labor, 30% don't know or care and 30%say the donkey vote is the only way to go. A recent survey said that 18 out of every 20 people are terrible at math and the other 3 had only reasonable comprehension.
cscotthendry Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 There are three kinds of people in the world: Those who can count and those who can't.
bexrbetter Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 The corporates are not quite so embedded here in Oz You flood the forum with this but what's your point exactly? Does it ever go past your mind for a fleeting moment that some people, even rich Corporate Bosses, give money genuinely because that's the Party they want to win, or sometimes to make sure the other Party doesn't, purely from caring about the best interests for their country? And please note that I have just put a load of clothes into the washing machine and sitting here giving praise to the Lord O Corporation that I don't have to go down to the river with a washing board like Great, Great Grandma did 100 years ago ... ................. but what have the Romans ever done for us!
eightyknots Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 You flood the forum with this but what's your point exactly? Does it ever go past your mind for a fleeting moment that some people, even rich Corporate Bosses, give money genuinely because that's the Party they want to win, or sometimes to make sure the other Party doesn't, purely from caring about the best interests for their country? And please note that I have just put a load of clothes into the washing machine and sitting here giving praise to the Lord O Corporation that I don't have to go down to the river with a washing board like Great, Great Grandma did 100 years ago ... ................. but what have the Romans ever done for us! The Romans gave us: Roman Numerals and Roman Catholics and Roman Blinds and Roman Coffees and Roman Sandals and Roman Polanski
cscotthendry Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 You flood the forum with this Hmmm, " flood" is a bit of an exageration. but what's your point exactly? I thought I had made it fairly clear, but specifically: political donations are a form of corruption of the democratic system. Democracy is defined as "Government by the people FOR the people." Which part of that statement reads as "For the profits of the corporations"? Does it ever go past your mind for a fleeting moment that some people, even rich Corporate Bosses, give money genuinely because that's the Party they want to win, or sometimes to make sure the other Party doesn't, purely from caring about the best interests for their country? Yes it does go past my mind for a fleeting moment, and then I realise that it's naive to believe that anyone, "even rich corporate bosses" gives away money to politicians for "the best interests for their country"! Whether they are street sweepers or mega-rich oil billionaires, people spend a lot of their lives acquiring their money and trying to retain as much of it as they can. Thinking that they are willing to give it away for other than self-interest (somewhere down the line) is pretty naive. Does it ever go past your mind even for a fleeting moment (I did try to resist using similar provocative language as yours, but I failed) that for reasons similar to why we have a doctrine of separation of Church and State, and Separation of Judiciary and State, that we need to have a separation of Corporate and State? Corporations are designed for one purpose only, to make as much profit as possible. Considerations of national interest do not factor into Corporate function AT ALL. The role of Government is to look after the national interests and part of that role is to ensure that the citizens and organisations in the country do not act in ways that damage the nation. That's why government is empowered by the nation to create laws. When the legislation function of the country becomes obligated to profit driven organisations (or individuals), we have a problem. So my point simply is We need to ban ALL political donations and any funds required by politicians for campaigning should be sourced from public funds and STRICTLY limited with NO exceptions or "special cases". Political donations carry obligations and are a corruption of the democratic system.
Marty_d Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 You flood the forum with this but what's your point exactly? Does it ever go past your mind for a fleeting moment that some people, even rich Corporate Bosses, give money genuinely because that's the Party they want to win, or sometimes to make sure the other Party doesn't, purely from caring about the best interests for their country? And please note that I have just put a load of clothes into the washing machine and sitting here giving praise to the Lord O Corporation that I don't have to go down to the river with a washing board like Great, Great Grandma did 100 years ago ... ................. but what have the Romans ever done for us! Er, well, good on the LG corporation for producing an upgraded model of the original 1782 design. I don't see why this contribution to humanity should allow the CEO any more political influence than the factory worker who assembles the machine bodies all day and hasn't got the disposable income to give to a political party in order for them to buy TV time. By definition, political contributions favour the rich over the poor. The only way to make it totally fair is to limit contributions to something like $2 per person, so everyone can afford to support the party of their choice. Plus a base fund from taxpayer revenue which would have to be fairly distributed.
facthunter Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Plenty of thinkers of late have been concerned about the power of corporations, in not just influencing governments but taking countries to court when the citizens of that country want to have laws that protect THEIR county's environment ( as an example). Isn't a coorporation overiding a democracy when that happens? Nev
Marty_d Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 On that, Nev, I received about 60 replies from politicians. Everyone on the Labor and Green side said that Investor State Dispute Settlement clauses were unnecessary and should not be in FTA's. Everyone on the LNP side said don't worry about it, it's not an issue. So theoretically if the politicians follow their stated opinions, the Trans-Pacific FTA will be not be ratified as Labor and Greens will oppose it. I won't hold my breath.
hihosland Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 Not strictly Australian politics but a fair, if humorous, assessment of the politics and the religion of the Syrian conflict http://www.702.co.za/articles/6301/syria-situation-explained
bexrbetter Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 Political donations carry obligations and are a corruption of the democratic system. Australian IS NOT A DEMOCRACY and your statement is contradictory you hammer and sickle wielding Socialist Commo you. I guess you carry a picture of Carl Marx in your wallet. One of the catch 22's is the system gets better and you guys get more power to complain about the system that gives you more power to complain about it. I don't see why this contribution to humanity should allow the CEO any more political influence than the factory worker who assembles the machine bodies all day and hasn't got the disposable income to give to a political party in order for them to buy TV time.. Not what I said, but now that you've said it, yes, that's not the worst thing that can be in place for a system and moderately has a place for our system. It's not without reason that a person with considerable and successful business, accounting and accountability experience would and should have more say in how a country is run than Steve who left school at 15 and lays bathroom tiles. The Simpsons episode of "Homer's Car" is an excellent analogy of this - and indicative of what would happen if the Green's got into power
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now