The payment to Porter

[Old Koreelah]

Back to the topic; it seems this political high flyer has mucked up just about everything he’s worked on. Don’t think he has much of a future.

 

It is beyond satire that a politician who introduced laws demanding greater transparency for political donations accepts an anonymous donation himself.

 

Jon FaineColumnist

 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-problems-with-porter-20210917-p58sk1.html

[octave]

Christian Porter has resigned from Scott Morrison's ministry after revealing he had accepted an anonymous donation

[Jerry_Atrick]

From the article:

"He has this afternoon taken the appropriate course of action to uphold those standards by tendering his resignation as a minister this afternoon, and I have accepted his resignation," Mr Morrison said."

 

Why can't he just say, "Therefore, in light of his inability to explain himself, he was fired/relieved of his duties/stood down for misconduct." It would state what should be the truth and establish him as somewhat of a leader and send a message that misconduct is not accepted.

 

Oh, wait.. misconduct is accepted until it can no longer be covered up.

[octave]

It is interesting to consider that members of the backbench where Porter now finds himself are also required to deciare their pecuniary interests.  In other words the situation that made him unfit for the ministry should also make in unfit for the backbench, shouldn't it? 

[Marty_d]

17 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

And all those women in sleeveless outfits demanding their right to bare arms.

Well it did get Patricia Karvelas kicked out of parliament (and apparently the news made it to England!)

-https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-46425950

 

[Dax]

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

Let me ask you how many members of "the biggest diving club in the sth hemisphere back in the early late 1970's" were actively involved in the governance of the club.

If I remember correctly, we had 8 on our committee, another 7 involved with the magazine and 6 dive masters. Members were given the draft, had 2 months to check it out, was discussed at 2 meetings and made a couple of alterations, then at the AGM, each section was explained and voted on.

 

Back then there were no forums or internet, we were a diving club and members wanted to be protected, have more say and control in the club. They didn't want to have an executive that was egocentric, psychopathic and looked after their vested interests and mates.

 

So suggested the formula for introducing our new constitution, giving every member the right and ability to be involved in drawing it up and the final content. Started off with a few interested souls, but after a couple of months it was just me and as president at the time, couldn't pull out. Went to the library and read as much as I could on constitutions and took it from there, without the crap. It had in it safe guards, so no one could misinterpret meanings and most of those came from members, along with alterations to make then clearer. Not everyone was interested, but all wanted to be involved in discussing the draft and there wasn't a dissenting vote, which made everyone happy.

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

But what insurance do you mean - Life, Property or Superannuation? The only problem with getting into the finance sector is that running it in any way involves a great deal of experience in financial management. Who is going to be engaged to run things?

Property, vehicle and personal injury insurance. Not into superannuation, it would be better for the economy if people were spending their money at the time of receiving it. In super finds all it does if prop up a system which is just another way of the rich getting their hands on more of peoples money and you need a hell of a lot of super to have really comfortable retirement whilst we follow the economic growth/profit growth ideology and practise.

 

A properly run country like ours, could afford to give everyone a pension when they retire and that pension should be at least the minimum wage, Veterans should get 3 times the aged pension, ex politicians the old job seeker allowance as their retirement. After they paid back all the money they wasted, like we'd have to do in any job and they are only our employees. Pensioners having more money will help drive the economy, it's money going round that drives a functioning economy.

 

There are many very successful managers of industry who would love to apply for the job of running a major financial publicly owned enterprise, when they would be accountable directly to the entire population. All that's need is a business plan that the people felt would achieve their goals, not one achieving the goals of the corporate world.

 

The job gets advertised setting out goals chosen by the people and applicants provide a business plan to achieve that goal. Of course there would be other conditions attached to the appointment. The people on official private forums for each decision required would discuss then decide on which was the best applicant to get the job done.

 

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

One of the vital factors in trial by jury is that the jurors can meet together to discuss the evidence, and argue points of contention members might raise.

They can do that, there's zoom and many other platforms enabling people to have online private encrypted visual conferences and discuss the case. The lock down drove that approach out into the open and with viruses looking likely to be with us for a long time, the less face to face contact humans have in certain situations, it's less likely people will come down with the latest more virus and spread it further. Hopefully it will die out soon like all the rest.

[old man emu]

3 hours ago, Dax said:

Let me ask you how many members of "the biggest diving club in the sth hemisphere back in the early late 1970's" were actively involved in the governance of the club.

 

I'm sorry that I worded that ambiguously. What I meant to ask was, "how many members were actively involved in the day-to-day running of the club?".  You account for 21 members, but what did the rest do, apart from that particular task of drafting the constitution? 

 

What I am getting at is that people are happy to join organisation to get benefits, but don't invest the time in maintaining or improving them. Then I take it to national governance. We all want people to do the things the constitution says a government must do, but how many of the total electorate actually get involved in making policy and plans?

[Jerry_Atrick]

6 hours ago, octave said:

It is interesting to consider that members of the backbench where Porter now finds himself are also required to deciare their pecuniary interests.  In other words the situation that made him unfit for the ministry should also make in unfit for the backbench, shouldn't it? 

Yes.. there is an article in The Age that is suggesting he won't resign his seat (which he should) so that there is no by-election the government has to fight.. and possibly embarrassingly lose.

[Marty_d]

17 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Yes.. there is an article in The Age that is suggesting he won't resign his seat (which he should) so that there is no by-election the government has to fight.. and possibly embarrassingly lose.

Of course he won't resign.  Mark McGowan has a sky-high approval rating, largely from standing up to the federal LNP.  I know state politics and federal are two different beasts, but I reckon the LNP would get its arse handed to it in a by-election there.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by Marty_d

[Dax]

7 hours ago, old man emu said:

You account for 21 members, but what did the rest do, apart from that particular task of drafting the constitution? 

Maybe you don't know what a diving club does, because of our size we had 2-3 different dives each weekend, at least 2 day dives and many weekend and boat dives. We had sub committees which handled safety, dive organisation, social committee for events which there were many and meetings committee who organised lectures and meeting subjects which included dive reports, movies, slide shows and invited guests to give talks on subjects effecting divers.

 

A club with over 200 active members takes a lot of organising and everyone was given the opportunity to get involved, many did and some didn't bother, which is probably why it is still in operation, it was an inclusive club that everyone could feel a real part of. The executive co-ordinated everything, ran club meetings, collaborated and co-ordinated sub committees so the club ran reasonably smoothly and everyone knew what was going on. The club magazine alone took a lot of organisation to get out each month, then every one could organise their lives, diving and social arrangements in advance.

 

 

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Dax said:

everyone was given the opportunity to get involved, many did and some didn't bother

 

There's the very point I was making about complete involvement of the whole population in the governing of the country.

 

That was one of the fundamental proposals you originally put forward in your manifesto. In theory, total involvement is a worthwhile goal, but experience shows that the majority are just not interested, or have given up on the idea that their vote on any subject matters.

[nomadpete]

As proof of that assertion, OME and Fax,  just look at the evolution of the AUF / RAAus

 

Unfortunately apathy of the masses undermines a lot of well intentioned politics

Edited September 19, 2021 by nomadpete

[Dax]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

In theory, total involvement is a worthwhile goal, but experience shows that the majority are just not interested, or have given up on the idea that their vote on any subject matters.

Got that reaction from some back then as well,  but as I said to them, if you don't try something you won't know the outcome and when put to the members, they agreed.

 

Everyone should have the right to be involved in the direct running of their country, state and council area, they couldn't do any worse than what we have today and it would lock out corporate and vested interest lobbying to get their way.

 

This thread is a prime example of how disenfranchised the people are, it's only elitists who would not want the people to be involved in governance. If the people held direct power, Porter would be in jail and all his assets confiscated to pay back what he has taken from the people and it should be the same for all politicians and senior bureaucrats, they should be forced to pay for all the mistakes and waste of money they indulge in daily.

 

Supporting the current system is supporting ongoing corruption, deception and outright lying to the people every time they open their mouths. Maintaining the status quo, is not different to saying you don't want the ship to sink, whilst handing the deranged, the tools to cut holes in the hull, so it does sink.

 

How does that make any sense whatsoever, we have to start somewhere to change the political system and get rid of the Porters, Morrisons Albaneses and all party hacks.

 

The only other option is what we have now and that's a death sentence, no amount of hope will change what is already set in stone, unless you break the stone and leave it behind.

 

Anyway I'm just doing this for discussion, there's not a chance in a billion that change will happen. Change is alien to ideologues and they consists of around 99% of humans, so they will never step outside the delusionary safety of their delusional box.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Dax

[Old Koreelah]

2 hours ago, Dax said:

… If the people held direct power, Porter would be in jail and all his assets confiscated to pay back what he has taken from the people and it should be the same for all politicians and senior bureaucrats, they should be forced to pay for all the mistakes and waste of money they indulge in daily.

Sounds sensible, but think this thru… if this was policy, what leader would risk everything to make a decision? 

 

A parallel is found in business: the development of the Limited Liability company allowed the sort of risk-taking that led to our current lifestyle.

[Dax]

1 hour ago, Old Koreelah said:

Sounds sensible, but think this thru… if this was policy, what leader would risk everything to make a decision? 

In my idea of future politics, there are no leaders other than the people. Those implementing the peoples wishes have no decisions to make, other than operational ones and any alterations to implementation would have to be put to the board, just  like any successful company. The people would be the board, who hire those to manage and implement the peoples decisions.

 

Of course we would have to have those who represent the peoples decisions on the world stage, but they would be putting forward what the people have determined ad nothing else. With true open government on line, it would be hard for anyone to deceive or cheat the system, it would be discovered instantly.

[facthunter]

 Make all the current and future incumbents be OPEN AND ACCOUNTABLE . That would be a good start 

 CORRRUPTION everywhere is the main problem, In any of the systems. When the Cat's away the Mice PLAY.  I'm here for the Perks of Office.Oh Lord.  Keep them coming. I'll take all can get. Only LOSERS & Suckers are honest.. How to deal with a LIAR. You DON'T. because you CAN'T full stop.. IF we have NO standards their crimes Know NO limits. THEY regard the only CRIME is to be caught.. How do you know when they are LYING?

    Their Lips move.. We In Australia Have the BEST pollies MONEY can BUY.. The Gorgeous GINA says "You should be able to get out of ANY crime by paying a FINE".  BUT she's got about 36 BILLION so that's FINE for Her but crook for  you.. Nev

[Marty_d]

Nev, unless you're being very tongue-in-cheek while describing Gina as "gorgeous", may I recommend Specsavers?

[Dax]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

BUT she's got about 36 BILLION so that's FINE for Her but crook for  you.. Nev

I'd be taking that back with retrospective legislation to 2000, charging a wealth tax of 99.9% of trusts and income. not profit  but incomes and I'd nationalise all resources and infrastructure, including roads. The people have handed billions for multinationals to build toll roads, with the promise the government would hold a majority shareholding. But the NSW libs have sold of their last shareholding, as another massive multinational conglomerate takes over all toll roads In NSW.

 

That's the sort of thing politicians should be jailed for, why don't the people hold them to account for the  billions they waste each year with their unbelievable decisions, when if we in our jobs waste any money by making bad decisions, we'd be sacked and probably made to pay it back. Some one who embezzles money from a business ends up in court, but politicians who embezzle, steal and cheap the people out of money, only have to pay it back, or get to keep it.

 

Why won't the people do something about the unbelievable hypocrisy of our political system and those in it, at the ballot back, if the majority voted informal or independent, it would throw a huge spanner in the works for the ruling elites ans  independents surely couldn't do a worse job that now.

[Yenn]

Voting informal achieves nothing. Where are we going to find the independent candidates. I certainly don't want to stand for election. It would cost a large amount of my hard earned money and if I was successful I would have to go to Canberra to work. Not my idea of sensible living. All i can do is try to push the candidates the way I want them to go. It is hard to get their attention as they have to listen to the party first and always. Corrupt. Yes very.

[facthunter]

voting informal won't worry them. With the Media and the IPA and Pauleen Hanson and Fat Clive they may well get back in. Clive has Craig Kelly as leader of  the party so the minimum membership  of 1500 members doesn't apply,to them as Craig is a sitting member. Be funny IF he doesn't retain his seat though.. Nev

[Marty_d]

The trouble is there seems to be plenty of people even stupider than Craig, which you'd have to be to vote for the silly bastard.

[facthunter]

I'm not so sure of that. Craig was a Captain's pick of Morrison. He was parachuted in against the wishes of the party members. One has to wonder WHY?.  It wasn't his grip on reality.  Nev

[Marty_d]

He might have been parachuted in but they still had to vote for him.  I agree though, reality and Craig Kelly are not very close to each other.

[Old Koreelah]

6 hours ago, Dax said:

In my idea of future politics, there are no leaders other than the people. Those implementing the peoples wishes have no decisions to make, other than operational ones and any alterations to implementation would have to be put to the board, just  like any successful company. The people would be the board, who hire those to manage and implement the peoples decisions...

Dax I’d love to live in your Utopia, but it depends on a couple of very hard-to achieve things: 

  

A well-informed electorate. We hoped that new technology like social media would empower the ordinary citizen. Instead, it’s been used to misinform and inflame the gullible.

 

Citizens prepared to make the effort to get well-informed and involved in your self-government system. Just look at the TV crap that gets the highest ratings.

[willedoo]

Getting back to what Dax was saying about doing away with politicians. I remember not so long ago reading about the idea of governing by computer. I think it might have been trialed in local government somewhere, maybe the U.S.. Someone here might be able to jog my memory on it. I think the algorithms were designed to bring about the best outcome for the majority.

 

If it worked, it would have to be better than what we have. Now, you elect a politician and they are only answerable to the electorate at the next election. An example is the voluntary euthanasia legislation that just passed in Queensland. It was a conscience vote, but a lot of the LNP were against it. Many that voted no, did so because of their personal beliefs. Well, stuff their personal beliefs. A politician should not be allowed to vote on their own beliefs, only on the will of the majority of the electorate.

 

The Soviet Union communist system had more on the minus side than the plus side, but one good feature was the ability of the electorate to sack their representative if they under performed. Most people belonged to a Soviet. That Soviet could be a city, a region, or even a large workplace could be a Soviet. Workers with party membership got to vote for candidates to represent them and their Soviet up through the chain of governance. The people that elected them could also vote to recall them. In our case, that would equate to an electorate voting to sack a dud local member and elect a new one.

 

They would never have it here naturally, as the party system would be under threat, and such an action resulting in a by-election could change government in the case of a slim majority. Different result in the USSR due to the one party system. Just a matter of swapping out local representatives. It would be good to be able to do it here though. A dud local member - just get rid of the clown. Something we can only do every three or four years. In between, a pollie can treat their electorate with utter contempt and still keep their job.