Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

Love this one.

http://mobile.news.com.au/national/abbott-attacks-labors-imported-politics/story-fncynjr2-1226581145008

 

Especially when you read down about one of his own staffers. And the fact he himself wasn't born here, or Gillard I believe. Why not bring in one of those yanky rules where you have to be born here to lead. Could solve a couple of problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not like a lottery and it shouldn't be. You work hard and/or smart and you get rewarded. For some people success is money and material things, for others it is happiness or just job satisfaction. The most successful people in any walk of life didn't get there through luck and it's thant kind of victim/fatalist mentality which defeats so many that coulda, shoulda, woulda. Bad luck does happen but it doesn't keep the achievers down any more than it ensures long term success for the couldas. Who says we should all be living the lifestyle of the rich? It's certainly not what the Libs are selling. They are selling the premise that if you work hard you could be living the life of the rich. Not entirely true (you need to work smart and hard) but closer to the truth than the "spreading the wealth" bull$hit the other side sprout.

 

An elitist party would be one that provides more/better for its members and their associates than it does for the normal person who is willing to sacrifice the same. You know, like most communist run countries have had. Or perhaps we can look closer to home for examples, let's try the NSW Labor party. Sorry, did someone say Eddie Obeid? The whole Labor system revolves around great power being in the hands of a small minority. The ALP is the least democratically run party in the country. It doesn't take much to figure it out, just look at how the caucus works and you'll see it plain as day.

 

Anyone who thinks the ALP is the party of the Aussie battler is either ignorant or stupid. The Libs are pro business, no doubt. That doesn't mean they are anti-mr(s) average though. The annual tax take (and therefore goverment spend) is only a small amount of the GDP of Australia. If you grow the GDP through policies that are good for business you automatically increase the tax take (giving the government more to spend on social causes) while at the same time giving those that want to strive a greater opportunity for success. If all you do is tax and spend you stifle growth which also reduces the organic growth of tax revenue, which of course means you need to tax more to keep funding your necessary social policies and so on in an ever descending spiral. Either that or you just borrow money.

 

The Libs aren't perfect by any means and I don't agree with their policies on everything (particularly the few driven by religious or outdated ideology) but the ALP are by nature a deeply flawed organisation and the only way to correct it is to get those in control to freely give up their power. It won't happen in my lifetime.

 

luck, birth, opportunity are aspects that can' be denied. They are not the only determinant but they are a factor. Being a Narcissist, sociopath, bully, cheat and liar are also mandatory to rise to the top in our system. These are behaviours that while not openly advertised are encouraged and rewarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the question I was asking is where do all the resources come from so that we can all live the lifestyle of the rich?

 

 

No, it's not like a lottery and it shouldn't be. You work hard and/or smart and you get rewarded. For some people success is money and material things, for others it is happiness or just job satisfaction. The most successful people in any walk of life didn't get there through luck and it's thant kind of victim/fatalist mentality which defeats so many that coulda, shoulda, woulda. Bad luck does happen but it doesn't keep the achievers down any more than it ensures long term success for the couldas. Who says we should all be living the lifestyle of the rich? It's certainly not what the Libs are selling. They are selling the premise that if you work hard you could be living the life of the rich. Not entirely true (you need to work smart and hard) but closer to the truth than the "spreading the wealth" bull$hit the other side sprout.

 

An elitist party would be one that provides more/better for its members and their associates than it does for the normal person who is willing to sacrifice the same. You know, like most communist run countries have had. Or perhaps we can look closer to home for examples, let's try the NSW Labor party. Sorry, did someone say Eddie Obeid? The whole Labor system revolves around great power being in the hands of a small minority. The ALP is the least democratically run party in the country. It doesn't take much to figure it out, just look at how the caucus works and you'll see it plain as day.

 

Anyone who thinks the ALP is the party of the Aussie battler is either ignorant or stupid. The Libs are pro business, no doubt. That doesn't mean they are anti-mr(s) average though. The annual tax take (and therefore goverment spend) is only a small amount of the GDP of Australia. If you grow the GDP through policies that are good for business you automatically increase the tax take (giving the government more to spend on social causes) while at the same time giving those that want to strive a greater opportunity for success. If all you do is tax and spend you stifle growth which also reduces the organic growth of tax revenue, which of course means you need to tax more to keep funding your necessary social policies and so on in an ever descending spiral. Either that or you just borrow money.

 

The Libs aren't perfect by any means and I don't agree with their policies on everything (particularly the few driven by religious or outdated ideology) but the ALP are by nature a deeply flawed organisation and the only way to correct it is to get those in control to freely give up their power. It won't happen in my lifetime.

 

 

Yup, won't or can't answer the question.

 

You work hard and you get rewarded. What... and the team that supports you - produces the food you eat then cleans the toilets you s#it in etc - are all just lazy buggers? That's still elitist by my reckoning. I find it rather hard to imagine how the toilet cleaners can realize the Liberal premise and get rich. IMHO Premise not promise = carrot on stick = lottery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony just has to keep quiet show up and win. The PM decides in third year that the people she formed government with are really a party of protest who only complain, yet she did form government with them completely compromised her policy platform with a carbon tax to keep them happy. She has stayed in with the votes of slipper, thomson and turned her back on Wilkie as soon as possible.

 

Yet in all this we are constantly brought back to Tony saying I would sell me a$%e for this job. He may well have been willing but Julia did actually sell hers. If there was ever a government that was worthy of a no confidence motion then this is it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I answered the question. We don't. We don't all deserve the life of the rich (some of us don't even want it, I've had more than a glimpse and frankly it's not worth it to me.) No one is promising it to everybody. Some folks are more productive than others, if you like they are more valuable to society according to the way society values such things. You may not agree with the values that society places on certain things but frankly, that's just stiff $hit. It is what it is. As part of society yourself you help shape that anyway. I don't agree with how society values the ongoing welfare and rehabilitation of some drug addled scumbag who bashes an old woman for her purse more than they seem to value the ongoing welfare of the old woman but unfortunately that's the way it is. I can work towards changing that by voting for those who I feel most share my sentiments.

 

Some people do jobs that create jobs for others and increase the overall welfare of society more than others. Some people just sit at the feet of the governement sucking at the teet of society and feeling sorry for themselves. I don't think the two are of equal value and I don't think they should be rewarded for doing so. Of course they are the extreme ends of the spectrum, there are many shades of grey in between. The more pertinent example would be Fred and Bob, two co-workers side by side paid to do the same job. Fred puts 100% effort in every day and does his absolute best, Bob does the absolute minimum in order to not get fired. Both get paid identical wages. Is that fair? What do you think the end result is? Nine times out of ten Fred drops his effort to match Bob's. The other one out of ten Fred finds another job that rewards his effort. Either way the company suffers, productivity drops and everyone loses.

 

You are working on the false premise that the Liberals are suggesting that everyone can be wealthy. They aren't. The closest to what they are saying is that everyone that deserves to be wealthy should have the opportunity to attain wealth. The premise of the ALP is that wealth is wrong (except in their own ranks apparently) and that everyone deserves prosperity equally......or at least more equally than their own effort would proportionally entitle them to. It's a false premise and completely against the natural order. From the smallest organism up the useless are cast off for the greater good. We of course being civilised don't go to that extreme but certainly mediocrity shouldn't be rewarded.

 

I believe that a government's role is to provide opportunity equally, not to provide resources equally. It is up to the individual to take the opportunity presented to them and make the most of it. I'm not sure how much more egalitarian you can get than that. There's no luck involved (i.e. lottery) in being successful. Of course some still have advantages over others based on the hard work of their predecessors (i.e. wealthy parents, etc.) but those who would normally be unsuccessful still generally end up unsuccessful (how many times does the second generation lose the family wealth and power) and who are you to tell those that have initially worked hard for the possibility of giving their kids a leg up that they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

 

And with regards to toilet cleaners, it doesn't take much research to find thousands of examples of people who have worked their way up from menial labour or socioeconoic disadvatage to a position of relative wealth. I know several personally and they all have a couple of things in common: a work ethic greater than 99% of the population; a belief that their destiny is in their own hands entirely; and a desire to be productive.

 

Facts and reason don't change opinons formed out of doctrine though, so carry on fighting the good fight comrade and good luck to you. ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stikman while I agree with a lot of what you say, if you cast your mind back 6 years and GFC think you found that everyone suckles at the teat of Government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone and some moreso than others. Again though it was (or should have been) the role of the government to provide opportunity. What they did (and many lapped it up by the bucketful and still are) was provide random hand outs. It's inefficient (though popular) and ended up sending a lot of money overseas manufacturers. Yes I took my share, why not. I pay a more than my share of tax so if it's going to be given away regardless of my feelings on the subject then why not get a piece of the action. I'm sure most were the same. We used it to pay down our mortgage which of course provided no benefit whatsoever to the economy. I neither needed the charity nor used it in a way which would provide stimulus or benefit to others.

 

Of course I had the fortune to be in the west so I was the big piggy providing the teat. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stikman while I agree with a lot of what you say, if you cast your mind back 6 years and GFC think you found that everyone suckles at the teat of Government.

 

I didnt get a f-king cent from the government....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stickman.

 

I asked "where do the resources come from". After saying "I answered the question." you finally mentioned "I believe that a government's role is to provide opportunity equally, not to provide resources equally." So after all you long winded replies that is the closest you have come to answering my question. If you want to have you say that's fine. But why jump on to my post, that has a legitimate question, if all you are going to do is invent condescending terms and ignore the topic. Basically your just being a boisterous loudmouth.

 

As for "You are working on the false premise that the Liberals are suggesting that everyone can be wealthy." you would be correct. That is how I interpret this line "In equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice." taken directly from http://www.liberal.org.au/the-party/our-beliefs - underline added for emphasis. By "highest possible" I understand it to mean no less than the currently highest achieved benchmark. To achieve this we would all need a lot more cars, boats and houses and that's just for starters. That is a lot of resources, and I claim a practically impossible reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt get a f-king cent from the government....

 

Thinking more in their role as an investor and spender in the economy. Nothing funnier than management consultants who practice in the public sector somehow thinking that they are not at the teat of the government

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, time to spell it out for those with problems of reading comprehension.

 

Your question was: "where do all the resources come from so that we can all live the lifestyle of the rich?"

 

My aswer is: the entire premise that we can or should all live the lifestyle of the rich is false. Therefore, the resources don't need to come from anywhere.

 

Hopefully that is basic enough for you to understand.

 

As for your deliberate misinterpretation of the quote from the Liberal website, look up the definition of "strawman argument." To suggest that the correct interpretation of that statement is that everyone should be as rich as Gina Reinhart (or if we look outside of Australia maybe Bill Gates) is ludicrous.

 

Even with the single line (from a list of eight with this being well down the list) it only backs your statement if willfully misnterpreted. The first few words are the key of course "In equal opportunity for all Australians" states clearly and unequivocably that their aim is to create equal opportunity. Exactly as I have said should be the case. "And the encouragement and facilitation of wealth" again is about presenting opportunity for one to create one's own wealth. "So that all may enjoy the highest possible standards....." is relative to their means dependent on how they have taken their opportunity.

 

As for the basic economics of wealth creation. It's kind of like the first law of thermodynamics on a personal scale. Energy and matter are interchangeable, the more energy you put in the more matter you get out. More wealth is created through higher productivity. A machine that manufactures x widgets an hour using y resources is worth less than a machine that produces 2x widgets from y resources. Ditto for a person, agricultural land, etc. Surely that is simple enough to understand. You create wealth by increasing value relative to the resources used.

 

In a system where one is not suitably rewarded for adding value (whether through innovation or simply working harder), value creation inevitably stalls. As I have argued before, altruism does not exist in reality. Not in human society and not in the animal world either. Everything revolves around reward for effort. It would be nice if it were otherwise but simply thinking it does not make it so. What drives innovation and wealth creation is the opportunity to gaina competitve advantage over our rivals. It's never more stark than during times of conflict.

 

Think of all of the socialist governments who have ever existed and name me one that has remained true to the socialist principles and prospered. Actually, just naming one that has remained true to socialist principles is hard enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of who I like/don't like, who I'd vote for/wouldn't etc. As a pauper the main things I know is when someone in my family needs to see a doctor we can go to the one of our choice and it doesn't cost us much (if anything). My wifes bucket load of medication we can afford. When the kids have had croup I've been able to take them to the hospital in the middle of the night and someone saw them. Regardless of everything else, I wouldn't live anywhere else in the world.

 

I should qualify that by saying I've never been anywhere else in the world either. (Heck. have just about never left Qld, and would only live here too - better the devil you know)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says we should all be living the lifestyle of the rich? Seems to me you introduced it as a diversion.

 

The reason I posted my question (which you f a i l e d t o a d d r e s s in your first response) is actually based more towards the responses from successful people. They often seem to imply that we could all have what they have if we worked as hard or smart as they did/do. To which I question "How is that possible, where do all the resources come from?" I won't bother with any more replies after this, I am tired of your assumptions on my position. I don't know how you expect me to debate if you keep changing the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your question was directly and specifically in reference to your belief that the Libs were selling the idea that everyone could be rich. Your last post was devoted to proving that farce of an idea.

 

I don't care whether you're a troll or an idiot, I'm done arguing. My point of view is clear and this is going nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of who I like/don't like, who I'd vote for/wouldn't etc. As a pauper the main things I know is when someone in my family needs to see a doctor we can go to the one of our choice and it doesn't cost us much (if anything). My wifes bucket load of medication we can afford. When the kids have had croup I've been able to take them to the hospital in the middle of the night and someone saw them. Regardless of everything else, I wouldn't live anywhere else in the world.

 

I should qualify that by saying I've never been anywhere else in the world either. (Heck. have just about never left Qld, and would only live here too - better the devil you know)

 

 

You need to thank the former member for Cook (Cronulla) E.G. Whitlam (Lab) for that my friend. And for your sewers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You need to thank the former member for Cook (Cronulla) E.G. Whitlam (Lab) for that my friend. And for your sewers.

 

 

E.G. Whitlam represented the division of Werriwa Parky

 

More recently remembered as the seat of Mark Latham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to thank the former member for Cook (Cronulla) E.G. Whitlam (Lab) for that my friend. And for your sewers.

Closest Australia ever came to Utopia. I thank Gough for my virtually free University education. Just got in before the fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for your sewers.

 

 

I need to thank him for the treatment plant in my back yard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Closest Australia ever came to Utopia. I thank Gough for my virtually free University education. Just got in before the fees.

 

 

When i was at uni i also worked as a cleaner. My full time cleaning colleagues were very supportive of the introduction of hecs. Not complimentary at all about students protesting the introduction of hecs.

 

One person's utopia is another's dystopia.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, hecs was just coming in when I was starting uni and I'd have been buggered if I was gonna complain about it. But plenty were happy to have another excuse to complain about something. Some wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they had nothing to complain about. Change it to an american system and watch them bleat!

 

Disclaimer - I haven't repaid one cent of my hecs in 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

E.G. Whitlam represented the division of Werriwa Parky

 

More recently remembered as the seat of Mark Latham

 

 

Sorry, ex cronulla resident not local member. Stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, ex cronulla resident not local member. Stand corrected.

 

 

I'm sure his good work with the sewer-building is appreciated by his present-day party colleagues though

 

Gives them somewhere to reside...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unfortunate position that the ALP find themselves in now is that absolutely nothing is going to help them. Any slightly postive move they make is going to be seen with a cynical eye by 95% of the population. Nothing will be taken at face value. This will mean that they have to resort to trying to appeal to the greed and self-interest of the electorate to pull back their position. Look for big spending promises targetted at middle Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it'll come down to a Queensland style decimation, or chuck Rudd in and maybe save a few seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it should be decided via a Gage Fight.............2 enter.........only 1 leaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been having a thought lately if it is a good idea to introduce limits on the length of time someone can serve in the top job at State and Federal levels.

 

Bit of a long bow to draw, but starting to wonder if the current situation at federal level can be tied back to Howard's decision not to hand over the reigns at an appropriate time, and after he went there was no succession plan in place on the coalition side as many possible leaders had pursued other areas.

 

Howard was on the nose with the average punter who thought it was time he stepped aside, met quite a few who voted for Rudd (labor technically) purely cause they thought Howard's time was over, even the good residents of Bennelong voted that way

 

Had Howard had a time line on how long he could have stayed for, would we have seen much more credible leadership from both sides? (Something like 7 years, somewhere just over 2 terms worth)

 

Same question for state politics, would we see better choices (and possibly less corruption in some cases) if Premierships were fixed for a length of time maximum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howard was on the nose with the average punter who thought it was time he stepped aside, met quite a few who voted for Rudd (labor technically) purely cause they thought Howard's time was over, even the good residents of Bennelong voted that way

 

And I wonder how many of them are now sorry they voted that way?

 

My wife said that at the time there was a big push around her work by the union delegates to have Howard dumped.

Wifey asked many of her collegues why they wanted Howard gone and the standard line was he has been there too long and its time for a change. Not one said he was doing a bad job, country was in ruins, economy tanking, etc

 

Interestingly, many of those that were the most vocal now no longer have a job due to the slowing economy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need fixed terms. Either the voter or an ambitious colleague will get you if you outstay your welcome.

 

 

Sure. That worked really well with Eddie Obeid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sure. That worked really well with Eddie Obeid.

 

 

Sir Joh and co was another example I was thinking of along the same lines (for those old enough to remember)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixed terms (or more specifically fixed election dates) you end up with a situation like we have now where the last third of a term is spent electioneering rather than governing, unless of course they believe the result to be a foregone conclusion in their favour. A limited number of terms in office can get rid of good leaders and replace them with crap ones.

 

What you need is a system which cannot be manipulated by a few to control the bulk. Obeid was brought up before. There was an example where fixed terms for premiers would have done nothing. He was controlling things from behind the scenes. Replacing one puppet with another at the top does nothing. Look at Russia at the moment. Over here in WA Brian Burke is still a massive influence in the Labor Party in spite of all that he has done wrong. Why?

 

The answer is because of the way the ALP is set up. An individual's power in the caucus depends on the number of votes they control. The number of votes they control is dependent on the number of constituents they represent in the case of a union. A union which joins with 1000 members gets 1000 votes (proxy votes if you like) as if every individual in that union had joined separately. An individual joing gets one vote. So if you control one of the big unions you have significant control. The indvidual Labor member or even a large band of them has no power to stop the union controlled votes from setting the agenda. That's why all the good seats go to buddies of the unions and why they can control the party. Not only that but as a parliamentary member of the ALP you will be ejected if your vote in parliament does not go along with the caucus decision. It's this design which has created opportunity for the likes of Obeid and Burke to have undue control.

 

Sir Joh was a different case altogether. He was, as many would remember, very popular publicly. His party kept him there because they were benefiting from his popularity. The fact that the public and his party were either ignorant of or unwilling to tackle the rampant corruption is not a result of the system other than the desire to stay in power.

 

What we should have is longer terms. Up to ten years would be satisfactory. Of course there would need to be a means to dispose of them early if absolute wrong doing was evident. The biggest flaw in our current system is that the governing party always has one eye on the next election. Important decisions with short term pain but long term benefits are never even considered and many good ideas are ignored because they would take too long to show results and there is a risk that the opposition ends up getting to take the glory. The current system just rewards short term, risk-averse thinking and that's not good for the country.

 

In the Liberal/National parties the leaders can and regularly do get rolled on decisions by the grass roots (particularly evident during pre-selection) because in order to control a majority of the internal vioting power you need to convince others to vote with you. You don't automatically control their vote like you do in the ALP. That's why there is more of a diversity in the coalition parties than there is in the ALP and why, contrary to popular belief, the little guy has more of a chance of success there. As ridiculous as it sounds the Liberals have always lead the way with gender equality in parliament for that very reason. People get seats and power through decisions on how valuable they are to the party, not on who they know and how they can be controlled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Closest Australia ever came to Utopia. I thank Gough for my virtually free University education. Just got in before the fees.

 

I always thought you were about 28 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone remind me why they dumped Rudd again?

 

Howard had lost touch with the people IMO. No action on aboriginal issues, environment etc

 

Also, I wonder why the banks aren't subject to the super profits tax? Or are they?

It's a shame the govt doesn't have a bank for the people, hmmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone remind me why they dumped Rudd again?

 

 

 

I think simply his own party didn't like to work as hard as he wanted them to, and didn't like him calling them lazy f***ers.

 

I know he keeps saying he won't challenge. I reckon he's waiting till they go - please sir, may we have some more. He wants them to beg. Couldn't blame him either. Won't save them, but may save a few of their seats. I think they were saying the polls recently show that every other option other than Rudd is less popular than Goolia. So their best option to not go like Qld and WA is to beg for forgiveness and ask him back. I still have no doubt had they not dumped him they wouldn't have this stupid minority govt thing to deal with.

 

With another new policy idea (this media thing) on the nose it could be the last straw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short memories. Rudd was dumped because he was publicly very unpopular ( not Julia unpopular but pretty bad) and they were going to lose the election with him. The fact that the rest of the party hated him just made it easier for the controlling interests to do so without internal dissent. After two and a half years of stuffing everything up and achieving nothing all of a sudden Julia had a mining tax without the fight with the big miners ( wonder why, hey) and had dropped the toxic carbon tax and now they were " moving forward". The bounce in the polls and agreeing to be shafted by the Greens and independents ( all of whom seem to have been led to and betrayed at some stage) only just got them over the line.

 

Staying with Julia is political suicide but they can't go back to Rudd. There's too much footage out there of his own party members ( and senior ones at that) tearing him down. The Libs won't even need script writers for their campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caught a bit of Q&A last night before turning in. Good to see the laborites are back to trotting out the "The poll results are due to sexist people not liking Julia because she is a woman" line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the juicy conspiracy theory.... Rudd got scared because Mining publicly said something along the lines of "If I was Kevin Rudd I wouldn't leave my house" Why? is this a threat? because he would be embarrassed to be Rudd? or did he mean the house of parliament? - if so I think it was before K had made any mention publicly. I was surprised that this passed without comment or question. Then in the next week or so the plane went down in the Congo with the mining exec's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if Kevie puts his hand up. Be funny if he doesn't. Not like he needs the money with his sugar mummy ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, but wouldn't it be funny! None of the other options are any more popular with - pretty much anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He cant wait to roll Julia.

Biggest egomaniac in the history of Australian politics

 

 

 

But man he has some great teachers. Tinny, I know you are old enough to remember Hawke and Keating!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×