Will you Lean on me or are you an indi-bloody-vidual?

August 21, 2016
Written by: Trish Corry
255 Replies

The recent election highlighted to me something as a nation we are not talking about. It is also something that our leaders on the left are not talking about, yet they should be.

This election, the right wing of politics supported by the media were successful in creating a divide. This divide is not just about rich versus poor, or big business versus the worker. This divide is about the underlying constructs of the very essence of everything that has underpinned us as a nation since Gough Whitlam broke 23 years of conservative rule – progressive reform achieved through the power of democratic socialism.

This divide is about how we are choosing to see ourselves as a society – or if we see ourselves instead as segments of individuals and not as a society at all. This divide is now markedly between Liberalism, Libertarianism and conservatism and right-wing populism which is underpinned by the Individualism of the right versus the more collective Socialism, Environmentalism and Democratic Socialism of the left.

I say this is markedly because not only have the Liberals returned to power, but also we have seen the rise of more minor parties and Independents who espouse Individualism as their central tenet win more and more seats.

In addition, we have seen the media promote (including paid promotion) and encourage the voices of those who espouse Individualism and interrupt (up to more than 30 times in a half hour segment) to suppress those who espouse democratic socialism. The interest in individualism and breaking the two party system is also reflected as a central theme in comments across various social media platforms, including newspaper forums.

I see the rise of individualism in Australia in two distinct areas. The first is the decision-making process and democratic representation to develop and pass the legislation, which shapes us. The second is individualism as the central tenet of the ideology of the majority of seats in our current parliament.

Decision-making and democratic representation

With regards to parliamentary decision-making and democratic representation, we have seen a rise in discussions about breaking the two party system. An excitement and a peaking of interest in how it is better to see individual voices in parliament trade off for their vote with other individual voices and creating blocs of these voices to pass legislation; rather than the collective decision-making process of a major party, based on their collective values and ideology.

The worrying theme about the rise in these discussions is voters who advocate this; do not seem to care what the individual or minor party stands for. As long as they are an Independent, or a minor/micro party, that is what matters. The fact that these people or parties are not a collective or a part of a major party appears to be the most appealing aspect for many voters.

There is a plethora of voices shouting loudly about how we need to destroy the two-party system, but there is only a modicum… no… a complete absence of any argument about why we need to destroy a system that has delivered us many successful reforms over many years. The focus is that the two-party system is a failure, whilst ignoring the successes.

As a supporter of Labor, I am not even going to talk about the extensive list of successful Labor Party reforms that have shaped our country under the two-party system. Instead, I am going to use as an example, the only progressive reform the Liberals have ever had in my lifetime – Gun Reform.

When pockets of the nation are excited about the fact that a person is an Independent, or a micro party, rather than how these people or parties may vote on an important issue such as freedom of gun ownership laws, it is a concern. These anti-two party system voters appear to have a care factor of zero about the values or ideology, which will underpin decision making on this matter.

Do we risk ice-fuelled junkies running through the streets playing real life Call of Duty: Modern Warfare in the name of individual freedom?

Is Individual freedom more important than the protection of the rest of society?

Is ideology that insignificant and major parties so abhorrent that we take this risk with a protest vote? A protest vote in which many participants cannot articulate what they are actually protesting about?

Within the two-party system, the major parties have a particular ideology and party platform that underpins them. This platform, informs voters about how their values align with many, many areas of policy. The challenge for major parties is to actively promote their central values – their ideology which underpins how as a collective they will make decisions.

To be fair, Labor did push this extensively during the campaign with their 100 positive policies, however, I feel this was significantly absent during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years. The Liberals in my view failed spectacularly in this area with their 2013 pamphlet, which was upgraded to a plan for a plan in 2016.

Could this be attributed to Labor’s failure to win the election, but success in the number of seats won? Could this be attributed to the Liberal’s success in winning the election, but failure in number of seats lost?

Is ambiguity now so 2013? To restore true belief in the major parties’ platforms, the major parties must wear their values on their sleeves and promote their liberal/conservative agenda or their democratic socialist one, or in the case of the minor/major Greens party – get back to pushing environmental reform. The parties need to set their agenda to purely focus on attracting true believers to their causes.

There is a growing tide of people desiring the annihilation of the collective structures that underpin the decision making of a party platform and the two-party system. These people argue that bringing forth a sporadic cacophony of decision-makers is a more ‘democratic’ option. The people who advocate this appear to have no interest on how these individuals or parties will vote on issues, which are not a part of their single issue-focused or populist agenda.

Paul Keating is remembered and revered for his wit and quips. However, I truly believe he was able to be outstanding during his time, as both major parties were at true odds with each other in terms of ideology and Keating was able to harness this as a true battle of ideas between left and right.

I also believe that Shorten is definitely on the right path with his latest reforms more left of the spectrum than the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years and he is also wearing democratic socialism on his sleeve. Time will tell where he goes with this.

If Turnbull is threatened by the rise of the Independents and minor parties – he must do the same. However, this will mean he will need to admit what he actually does believe in. This will be his greatest challenge yet.

With a sparodic cacophony of decision-makers, confusion will continue to reign until values and ideology once again trump populism (no pun intended).

Individualism as a central tenet and the risk to progressive reform

Individualism permeating as a result of seats won, is also a testament to the rise of Individualism in Australia. Individualism is a central tenet of Liberalism, liberal-conservativism, libertarianism, neo-conservatism and right-wing populism and even to an extent, the populist-centrists that are currently making up the majority of parliamentarians and senators as the result of the democratic vote that was cast at our recent election.

The successful reforms of the two party system, are all underpinned by collectivism/socialism and utilitarianism. That is where the greater needs of society, the protection and security of society, the moral good of society as the outcome, outweighs the desires or freedoms of the individual.

With the rise of individualism, there is a risk of all of our existing progressive reforms being weakened or even destroyed. The underpinning construct of individualism is that everyone is born equal and everyone has the same opportunities in life. Essentially, your life is what you make of it. Your individual rights are more important than the needs of society as a whole; even if this means to the detriment of large groups of people in society (ie no taxes to pay for another person’s health care, but rather a user pays system).

This is why the Liberal party see going without any Newstart payments for six months as an incentive and not a punishment. They see the individual as inherently lazy. They use this to stigmatise the individual, to cut payments even further, or to push an even more punitive agenda on the unemployed.

They do not see it that as a Government, they have failed to provide enough employment for everyone. They believe that the free market will just sort it out and everyone has the same opportunity to ‘make a go of it.’ We saw this with Turnbull’s push for everyone to aspire to be an innovative entrepreneur rather than a common worker. If you can’t get a job – just go and create an app you lazy bastard!

Individualists and free-marketeers such as Turnbull do not value the security, protection and harmony that collective or socialist welfare measures bring the nation as a whole. Instead, they see it as the dragging down of society, where the haves need to prop up the have-nots.

Individualism values the freedom of the individual over the harmony and security of a group as a whole. The danger of this ideology, is it has the power to destroy the very fabric of everything that has shaped our society over a long period of time and everything we are still yet trying to achieve.

Our awards and collective bargaining system, our superannuation system, our right to welfare (although needs huge improvements!) the NDIS, Gonski and even national infrastructure such as the NBN to name a few.

We saw individualism peak at its boldest during the Howard years. With its ugly head raised under Work Choices, workers had no choices. Funding for Universities were tied to the abolishment of collective agreements and Howard tried his hardest to use his authority to force Individual agreements on employees in this sector.

Individualism with its ugly head raised, allowed any worker to be sacked for any reason, with no recourse. Individualism with its ugly head raised allowed the more highly ranked workers adept and confident to bargain for a decent individual wage, with unskilled workers with low self-effacy in individual wage bargaining, left with the scraps and told to take it or leave it. Most employees had protection measures stripped, annual leave loading abolished, penalty rates removed and gazetted public holidays removed and some had every single protection measure removed.

For those who want to fight against a rise of Individualism and its ugly head being raised again, the question is “How do we as a collective create a more powerful message that individualism is damaging to our society, before many who are advocating the return of individualism learn the hard way how ugly it really is, along with a second bout for the rest of us?”

The agenda setting of the media makes pushing this narrative even harder. We should also note the power of the media, including the National Broadcaster, in setting an agenda to undermine our nation’s socialist based health care system. They used their innate power by reiterating and reinforcing the political terminology of the right “Mediscare.”

The right used Mediscare, to divert voters away from their intention to weaken and destroy Medicare as a classic Joh Bjelke Petersen “Don’t you worry about that” moment.

The power of the media in this instance was used to reinforce the notion of Individualism and that it is not important for us to stand together as a collective and fight to ensure that all Australians have access to healthcare. In fact, many respected and powerful journalists actually tittered and giggled when communicating to voters the word “Mediscare.” Because you know, socialist healthcare and people being more vulnerable to late diagnosis and death is a bit of a joke.

I hope if a young person does not have the money to access health care and is diagnosed with cervical cancer too late; these journalists will have the decency to wipe the smirk off their faces, when reporting on such stories that will occur now in our future.

Narrative shapes society and I am definitely not a fan of the narrative I see playing out, at this present point in time. When narrative is put to music, it turns into songs and lyrics. I see the election and the post election music as a mash-up of these two songs.

Lean on me, when you’re not strong (I’m an Individual)
And I’ll be your friend (You can’t fool me)
I’ll help you carry on (an Indi-bloody-vidual)
For it won’t be long (You can’t fool me)
‘Til I’m gonna need (A genuine original)
Somebody to lean on (You can’t fool me)

The question is, if both songs were on your playlist – which one would you turn up?

Originally published on Polyfeministix

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Post Views: 405

255 comments

Login here

Register here

auntyutaAugust 21, 2016 at 7:40 am

“Paul Keating is remembered and revered for his wit and quips. However, I truly believe he was able to be outstanding during his time, as both major parties were at true odds with each other in terms of ideology and Keating was able to harness this as a true battle of ideas between left and right.

Let’s hope what you point out here about Shorten and Turnbull is the direction the two major parties will be going otherwise you cannot blame people for looking for alternatives!

Trish CorryAugust 21, 2016 at 7:43 am

Thanks Auntyuta – I have no control over what Shorten or Turnbull decide. However, I did address this with “Time will tell where Shorten goes with this” and if Turnbull is threatened he must do the same – or similar from memory. But that was the gist of it, without going back and cutting and pasting.

The central point of my argument is that we need to bring value based politics back, or otherwise, people will be scrambling for crumbs somewhere else and they won’t even know what they are eating; as the minors and independents aren’t exactly dripping with Value statements and ideology either. Voters need to look for something else that appeals to them. Such as a single issue or some other populist type attraction.

Möbius EckoAugust 21, 2016 at 7:54 am

I believe it’s no coincidence that a Murdoch hack becomes the MD of the ABC and now ABC3, a predominantly kids channel, is to be renamed to ABC Me on September 17. The promos for this change are all about individualism and how desirable it is.

michael laceyAugust 21, 2016 at 8:14 am

The Nazis before 1933 were buffoonish figures, as were Radovan Karadžic and Slobodan Miloševic in Yugoslavia and as Trump is. But when these buffoonish figures take power, they become extremely frightening. They didn’t come from nowhere. The Nazis came from the collapse of the Weimar, Radovan Karadžic came out of the economic collapse of Yugoslavia and Trump out of the collapse of the American economy. They sit in the wings here in this country, they never go away waiting for the opportunity that strengthens their position. Neoliberalism is that mechanism that offers up these opportunities it believes in social hierarchy and privilege, so the only prosperity is limited to them. Neoliberalism wants to see absolutely nothing that benefits those who work for an hourly wage, attacking structures like medicare, minimum wage laws, every piece of legislation ever proposed to improve working conditions, unions, who “extort” employers by collectively bargaining, environmental regulations, federal support and federal standards for public education, public broadcasting,
Marriage equality, progressive income tax.
Neoliberalism functions to create an obedient, docile, uncritical workforce who will work to support the upper-class’s lifestyle.

Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 9:05 am

You certainly got through many points of discussion there Trish and the MSM`s tenet on individualism is to break up collectivism within workplace/political “familial” structures {unions]

Do you know I recently read a so called serious article about how some Greens [progressive my arse] author says the unions hijacked the ALP in 1916 without realising the two are one [the symbiosis of need against corporate greed]

The neo-con mantra of the “free market” is your parent/carer/ladder-rung,forgets greed does not fix pot holes in the road or maintain bridges/hospitals/schools etc {pick a story> https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=us%20crumbling%20infrastructure%5D

We`ve seen 20 years of so called Progressiveness from Greens and if they could list their achievements for us all to see it may make me take my critical eye off them {thank you for the 4 One Nation Senators Mr di Natale}

Be like Labor you Greens and fight Tories

wamAugust 21, 2016 at 9:37 am

wowowo great thinking post – my little brain is reeling!!! I think it is the best read ever from you, trish,
Perhaps the key is women into the church or out of the indoctrination?

HarquebusAugust 21, 2016 at 10:26 am

Perhaps if party politicians started representing their constituents instead of their parties, they might get the majority in parliament that they crave for. Labor politicians are the worst in this respect and is why I will not vote for them.
The Labor Party is also the best when it comes to removing liberties and freedoms. They are very good at it and is another reason not to vote for them.

Michael TaylorAugust 21, 2016 at 10:33 am

“The Labor Party is also the best when it comes to removing liberties and freedoms”.

And what is your opinion of the Liberal Party?

diannaartAugust 21, 2016 at 10:58 am

Indeed ‘Individualism’ is catch-all a term for use by those who believe in laissez-faire economics.

I agree with Trish on the above mentioned point.

However, there is a glaring omission in her article, that of diversity.

The far-right LNP and still right-leaning Labor party both eschew diversity within their ranks: “My way or the highway” and, thus, many voices are silenced.

Labor, during the Rudd/Gillard (not so much with the 2nd incarnation of Rudd) years, passed many good nation building policies in a hung parliament. They would not have had any success at all without the diverse support from the Greens, Oakeshott, Windsor et al.

This thinking that Labor or the LNP (ironic title, no?) is the answer for everything is very 20th century. A diversity of parties and independents is not an evil it is more reflective of democracy than a binary system can ever be. It is also a lot more messy and difficult – all that negotiation and compromise; terms which are anathema to the LNP and not exactly Labor’s first preference either.

Given the trend both here and overseas in OECD countries, I wonder when, if ever, Labor will return to govern with a majority like it used to have in the 20th century.

Right now we have a fractured parliament, thanks to Turnbull and the Greens, a dismal senate, consisting mostly of right wing supporters. Individuals in abundance, but diversity not so much.

vivienne29August 21, 2016 at 11:28 am

Take no notice of Harquebus – just another rusted on lying Liberal who used to infest The Drum and now looking for a place to write unsubstantiated rot.

HarquebusAugust 21, 2016 at 12:00 pm

Michael Taylor.
Runners up and almost as bad.

vivienne29
You have made an incorrect assumption and I am not in the habit of lying.
I have admitted many times to participating in many fora and have I outlasted theDrum which, was never more than a censored website designed to mislead the public. Good riddance to it and good riddance to Chip Roley.
Try arguing your case. Insults don’t cut it.

Trish CorryAugust 21, 2016 at 12:28 pm

Dianna do you mean to say if Labor had a majority they would not have passed their own policies? Or in some bizarre way are you saying Greens and Ind formulated these policies? Are you saying that there is no risk to independents supporting harmful policy? You say this is the best way – with independents but then appear to grizzle about our current democratic result. Tad confusing I’m afraid.

Trish CorryAugust 21, 2016 at 12:35 pm

Bytheway I’m currently sitting in a regional Labor conference and looking at the democratic grass roots format which feeds into Labor policy and the huge range of diverse people before me; to say Labor is not inclusive, democratic or diverse is laughable. I think you are talking out of your hat.

stephengb2014August 21, 2016 at 12:41 pm

I am a Labor supporter in general but I do think that Labor lost its way under Hawke and Keating, these two were the most supportive of neoliberlist economics I have ever seen.

They crippled the one bargaining chip for workers, by removing the the right to strike except under fairly strict circumstance. This was a purely neoliberalist dream.

Next they started the privatisation of blue chip government services, again a neoliberal agenda item.

Then there was the creation of Medicare, which in reality is not a universal health care system but a part payment health care scheme.

The only good thing about the Hawke Keating government was the floating of the dollar.

diannaartAugust 21, 2016 at 1:27 pm

Trish

I offer my most profound apologies for talking out of my hat.

I will try to be clearer for you.

Labor would have been able to pass its nation building policies if it had had a majority in the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years.

Instead it was aided by the Greens and Independents who supported them by voting with them to enable the policies to be passed.

I am sure that you do have a variety of people in your Labor meetings. So do the LNP. None of which means much when we get down to ideology. The variety of people in Labor still need to work with other people of the political spectrum. So do the LNP. Sometimes this works, as I have illustrated with the example of cooperation required during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years. Sometimes not so much, as in the Turnbull and Greens alteration of senate voting procedures.

Please let me know if you have any difficulties understanding my comments. I am here to help.

Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 1:42 pm

Michael Taylor August 21, 2016 at 10:33 am

I`m stunned at the concise and articulate answer you got to your question Michael

Michael TaylorAugust 21, 2016 at 1:44 pm

townsvilleblogAugust 21, 2016 at 2:18 pm

Trish, I honestly believe that The central point of my argument is that we need to bring value based politics back, or otherwise, people will be scrambling for crumbs somewhere else and they won’t even know what they are eating Would be achieved if the AWU/SDA alliance who run the ALP could sacrifice their internal power and open up the party to democracy where members were all equal and all members got a vote for the leadership at State Branch level National level and parliamentary level, it could quite easily turn into a people’s party that would develop policy much closer to what the public actually want. Great article Trish.

townsvilleblogAugust 21, 2016 at 2:26 pm

stephengb2014 I agree with you wholeheartedly they were the best tory PMs that we ever had, did bugger all for working people, Keating will tell you how he delivered superannuation for working people, but what he won’t say is how many pay rises we had to forego to receive it. We need a centre-left party, not a centre-right one that we currently have. It was noticeable that the only leadership ballot we have had the members (35,000) voted for Albo, and the politicians (101) voted for Shorten, meaning that members only got half of a vote, or considerably less if you take the numbers into account. The membership is considerably more to the Left than the politicians, but some of us know why this is, it has to do with preselections and the AWU/SDA alliance.

townsvilleblogAugust 21, 2016 at 2:29 pm

Trish, how many regional conference motions turn into official policy once they have gone to Brisbane, the Northern Conference used to pass a lot of motions too, but once they hit Brisbane, they disappeared, do you find the same with yours?
August 21, 2016 at 12:35 pm

townsvilleblogAugust 21, 2016 at 2:34 pm

diannaart I had no difficulty understanding what you meant, Trish perhaps your thought pattern has been diverted by the conference I’m sure that if you were able to give dianna’s comment full concentration you would realize what point she is making. Hope it’s a great conference for you.

townsvilleblogAugust 21, 2016 at 2:43 pm

The median wage in Australia is $43,000 per annum that is good if both parents work, but if one parent can’t for reason of disability, sickness or other reason it is not much for a family of 5 to live on. Most ‘fair dinkum’ unions help their members to achieve pay increases and better conditions if the union members all stick together. A workplace usually has a crawler. a ‘would be’ boss, and sometimes they both combine in the one person to destabilize the others. If workers will stick together no employer could ever beat them. Australian workers need either welfare top ups to their stingy wage or much higher wages, if not for unions we would still be down a coal mine with a canary on our shoulder.

Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 2:47 pm

stephengb2014 August 21, 2016 at 12:41 pm

You`ve made 5 points concerning Labor in your comment

Your first point is doubtful in all aspects

Your second point is horseshit [only horseshit in better as it can be used as fertiliser]

Your third point is correct

Your fourth point concerning Medicare is pathetic and Fraser had wiped out Medibank and Medicare was created in it`s stead as Universal Health Care {explain your part payment statement]

And your last point is total crap as well because the Hawke/Keating era was the highest spending Australia ever had on Health/Education and infrastructure ***PERIOD***

20% out of 100% an F-4

Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 3:00 pm

townsvilleblog August 21, 2016 at 2:34 pm

Well I certainly did and still do

If you had watched the changes in ALPNatCon2014/5 and 6 you will clearly see a turning to the Left within Labor

Ged Kearney has clearly stated in 15 and 16 firstly that AS policy changes have to be implemented {read ALP AS policy]

The ACTU is the most powerful union force within Labor and since Paul Howes took his corporate ballbag and went the AWU is moving more to centre

De Bruyn`s SDA is the “DLP” and he`s Vince Gair reincarnated

If you want Labor reform,join up and begin at branch level just like Trish Corry /Cornlegend/JohnB and myself do
It`s because people actually participate that changes are occuring

HarquebusAugust 21, 2016 at 3:07 pm

Bighead1883
If that was the case, we could all just join the Liberal Party and all of our problems will be solved.

“Don’t forget the golden rule.” — King from the Wizard of Id.
“What’s the golden rule?” — Serf from the Wizard of Id.
“Whoever has the gold makes the rules.” — Minstrel from the Wizard of Id.

Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 3:45 pm

Harquebus August 21, 2016 at 3:07 pm

What are you on about ?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqVrKKNVUAAogZF.jpg

trishcorryAugust 21, 2016 at 3:49 pm

Biggy – those who are not in the party (I’m assuming Townsville blog has not rejoined) are missing the ‘stay in the party and make the changes you want to see’ become a reality. Dianna has presented many comments about a plethora of individual voices being better than the two party system, but no actual solid arguments to support it.

Dianna – your argument that these reforms passed due to the Greens and Ind, was due to the actual nature of the parliament. They did not develop the policy, they simply supported it. If they decided to go the other way and support Abbott, how would that have panned out? You are speaking of this as if it is the ideal model. We will see how your ideal model pans out with the Ind currently supporting the right. Katter for one, is one who likes to ‘hold parties to ransom’ on policy. Thanks to Katter and the sacked Labor MP Billy Gordon, massive tree clearing policy by the LNP is still currently in place. Defeated in Parliament.

As to your diversity argument about Labor, which you clarified; Labor most certainly does. What you have a lot of difficulty in accepting is that we do engage with other ideologies – we process it, we understand it, we apply it to the Australia we want to see and if it does not fit we reject it. That is what you have difficulty comprehending. I know it is easier to see Labor as some insular entity which operates in a bubble; but that is far from the case. You cannot defeat the enemy unless you know exactly how they think. Keating was superb at this, as not only did he understand how they think, he verbalised it.

I think when you talk about this wonderful democracy that is in your head, that all the power is in the hands of the ideas you support. The existing model you praised in Denmark, I extensively refuted in a different article by another author and you did not have one single solid counter argument for. The other thing that I did not have the word count to really cover is one of informed voting. Voting for populist politicians based on a single issue or because they are a famous person, is not conducive to democracy. Democracy can only be achieved if the real battle of ideas in days gone by does re-emerge.

There are also only so many segments within the political spectrum and every single one of these Ind or minor party politicians fall into that spectrum. The point of my article is that ideology does matter (there is a rise in people saying it does not). I do not believe that ONP voters for example is an increase in the right wing vote, of the right wing Nationalism alignment, but it is from disaffected voters who are not either receiving the information from the major parties on their reforms (or it isn’t connecting) OR change politically is moving too slowly for these people and they are seeking an answer, that possibly no one can give them immediately.

Well possibly a party could – for example, with jobs, you could apply real socialism and apply massive job creation in public services and infrastructure projects, but then the voters also need to disagree with the conservative opposition to that argument and agree that this will mean a slower return to surplus. This is why my article addresses wearing their ideology on their sleeve and pushing what underpins their decision making. The minors and independents do not do this. If you read Pauline Hanson’s ONP party, her policies are a conflicting confusion of a range of ideologies, as her policies are set up to appeal to a wide range of people, but would not be effective necessary change in reality. Many of her policies if implemented would fail. I think we are paying far too much attention to Hanson herself and we should debate her actual ideas and how they will affect this country.

HarquebusAugust 21, 2016 at 3:52 pm

Bighead1883
“join up and begin at branch level”
Join the Liberal Party and attack from within.

Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 3:59 pm

Trish,I made this meme long ago explaining not only my reality but that of many of my comrades
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqXIKEwUsAAsNnn.jpg

Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 4:03 pm

Harquebus August 21, 2016 at 3:52 pm

Go ahead

winAugust 21, 2016 at 4:49 pm

Surely each individual is only important if he/she accepts that EVERY other individual is equally important. This includes those of other color, other status, other religion or none., female or male.or none of the above. This only really happens in a cohesive society, that if fractured, rushes to heal quickly. i.e. community, that fight wingers refuse to acknowledge.

winAugust 21, 2016 at 4:51 pm

And I would like to see the ALP move MORE to the left, because the right is inhumane in its very premises .

Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 5:00 pm

win August 21, 2016 at 4:51 pm

So you want to see a RWNJ in action and promote tax evasion etc here in Australia?

Tasmanian Senator Nick McKim has praised the Uber/Airbnb effect on the economy for ‘turning a generation of interconnected people into entrepreneurs’. Unconcerned with the significant implications of such practices on labour rights, McKim has welcomed the growth of such ways of business, gleefully suggesting that ‘services such as equipment rental, energy supply, labour hire, money lending and even child care will be next’.
His Maiden Speech in which he said it ,

http://nick-mckim.greensmps.org.au/content/media-releases/nicks-inaugural-speech

The AIM NetworkAugust 21, 2016 at 5:20 pm

So you want to see a RWNJ in action and promote tax evasion etc here in Australia?

Now that’s what I call putting words in someone’s mouth.

Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 5:28 pm

Now that’s what I call putting words in someone’s mouth.

Only that`s not what I did
Here`s some of what he said and if you agree with him then you are PRO neo conservatism>>

It’s been observed recently that Uber, the world’s largest taxi company, owns no vehicles, and that Airbnb, the world’s largest accommodation provider, owns no real estate. Something highly disruptive is happening. It’s called the shared economy, or the collaborative economy, and it’s coming to a mobile device near you. And it’s turning a generation of interconnected people into entrepreneurs.

The collaborative economy is a peer-to-peer economic ecosystem which relies on data and connectivity, and it’s growing exponentially at increasing speed.

A PriceWaterhouseCoopers report found that just the four major sectors of the collaborative economy had annual global revenue of $21 billion – a figure that it predicts will explode to $478 billion within a decade.

It is already transforming sectors like accommodation and transport, and services such as equipment rental, energy supply, labour hire, money lending and even child care will be next.

It brings down prices, it cuts out middle-people, it encourages innovation and, crucially, it’s environmentally friendly because it avoids greenhouse emissions through the more efficient use of existing resources. It’s the free market working as it should, for the benefit of people and the environment.

The AIM NetworkAugust 21, 2016 at 5:34 pm

You said:

win August 21, 2016 at 4:51 pm

So you want to see a RWNJ in action and promote tax evasion etc here in Australia?

It was obvious to me that you was referring to the comment at 4:51.

Sorry, but I can’t read people’s minds.

The AIM NetworkAugust 21, 2016 at 5:37 pm

You also said:

Here`s some of what he said and if you agree with him then you are PRO neo conservatism>>

It’s been observed recently that Uber, the world’s largest taxi company, owns no vehicles, and that Airbnb, the world’s largest accommodation provider, owns no real estate. Something highly disruptive is happening. It’s called the shared economy, or the collaborative economy, and it’s coming to a mobile device near you. And it’s turning a generation of interconnected people into entrepreneurs.

The collaborative economy is a peer-to-peer economic ecosystem which relies on data and connectivity, and it’s growing exponentially at increasing speed.

A PriceWaterhouseCoopers report found that just the four major sectors of the collaborative economy had annual global revenue of $21 billion – a figure that it predicts will explode to $478 billion within a decade.

It is already transforming sectors like accommodation and transport, and services such as equipment rental, energy supply, labour hire, money lending and even child care will be next.

It brings down prices, it cuts out middle-people, it encourages innovation and, crucially, it’s environmentally friendly because it avoids greenhouse emissions through the more efficient use of existing resources. It’s the free market working as it should, for the benefit of people and the environment.

I think you need to go back and have a look at Win’s 4:51 comment again. You’re putting more than words in someone’s mouth . . . you’re putting a whole book!

Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 5:39 pm

Yes that was the comment I replied to explaining that you don`t have to be Labor to be a RWNJ in your thinking
You can be a Greens as is McKim

Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 5:42 pm

The AIM Network August 21, 2016 at 5:37 pm

win @ 4.51 And I would like to see the ALP move MORE to the left, because the right is inhumane in its very premises

My premise is easy to see

Mr Pew,I might be blind,but I have acute hearing

Trish CorryAugust 21, 2016 at 5:57 pm

I got what Biggy meant. People always, always talk about Labor as if they are the only ones that deviate from anything but the (which extreme??) true left. People never question the Greens, because people just assume the Greens are wholesome, good, sunshine and butterflies with the arm and fist ingrained on their wings. Which is certainly not the case. But one goes blue in the face trying to explain that, because people simply go nah nah nah I’m not listening you rusted on Labor hack.

Hahah biggy, I’m sure he said “but I have a cute earring” lol. I love, love, love that movie!

The AIM NetworkAugust 21, 2016 at 6:06 pm

Well there must be something wrong with me eyes then.

Trish CorryAugust 21, 2016 at 6:10 pm

Maybe it is just one of those things where people in certain groups just know what each other means. He did clarify it though by putting the thing about McKim straight after. Victoria will always be right with her article about “Everyone is obsessed with Labor”

diannaartAugust 21, 2016 at 6:47 pm

Trish Corry claims: People never question the Greens, because people just assume the Greens are wholesome, good, sunshine and butterflies with the arm and fist ingrained on their wings.

Diannaart August 21, 2016 at 10:58 am: Right now we have a fractured parliament, thanks to Turnbull and the Greens, a dismal senate, consisting mostly of right wing supporters. Individuals in abundance, but diversity not so much.

I don’t see any political party or individual who has not ever made mistakes. Nor do I see Trish ever wanting a genuine discussion about diversity, independents and small political parties – for her, and I can quote Trish on this, it is all about: Dianna has presented many comments about a plethora of individual voices being better than the two party system

No, Trish, I have talked about negotiation between Labor, Greens, other smaller parties and Independents working towards a common goal.

No, Trish, Labor is not alone in developing policy, you claimed They (the Greens) sic did not develop the policy, they simply supported it. The greens support policies which are in alignment with their own policies.

Trish: The existing model you praised in Denmark, I extensively refuted in a different article by another author and you did not have one single solid counter argument for

No you did not counter the argument, you dismissed my points – not the same thing.

Nor have I brought up further examples because you will not actually engage with the topic, you write a lot of words without saying very much at all and just dismiss anything which does not fit into your perfect Labor dreamin’

Trish CorryAugust 21, 2016 at 7:01 pm

or do I see Trish ever wanting a genuine discussion about diversity, independents and small political parties…

No, Trish, I have talked about negotiation between Labor, Greens, other smaller parties and Independents working towards a common goal.

Umm….you kind of argued with me for hours the other day about how a system of independents and minor parties is much, much better than the current model. You used Denmark as an example. Have you forgotten?

But yet Dianna…. over the previous article on a similar topic and this one – you are still unable to articulate why a system of independents is better than the current model. So if you want a discussion about diversity of independents versus the current system, I’m all for it, but you must at least make an effort to present your case, rather than “its just better.” I’m very happy to discuss the negatives and positives of each model as it would apply to a system in Australia. So please – go ahead. Considering this is one central argument in my article, I hardly think I’m the one shy about it.

I think I wrote over 1000 words on your claims with Denmark. Including refuting issues ranging from their variance in political system, their nationalism, that they are a monarchy, their variances in trade, domestic product and GDP, the complications of wider and sparse geography and infrastructure here, the rise of nationalist parties, their Christianity, their high taxing system etc., etc., I hardly call that dismissing what you were saying! Maybe I should try harder, but people already complain I write comments that are too lengthy.

I do feel you are trying to just avoid putting your argument out there to be discussed because you keep saying I’m the one who is lazy. I kind of just wrote an article on the very topic between 3.00 am and 7.30 am this morning and published it – so….Kind of confused how that is lazy. All my arguments are there for everyone to read, criticise, refute, ignore, blame me for being a Labor member, a sheep, a non-thinker, a hack or simply just agree with me. But that certainly is not the definition of lazy in my book.

So please, please, please present your argument. You have been saying for a while now how great this ‘new system is that will tear down the one we have now’ So please – let us know why this would be better. Instead of saying I have ignored or dismissed something you have not even put forward yet (remember, because it is better is not a solid argument).

I’m pretty sure Labor develops Labor policy. Your point was that Labor policy would not have been implemented if it was not for the Greens. This was ONLY due to the nature of parliament. The Greens had no hand in developing said policy or reforms. Under a majority Govt, the Greens would not have been given a second glance. How is that hard to understand?

So I guess in relation to my article, you are siding with individualism as the basis of our system and process which underpins decision making for legislation and reform?

HarquebusAugust 21, 2016 at 11:31 pm

Here’s a goodwun.

“Other common binary assumptions are reversed in these pages: socialism causes pollution whereas capitalism protects the environment; socialism leads to war whereas capitalism is peaceful; socialism consolidates power among an elite few whereas capitalism decentralizes and disperses power, which ultimately resides with individual consumers making small economic adjustments based on their particular needs.”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/17/book-review-the-problem-with-socialism/

trishcorryAugust 22, 2016 at 7:03 am

umm…..that is random. Your point?

townsvilleblogAugust 22, 2016 at 9:18 am

Trish/Biggy, I take your point about rejoining, I fought for 15 years for change internally but today the Queensland Branch is still dominated by the AWU/SDA alliance who are basically non-representative of their members and right wing. They hold the internal positions of power on policy committees though I do agree that you are both correct in encouraging me to rejoin, and I’m moving closer to that situation every day, as the filth is dealt out by the ‘conservative’ Turnbull govt to the poor people such as myself. Latest move a $14.10 cut to the pension, but still no forcing the corporations to pay over 5% in income tax.

townsvilleblogAugust 22, 2016 at 9:30 am

One last question Trish/Biggy? Are there any democratic socialists left in the ALP or are they all now social democrats?

townsvilleblogAugust 22, 2016 at 9:46 am

Personally I believe there is strength in the party system, you are either a capitalist or a socialist I’ve never found anything in between. The strength of the Labor Party is its membership of people who believe that policy should favor the many not the few, as the conservatives believe. I believe that Labor has increased its membership since the last election and the party needs as many activists as they can possibly get, to wave the flag. It is interesting that following every election that the tories will not own up to voting tory. No one ever admits to voting these bastards into power but obviously someone does. Independents don’t really offer the voter anything because their policies have no hope of becoming legislation, the party collective is for me the only way to go.

diannaartAugust 22, 2016 at 11:05 am

Mockery is not debate. It is childish and indicative of ignorance.

Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, and Philippines are examples of nations that have used a multi-party system effectively in their democracies. In these countries, usually no single party has a parliamentary majority by itself. Instead, multiple political parties form coalitions for the purpose of developing power blocks for governing.

The above countries have operating multi-party systems of government. Some work better than others. There is no perfect system, however, multi-party does achieve better representation of a nation.

MPS is an alternative of value to discuss.

Given that whatever I say to Trish is thoughtlessly rejected, I am wasting my time here. If people are interested in understanding more about multi-party systems they can do so – the internet has a wealth of information available.

Learning and understanding should never be rejected because of an ideology.

It is a shame if Labor party members are not interested in discussing progressive ideas, such narrow-mindedness places them on a level with the LNP – which, BTW, is a coalition and working very well for the far-right.

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:15 am

Yes if you cannot articulate why except other countries have done it, you are indeed wasting your time. Please stop reading my posts in a strange tone. I was not mocking you at all!!

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:17 am

Diana I asked you to present one argument but you still insist I’m ignoring or being ignorant. That is really unfair when you insist on giving me no argument from your point of view to accept or refute. Stop blaming everything on party alignment of other people and take some responsibility.

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:19 am

Nope democratic socialists. Not that I know everyone but that is what we align with.

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:20 am

So join and build the left! That is why things have changed

Bighead1883August 22, 2016 at 12:51 pm

townsvilleblog August 22, 2016 at 9:18 am

You wrote ‘Latest move a $14.10 cut to the pension, but still no forcing the corporations to pay over 5% in income tax”
How can Labor do anything about Federal income taxing when it`s the LNP who are in power?
When Labor tried to reign in corporate tax evasion prior the 2013 Federal election the LNP refused to support them
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqbmJ07W8AAE8U7.jpg

Oh we have plenty of Democratic Socialists in Labor Lead by Albo [Hard Left] in HoR and Doug Cameron in the Senate
https://youtu.be/yGUDzzpcmj0?t=4

guestAugust 22, 2016 at 1:51 pm

Some of the argument here is rather obtuse, and some of it is very wise. But that is the nature of debate; so many angles to consider.

But we might consider the following statements made hundreds of years apart:

“There is no society, only individuals.” (after Margaret Thatcher)

“No man is an island entire of itself.” (John Donne)

There are people who regard themselves as “self made”. We have people here in Oz who have done very well for themselves financially and/or in fame or status. Some of them are people who came as migrants. We take some comfort that this is possible in Oz.

But Shakespeare (“The Tempest”) said:

“Some are born great, some achieve greatness, some have greatness thrust upon them.”

In each of those possible ways we could suppose there were other people involved, whether those people were parents, workers, soldiers, miners, servants, teachers, doctors, philosophers, historians, politicians…

It would be difficult to achieve greatness with no help at all from anyone else.

Consider wealth, for example. How many presently wealthy individuals inherited wealth from parents? Quite a number, I would suggest. And wealth can suggest ability, to be a politician, for example. But that does not always follow. We see our current PM having difficulty with politics, having inherited wealth, having been educated in prestigious places of education, having been supported by wealthy patrons and people in high places…

The C19th idea of Utilitarian Self-help was explored by Dickens in his writing. Very often the person in difficulty is rescued by good people. The crowd can play part,too, as we see in “Oliver Twist”.

Yet that kind of Utilitarian Self-help view is exhibited in the Liberal idea of taking “personal responsibility”. If one is poor, it is their own fault.

We saw it in the controversy over the Leak cartoon about Don Dale. It was not the guards or even the boys at fault; it was the parents who had been bad parents. No mention of the bureaucratic failure of governments or community utilities which have allowed the poverty and degradation of people over decades. It is all the fault of the poor themselves because they have not taken “personal responsibility”.

We see it in the treatment of refugees on Manus and Nauru. It is not Government’s responsibility for torture and trauma; it is the fault of the refugee themselves for daring to come by boat and wanting to enjoy what we enjoy.

I find the idea of individual liberty and freedom of speech as practised by the Liberals to be abhorrent self-interest only. Rich vs poor, as someone suggested above. Money talks.

It seems that events in the world tell us that things are falling apart and the centre cannot hold if we continue in the self-centred way we are at present. So we see people gathereing and saying Enough is enough! while the wealthy batten down and hide behind gated estates and in tax havens. Number one rules, OK?. .

diannaartAugust 22, 2016 at 2:02 pm

Well said, Guest.

To which I will add, another retort that exists happily with both the left and right of politics:

“You’re either with me or against me”

The “me” being either a group or an individual.

😉

Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.comAugust 22, 2016 at 4:41 pm

Bravo! You know that the two-party system is well and truly broken when it has to be so stoutly defended. Particularly because to defend Labor, you have to defend the Coalition too. Because without the Coalition, Labor are redundant. Labor party supporters defending the Coalition? What can I say.

Fundamentally party politics is lazy politics. “Unlike independents, people know what they stand for”. Utter bollocks. I bet, as an example, most people don’t know the religion of the person they voted for? So how do they know how they will vote for issues like euthanasia? Or funding religious schools? Most people who vote for Labor or the Coalition are really just voting for their preferred brand. They have no idea of the policy details.

Whilst the rank and file of the Labor party now have greater sway in deciding who is leader, this is a relatively new thing. Like the Coalition, power brokers behind the scenes make the call – hence why Bill and not Albo. Democracy? They can’t even do it in their own organisation, so what chance in the country.

And here is a thing. We are all individuals, whether you like it or not. I have two identical twin daughters. I would get my head bitten off if I suggested they should act collectively at all time. Yet they sometimes do, and they sometimes don’t – and believe it or not, it actually works.

The reality is that we are both. We are selfish and independent, yet we also need to work co-operatively. This is a fundamental of the human condition. To suggest you have either to be one or the other is a basic denial of our biology. Start dealing with it.

The concept that the Coalition will either declare the true hand of their beliefs is about as unrealistic as expecting them to hold to their election promises. Yet Labor continue to play the game fairly, and the Coalition are more than happy to hold them to it (whilst ignoring the rule book entirely).

And the idea that great reform has been due to the two party system is highly dubious, indeed I’d suggest wishful thinking. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but most great ideas have come from individuals, whether that is Einstein, or Michelangelo.

As a means of communication in the pre-mass communication landscape, political parties probably made some kind of sense. Because back then they weren’t the highly regimented, autocratic organisations that they are now. Just because one was a Whig did not mean that you’d always vote with that party.

What do people vote for now? The party? The candidate? As an outsider watching the election coverage, you could be excused for believing that the election was entirely presidential – Turnbull versus Shorten. Other parties and candidates are simply ignored – made irrelevant because of a media that wants to propagate yet another lazy duopoly – far, far easier to control.

Labor’s steadfast adherence to the two-party system is in part what keeps the Coalition predominantly running the country. They make for a very easy target which is one reason they keep losing. There are a significant number of voters out there who will NEVER vote Labor. Personally I don’t fully understand why, but I do know that they exist in a more sizeable number, than those who will never vote for the Coalition parties, and that will always make it difficult for Labor to get into power and stay there for long enough to do the great reforms that you so proudly pronounce are what 2 party politics are good for.

In summary if you want to live in a country predominantly run by the Coalition, keep supporting Labor – because historically the reality is that since the war we’ve had 46 years of Tory rule compared to just 26 years of Labor, so what does that tell you?

And now I’d better retire to the bunker…

cornlegendAugust 22, 2016 at 4:47 pm

FFS, I just turned up here to read this
” Particularly because to defend Labor, you have to defend the Coalition too. Because without the Coalition, Labor are redundant. Labor party supporters defending the Coalition? What can I say.”
WhAT CAN YOU SAY ?
I have never heard such bollocks ,
Sure you don’t want to edit?
There is absolutely no basis for that assumption

guestAugust 22, 2016 at 6:08 pm

What does that tell me, Steve Laing?

I could elaborate at length, but in a word: propaganda!

And as for a bunch of independents coming to some useful decision – it would be like herding cats.

cornlegendAugust 22, 2016 at 6:26 pm

“And as for a bunch of independents coming to some useful decision – it would be like herding cats.”

love it 😀

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 6:42 pm

For goodness sake can someone – anyone please put up a solid argument as a rebuttal against the two party system and why it should be destroyed, instead of just saying “because a different system is better” OR “because people are individuals” or accusing me of Labor bias!

Someone refuting my article give me some substance, Please! This matter actually really does deserve some critical discussion.

Imagine if I argued that we should abolish any party that could be deemed a protest party like the Greens because all they do is disrupt democracy and impede progress – Without adding any substance to my claim. Imagine if I did that!

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 7:00 pm

The herding of cats comment is spot on Guest. I think that we will be seeing a lot of cats being herded in the senate at least!

HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 7:05 pm

Trish.

Party politicians do not represent the will of their constituents, they instead represent the will of their party donors.
Which Labor or Liberal politician polls their electorate and votes accordingly? None.

One hundred and fifty independent representatives would be a vast improvement on the sheep that we have not representing us now.

Michael TaylorAugust 22, 2016 at 7:10 pm

In Canberra I was regularly polled by the offices of both my federal and territorial Labor member.

HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 7:10 pm

A bunch of independents could easily come to a decision, all it takes is a majority.
Of course, herding sheep is much easier.

HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 7:14 pm

Michael.
Was it a safe Labor seat? I am in rock solid Labor seats state and federally and never had my opinion asked once.
The next question to ask is, did they take any notice and vote accordingly or was it just to evaluate resistance.

cornlegendAugust 22, 2016 at 7:22 pm

Harquebus
My continual whinge within Labor is the bloody amount of internal polling and focus group stuff they do.
It is never ending
On the Independents meeting,
In the group of 5 we have now {I include Bandt, just so he won’t be lonely} would they have to have frequent breaks to consult with their Parties, so as not to go against their own policy? NXT and Greens
Geez, I’d like to be there when they were electing a spokesperson, etc

HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 7:24 pm

Something I remember reading:

“So the population of Australia might be around 24 million, but only a small proportion really make a difference to the outcome of a federal election.”
“Approximately 12.9% or 3.1 million people”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-22/election-2016-who-really-decides/7395568

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 7:24 pm

I work on elections and we phone bank, door knock, do street booths and by June 2016 Bill Shorten has also done over 30 community forums. Sorry you have never been contacted, but it may just be the result of randomness of statistics. Not everyone gets polled. I’m 46 and I have been phoned twice in my entire life for polling for the federal election by the big researchers. Both by Morgan Poll.

HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 7:27 pm

Trish
That is only half the story. Did the Labor Party implement policies based on majority polling?
It’s one thing to evaluate public opinion, it is another to vote accordingly.

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 7:28 pm

That is correct Harquebus – this is due to the number of swinging voters, the number of safe seats vs marginal seats and the way the electorates’ boundaries are set out. The AEC does boundary reviews continuously based on population growth. Another important reason to fill our your census. Stats rock!

cornlegendAugust 22, 2016 at 7:29 pm

Trish Corry
On Independents
“It’s no exaggeration to say that the undecided could go one way or another.” – George Bush Sr

On consultation, I think EVERY ALP candidate did multiple community forums as well

HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 7:30 pm

Cornlegend
Internal polling, in my opinion, doesn’t really count. What was the purpose of the focus groups? Was it to get the message or to determine the best way of delivering one?

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 7:34 pm

Well, this article, is not particularly about the Labor party. It is about collectivism/socialism/social democracy vs. Individualism. However, within the Labor party, policy is decided through a democratic grassroots system. Of course caucus can implement policy, however every year at regional, state and federal level, all members have input into policy and we have state and federal conferences where members vote on policy. Community members can be part of that by joining Labor. MPs and candidates of course would feed back and input into policy based on the feedback from community members.

What I love about Labor is as a member we have a great process for input and participation and even as members we can help our communities we live in. and Bill Shorten is great! He is so genuine and interested in what we are doing in our electorates and if you ask him a question he is genuinely concerned. He asked me to send him some more information on my question for example and has done to others as well. He is also an incredibly intelligent man and I don’t give out that type of compliment lightly.

HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 7:49 pm

Trish
The last I heard, Labor was losing members. Does this have anything with your plea to sign up?
As I have stated, party politicians do not represent me and until they do, I won’t be voting for any of them. Sorry. They represent their parties and their party donors and no amount of spin is going to pretty up this despicable fact.
We should not have to join a political party in order to have majority rule.

cornlegendAugust 22, 2016 at 7:50 pm

Harquebus
“Internal polling, in my opinion, doesn’t really count”
Internal pollimg within electorates ..
Have you checked out how often your Labor MP does street meets, BBQs, etc
A good example, just using one would be Terri Butler
http://www.terributlermp.com/calendar

Are you making this up as you go?
Since Bill Shorten took over leadership membership has increased by 10,000

Matters NotAugust 22, 2016 at 8:02 pm

it would be like herding cats.

That understates the problem. More like herding ‘feral’ cats. ?

Yet there’s a significant number of voters on the ‘left’ who are pissed off with their representatives. While ALP ‘policy’ (and its development) might gladden the hearts of Branch members, make them feel good, provide a rationale for debates and the like, they are just ‘guides’ for action at some (deliberately) undefined future. Party policy is a guarantee of nothing re implementation.

While one could go back to the ‘split’ of the 1950s and cite Vince Gair versus Jack Duggan and the causes of same (the policy of three weeks’ annual leave), perhaps some more recent examples might be in order.

When Goss was elected in 1989, it was soon made clear that it wasn’t a Labor Party government that was elected but a Goss labor government. While the Labor Party may have a whole set of ‘policies’, it was the Goss government that had ‘priorities’. And it was the ‘priorities’ that reigned supreme. Indeed there was somewhat frantic search across the public service to collect and destroy the ‘documents’ that had been widely distributed before the election.

Beattie much the same, without going into detail. It was always the Beattie labor government rather than the Beattie Labor Government.

Then there was the election of Rudd. The written policies were great. But implementing same – rather limp. Take ‘education’ as an example. Rudd could have ‘given a Gonski’ in his first term. In many ways, there was noting ‘new ‘ in Gonski. The ‘problem’ of school funding was well known and how it might be addressed had been well canvassed over time. (The real architect was Ken Boston who could have written the report in a spare wet weekend.) But Rudd refused to act in his first term. He refused to address a problem of ‘equity’ that was at the heart of written Labor Policy. He refused to act when he had the political capital.

ALP ‘policies’ meant nothing. Rudd’s ‘priorities’ ruled.

I could go on but won’t.

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 8:14 pm

@Harquebus – Labor has increased membership substantially since 2012 at least. Where did you get that info from? Also I don’t think I’d put out a plea for you to join Labor, you need to share Labor values.

HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 8:15 pm

Cornlegend
Thank you for the corrections and no, I haven’t but, I do email my reps. and many other politicians, over one hundred, regularly.
Mark Butler has responded only a couple of times and Zoe Bettison has never.
I have recently heard back from Tanya Plibersek however, it was obvious that she had not understood and only responded with a cut and paste Labor policy. Malcolm Turnbull and Jay Weatherill have also responded a couple of times, Bill Shorten has never.
Jay Weatherill has also responded in writing to a written letter when I actually used my real name. Again, Zoe couldn’t give a shit.
The vast majority of responses that I get from politicians come from their aides.
I have also met Penny Wong during the 2013 election and was pleased that she recognized Harquebus who, I introduced myself as.

HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 8:21 pm

Trish.
It was a while ago and was why I said “The last I heard”.
Thank you for the correction. I did just come across this while trying to determine it one way or another.
Again, it is a few years out of date.

“parties are notoriously secretive about their membership numbers.”

The party’s over: which clubs have the most members?

Cheers.

Matters NotAugust 22, 2016 at 8:35 pm

The vast majority of responses that I get from politicians come from their aides.

What’s with this vast majority nonsense? Any elected politician who personally responds to correspondence will have a very, very short political life. (Wasting their ‘political’ time and all that.)

Harquebus, from my reading of your posts, I can’t imagine any serious political office giving you anything more than a ‘form letter’ reply. You would be regarded as a universal, serial ‘pest’. And take it from me, political ‘aides’ do talk to each other – have a laugh. And then respond in like manner.

Kaye LeeAugust 22, 2016 at 8:53 pm

I think Ted Mack’s views worth repeating in this conversation….

“Political parties as they have developed over the last century seem like two mafia families seeking control of the public purse for distribution to themselves, supporters, the special interests who fund them and for buying votes at the next election. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. They are effectively unregulated private organisations but they now control government treasuries.

When they unite with common interests, for example funding themselves, the public are mostly powerless except on the rare occasions when public outrage is too great.

…the dominance of the major parties by little known and unimpressive faction leaders who have effective control of Australia’s democracy and destiny… might be tolerable if the major parties acted with integrity but they do not. Their constant battles for power are venal, vicious and vulgar.

Over the last 30 years politicians’ staff has increased dramatically. At federal level there are now some 17 hundred personal staff to ministers and members. The states probably account for over two thousand more. Add to this the direct political infiltration of federal-state public services and quangos with hundreds more jobs for the boys and girls, there is now a well-established political class.

This has provided the political parties with a career path for members. In many cases it often produces skilled, partisan, “whatever it takes” warriors with a richly rewarded life through local state and federal governments to a well-funded retirement. Unfortunately while this career path, as Tony Fitzgerald states, does include principled well-motivated people … it also attracts professional politicians with little or no general life experience and unscrupulous opportunists, unburdened by ethics, who obsessively pursue power, money or both.

….virtually all government decisions are made in private by small groups of people who are in many cases not in parliament. Public funding of elections was first introduced into NSW in 1981 and federally in 1984 on the basis that it would reduce private donations. Neville Wran presented the Bill and concluded his speech by saying this Bill will remove the risk of parties selling political favours and declares to the world that the great political parties of New South Wales are not up for sale.

Since then an escalating “arms war” of election spending has developed with public funding steadily increasing and private funding increasing even faster.

The taxpayer cost of federal elections has increased from $38 million in 1984 to $161 million in 2010. Of the latter $53 million was public funding to parties and candidates. Currently, in spite of massive increases, public funding is less than 20 per cent of about $350 million total election spending. We are now effectively the second best democracy money can buy.”

Matters NotAugust 22, 2016 at 9:18 pm

Yes KL, Mack does provide ‘insight’ as to how it really works. Branches can (and do) develop ‘policy’ which is taken to the next level where some ‘horse trading’ occurs and then, more often than not, is then referred to an appropriate ‘committee’ which ‘refines’ the ‘proposals’. Those ‘committees’ are invariably dominated by groups who have a vested interested in ensuring a particular outcome.

Then there’s further ‘horse trading’, along the lines of if you support this set of policies, then we will support yours. Now what could be more democratic than that?

A real set of ‘feel’ good policies all round. And everyone is happy. Time for a drink. Plenty of congratulations. See you next year. And we will do it all again.

Is the next Labor leader bound by those policies? Only in theory. But certainly not in practice. We must have ‘priorities’ and all that.

(But don’t tell the foot soldiers because we need well meaning people to hand out — and all that.) ?

HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 9:35 pm

Matters Not.
I posted links to a couple of examples just over a week ago when you were participating in your usual sport of Harquebus bashing. You obviously didn’t check them out. Instead, you prefer to make something up that conforms to your small world view.
You know nothing.

Kaye Lee.
That was a great post. Can I please have the source.

Kaye LeeAugust 22, 2016 at 9:51 pm

Harquebus,

It was the 2013 Henry Parkes Oration. It is 12 pages long but very worth reading the whole thing.

https://parkesfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/hporation2013.pdf

Shorter abstract here

Government of the people, by the powerbrokers, for the mates

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 10:07 pm

Ted Mack is an Independent – so yes, his points are worth looking at. Let’s have a look at some of them:

The first assumption in this point, is that political parties are only in it for themselves. How on earth has Australia ever progressed then?
This comment is as silly as that Roberts Senator stating that NASA is skewing the data on Climate change for personal gain.

“When they unite with common interests, for example funding themselves, the public are mostly powerless except on the rare occasions when public outrage is too great.”

At the age of 23 I had electricity legislation changed by having a sentence amended to “over 18 except for the provision of necessity.” I was advocating on behalf of some under 18 homeless young people who could not get the electricity connected. So this shows that individuals can indeed have legislation changed, as can community groups or segments of the country. To say legislation is only changed in times of rage or that community members don’t have any input, is a complete fallacy.

“…the dominance of the major parties by little known and unimpressive faction leaders who have effective control of Australia’s democracy and destiny… might be tolerable if the major parties acted with integrity but they do not. Their constant battles for power are venal, vicious and vulgar.”

I can’t speak for other parties, but it is well documented that Labor has undergone and is still undergoing a system of reform in this area. Abbott has also mentioned democratising his party. It would also be ignorant to say that the Greens don’t have the conservative-environmentalists, the environmentalists and the socialists as groups within their party. ONP, Family First and DLP for example don’t have factions. Why are they better than a major party or a minor/major party like the Greens? The fact is they are not. I personally agree with the idea of factions. It is democracy inside of democracy. Solidarity inside of solidarity. Once again, he puts forth no argument how a system of independents would not have this. To pass legislation they would need to form blocs. To say that political jostling in blocs would not occur, is not supported by any organisational psychology and sociology theory involving human interaction in groups.

“Over the last 30 years politicians’ staff has increased dramatically. At federal level there are now some 17 hundred personal staff to ministers and members. The states probably account for over two thousand more. Add to this the direct political infiltration of federal-state public services and quangos with hundreds more jobs for the boys and girls, there is now a well-established political class.”

So, is he implying that public servants are a waste of tax payers dollars. If he put forward an argument that the number of people required with the relevant Knowledge skills and abilities to undertake the necessary task components of the jobs that assist politicians to assist communities, to develop the nation, were in abundance, then he may have an argument. But he hasn’t and does not. We have already seen the affects of administration cuts in the public sector under Newman and how that affected real people and communities. I hope he means personnel staff and not personal staff!

“This has provided the political parties with a career path for members. In many cases it often produces skilled, partisan, “whatever it takes” warriors with a richly rewarded life through local state and federal governments to a well-funded retirement. Unfortunately while this career path, as Tony Fitzgerald states, does include principled well-motivated people … it also attracts professional politicians with little or no general life experience and unscrupulous opportunists, unburdened by ethics, who obsessively pursue power, money or both.”

I’m glad he noted that this does include well motivated people. He really should add genuine people dedicated to community and the nation. Career progression is underpinned by the theories of job satisfaction and the constructs which underpin those theories. This is found in all professions, including politics. He seems to hold himself in high esteem above all others. The fact that he denied himself a pension – well big deal. He could just be a wealthy man able to afford a political stunt. If I choose to be as cynical as he is being in his arguments.

“….virtually all government decisions are made in private by small groups of people who are in many cases not in parliament. Public funding of elections was first introduced into NSW in 1981 and federally in 1984 on the basis that it would reduce private donations. Neville Wran presented the Bill and concluded his speech by saying this Bill will remove the risk of parties selling political favours and declares to the world that the great political parties of New South Wales are not up for sale. Since then an escalating “arms war” of election spending has developed with public funding steadily increasing and private funding increasing even faster.”

His premise here is that donation reform is unable to occur if major parties are in power. That is not true. The other arguments are implicit, in that a system of independents would solve this. Not so. If his view is that powerful entities donate for political favours and donation reform is not able to be achieved (that must still stand for the hypothetical, otherwise his first point is moot) So a system of independents would need to vote in blocs to pass legislation, so if political donations existed, then why would powerful entities not just donate to these blocs, if we are to believe his argument to be true?

The other thing he omits is that Independents receive the same funding from the AEC as candidates in parties.

“The taxpayer cost of federal elections has increased from $38 million in 1984 to $161 million in 2010. Of the latter $53 million was public funding to parties and candidates. Currently, in spite of massive increases, public funding is less than 20 per cent of about $350 million total election spending. We are now effectively the second best democracy money can buy.”

Yes democracy does cost money and so it should! Why should a voter have to make a decision based on lack of information? The number one key reason of the failure of the trust in the recent census was lack of communication and lack of information to the public. As an independent, did he not communicate with his electorate? Did he just stand in the town square and shout hear ye! Hear ye! through a megaphone? Is his argument to have less information disseminated, or is his argument that private donations should be exempt and the tax payer should fund more and the funding from the AEC should increase?

So thanks for posting that Kaye. So is this you in agreement of an individualist based system of decision making in parliament and are you also standing against collective decision making in parliament, or were you just posting someone elses view point. BTW a quick read of Ted Mack is he aligns fairly much inbetween nationalism and libertarianism. Of course his views would be against collectivism. But it doesn’t mean that there are flaws in his arguments that can be refuted.

Matters NotAugust 22, 2016 at 10:09 pm

you were participating in your usual sport of Harquebus bashing

Really. ? Harquebus bashing? Please. I have a life. Forgive me, but aren’t you the one who argues that ‘offence’ is never taken? ? Only given? That we all ought to toughen up? But apparently, that only applies to the ‘other’, does it not? Except of course when you take it personally?

As for your links? I did check out your link to the Frankfurt School? ? Hilarious as it was. What with your wide reading and all that, I now just dismiss your links as those of a ‘nutter’. Sorry.

But, here’s a promise from me. I will completely ignore you in the future.

cornlegendAugust 22, 2016 at 10:29 pm

If bloody Independents are so wonderful, it’s 115 or so years since Federation and we have 3 in the H.O.R
I guess the punters don’t think so :-{
And Sophie gone off working for Gina now , damn my day got worse

HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 10:30 pm

Kaye Lee.
Many thanks.

Matters Not.
There you go off on a tangent again. Assuming that I take offense to anything you say is laughable.
I believe that link was about Critical Theory which, until that point I had never heard off, admitted such and only posted for sharing purposes and commentary.
Completely ignore me? Ha! We’ll see how long that lasts.
At least you’re good for a laugh.
Cheers.

HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 10:48 pm

Trish.
You’re trying too hard. Some of your arguments are a bit lame.

Kaye LeeAugust 22, 2016 at 11:07 pm

Trish,

Where to begin? Let me start at the end.

I posted “someone else’s views” because I found it a very interesting read from someone who has actually been in the position of being an independent politician, unlike you or me, and thought others might as well.

You are idealistic Trish (so are the Greens) and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that unless it makes you so intractible, so programmed to defend that you cannot ever consider that there could be any other way. You are loyal and committed – both admirable qualities – but are you willing to entertain suggestions on how the system could be improved?

You make statements like “Career progression is underpinned by the theories of job satisfaction and the constructs which underpin those theories. This is found in all professions, including politics.”

Are you suggesting that progression in politics is a reward for altruistic service to the people, or that ministerial appointments are merit based and have nothing to do with how you voted at the latest leadership spill?

“The first assumption in this point, is that political parties are only in it for themselves….This comment is as silly as that Roberts Senator stating that NASA is skewing the data on Climate change for personal gain.”

Ya think? You don’t think politicians ever “skew the data” to win?

Could I also point out that “personal staff to ministers and members” is not the same thing as “public servants”.

“donation reform is unable to occur if major parties are in power. That is not true.”

Oh really? ICAC would indicate otherwise.

“a system of independents would need to vote in blocs to pass legislation”

Or they could all have the right to introduce bills on the basis of expert advice and vote how they, as individuals, assessed that advice combined with the best interests of their electorate and, more broadly, the country and planet. You don’t need a bloc if you have good advice and a conscience.

“Why should a voter have to make a decision based on lack of information?”

We own a national broadcasting service with a very wide reach. We have an AEC who could provide information about candidates. Politicians and candidates can give interviews, write newspaper articles, create a blog, attend meetings and debates. I find junk mail, phone calls, door knocking, and railway pamphlet thrusting very annoying.

I wish I thought Labor wanted to listen and improve but it seems, at least from their supporters, that there is nothing they could possibly do better.

Matters NotAugust 22, 2016 at 11:08 pm

If bloody Independents are so wonderful, it’s 115 or so years since Federation and we have 3 in the H.O.R I guess the punters don’t think so

Now that’s really insightful. ?

FFS. There’s a radical change in the political ‘common sense’ and all the (self claimed) ‘power brokers’ can resort to is along the lines of: Well it hasn’t happened yet. ?

Dear oh dear. The sad fact is that it won’t even be on the agenda for the next ‘branch meeting’. Why, we have to discuss whose turn it is to hand out … ? Or maybe who is holding the next ..

The whole arrangement is screwed.

But having said that I’m not sure the best way to proceed. Nevertheless, I do know that the current path is just a nonsense,

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:15 pm

“Trish you’re trying too hard. Some of your arguments are a bit lame.”

Well Harquebus – please set me straight then, with your non-lame support of his points.

Kaye LeeAugust 22, 2016 at 11:22 pm

Our current system is “winner takes all” which promotes the “whatever it takes” mentality. We have a winner, an understudy, and some burs under the saddle. Personally I would like to see a multi-party executive.

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:30 pm

I’m going to put all of my responses to you Kaye, in separate comment boxes, so it isn’t another swarm of text.

Thanks for clarifying that Kaye. It was merely a question of whether this was your view, or whether you just thought this view should some discussion. The two do not need to be mutually exclusive.

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:31 pm

“You are idealistic Trish (so are the Greens) and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that unless it makes you so intractible, so programmed to defend that you cannot ever consider that there could be any other way. You are loyal and committed – both admirable qualities – but are you willing to entertain suggestions on how the system could be improved?”

Thanks for that personal judgement of again, someone you don’t know! I see idealism as a non-thinking, fantasy world clap trap, so thanks again! (Not!)

“So programmed to defend that you cannot ever consider that there could be any other way.”

OK – what do you call my initial article and the specifically articulated points of rebuttal for each point? Your personal view of how committed to a party I am is completely irrelevant, unless you can refute why my counter arguments have absolutely no merit, – please do so. Otherwise, you are just being blatantly insulting. For example, I have given examples throughout my counterpoints where I talk about WHY a system of independents would not solve the problem. How is that being idealistic and just aligning with my party for the sake of it. I’d really, really, like to hear your explanation for this.

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:32 pm

“Are you suggesting that progression in politics is a reward for altruistic service to the people, or that ministerial appointments are merit based and have nothing to do with how you voted at the latest leadership spill?”

I am saying that career progression is underpinned by the theories of job satisfaction – digs as far back as the underlying constructs of Maslows theory and Herzbergs theory and each person has different drivers that propel them towards career progression. That is why you may see a 60 year old who has been an A03 since they were 15 and a 30 year old CEO in the same company. As to aligning with the right people to progress oneself, does this not happen in other professions? If a system of independents was in place, we would still need ministers yes? Then would the same alignment with others to secure votes of confidence not occur, or would they just draw them out of a hat? Once again, that argument (not it is your argument. I have put it there in the absence of one!) is not supported by any organizational behaviour or sociology based theory involving people in groups. You could possibly have an independent panel of experts assess politicians on a pure merit based scale, but then, that could also be implemented within a party system and is does not need to exist within an Individualist based system. So what is your point?

Kaye LeeAugust 22, 2016 at 11:33 pm

Trish, could I suggest before you formulate your “:separate comment boxes” that you actually read Ted Mack’s speech in its entirety and comment on it rather than responding to me. It is a speech worthy of consideration.

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:35 pm

Ya think? You don’t think politicians ever “skew the data” to win?

Ya think you could actually come up with a decent counterpoint to mine? That would be helpful! Please explain how society has not progressed under a two party system and why a system of independents would progress society more. That is if we assume the system of independents voted in were progressive and not conservative. Please explain why a system of independents would not be conducive to political donations if they had to form blocs to vote? If you state that we wouldn’t have political donations, then that is a moot point, as political donation reform has been and will continue under a party system.

Is your personal preference to not disseminate enough information to voters and deny them their democratic right of informed choice, or is your personal preference that the tax payer fund more towards this to guarantee voters their democratic right of informed choice?

Kaye LeeAugust 22, 2016 at 11:35 pm

Idealism is an unrealistic belief in perfection Trish, which is what I feel you have for the Labor Party.

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:36 pm

Kaye, I have just read up on him. If you want someone to respond to more than what you have put in an online forum, you need to put this effort in. Not expect other people to go an read more because you think it adds weight to your claims.

Matters NotAugust 22, 2016 at 11:36 pm

you are just being blatantly insulting

Wow. Yep, I’ve noticed that about KL. Insults, here, there and everywhere. ? ? ?

Please. Any chance of a different dialogue?

(That others can provide an instant response is annoying). But understandable.

Kaye LeeAugust 22, 2016 at 11:37 pm

FFS Trish, I am out. There is no discussing anything with you. You want total agreement or nothing. Your “prove me wrong” attitude reminds me of Malcolm Roberts

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:42 pm

Idealism is an unrealistic belief in perfection Trish, which is what I feel you have for the Labor Party.

Would you like some sprinkles on your nice cold chunk of insult there Kaye? I’ve already pointed out you are being insulting. ARe you really saying to me, that as someone who has quite a decent level of education, who is well read, who takes the time to put together, (I would like to think) articulate well thought out pieces over a number of years, that I am unable to think for myself, to view other parties and assess them? To view other situations and assess them? That I am incapable of critical thought? That I don’t have the capacity to reject or accept other points of view? Why are you implying that I am a narrow minded dimwit? You are putting me alongside radical nationalists or radical socialists or far right libertarians, or which I am none of these.

It probably would be best if you just stuck to the arguments, instead of another round of your personal judgements about me. We have been there before, you do not appear to listen that you are indeed insulting in the way you speak about me, so please just stick to the arguments, as I don’t desire to sit through more of any of your judgements of what you think about me as a person it and personally I don’t find it acceptable. I think it is down right rude.

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:49 pm

I don’t have a prove me wrong attitude Kaye. Just put up an actual bloody point of view and defend something for once instead of pointing your finger at me.

I told you last time that you applied personal value judgements about me as a person, I would call it out. I am not going to sit here and have you lavish your personal judgements about me on a public forum and just sit back in silence. What does it bring to the debate Kaye? It brings nothing but hostility.

This party hack bullshit has got to stop. It is constantly used as an excuse by people who can’t/won’t/don’t have the gumption to back what they are saying and actually debate a topic.

Matters NotAugust 22, 2016 at 11:53 pm

Dear oh dear. Want to have a debate about how ‘branches’ in the ALP are just a sideshow?

But maybe not?

Look above.

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:55 pm

If you like. What are your points?

HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 11:55 pm

Trish.

I kept it short because I don’t want to be here all night. I’m only going to do a couple.
No offense was meant. Your response was, in my opinion, nitpicking and too long.

The first assumption in this point, is that political parties are only in it for themselves. How on earth has Australia ever progressed then?

In my opinion, that is not an assumption but, I can see that for a die hard like you that, it could be. All of my friends and peers also see political parties as Ted Mack does. None has any respect for major parties. They are despised by all. Who’s fault is that?
It also depends on one’s definition of progress. For me, it means the continual destruction of all that is required to sustain us and we thank both major parties for that.

“When they unite with common interests, for example funding themselves, the public are mostly powerless except on the rare occasions when public outrage is too great.”

Your example of legislative change is out of context. The sentence states, “with common interests, for example funding themselves”.
Try changing legislation so as to remove pollies perks and lurks for example. You will have less than buckley’s and no hope at all at getting that done.

You get an A for effort only.

Cheers.

I’m outta here.
Seeyatermorra.

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:57 pm

OK – so how will a system of Independents be the opposite of what you see?

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:57 pm

Try changing legislation so as to remove pollies perks and lurks for example. You will have less than buckley’s and no hope at all at getting that done.

The QLD Government has already done this. Next………..

Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:59 pm

To add to that one – how will a system of Independents change this to what you want to see? 1. The remuneration is set by an Independent tribunal and 2. If it wasn’t, then they would need to form blocs to vote to change it.

BacchusAugust 23, 2016 at 12:28 am

ARe you really saying to me, that as someone who has quite a decent level of education, who is well read, who takes the time to put together, (I would like to think) articulate well thought out pieces over a number of years, that I am unable to think for myself, to view other parties and assess them?

You seem to be doing a remarkable job of exactly that Trish 😉 Perhaps your belief in your own self-worth is VASTLY over-rated?

Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 12:32 am

I tried not to write this but I feel I also have the right to not just accept what you are accusing me of Trish.

You have written before that people have told you to “stop being so sensitive”, a comment that would also perturb me because we should be able to tell people what hurts us, but your assertion that I am not addressing the issues and am just on a personal vendetta to insult you is just wrong.

You start important conversations with your articles Trish and then shut them down with your comments.

Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 12:36 am

Kaye what is the difference between calling someone a fat pig and implying someone is incapable of critical thinking and their brain is so numb that they can only think in one trajectory? No. I don’t shut them down. I think I have a right to point out that your unnecessary value judgements about me as a person add absolutely nothing to the debate. I think I have the right to ask you to stick to the arguments because I shouldn’t have to defend my level of intelligence, because you decide my intelligence is below par. Maybe just think about that. Maybe think about why you do it, what you think it adds and why you think it adds anything to a debate.

Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 12:38 am

Yes, we are all entitled to our opinion Bacchus, as you are to yours. I don’t normally talk myself up, I’m actually quite introverted and honestly, it felt awkward and probably came out awkward. I was simply trying to point out I’m actually not a moron.

Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 12:41 am

and Kaye, if you actually want to state why the system does need to be torn down and how a system of independents would make the system better, please do so, because you have not done so thus far.

Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 1:09 am

“I think I have a right to point out that your unnecessary value judgements about me as a person add absolutely nothing to the debate. I think I have the right to ask you to stick to the arguments because I shouldn’t have to defend my level of intelligence, because you decide my intelligence is below par. Maybe just think about that. Maybe think about why you do it, what you think it adds and why you think it adds anything to a debate.”

Now you are really pissing me off. You play the intellectual card all the time Trish, no doubt with credentials to back it up. You also seem to view comments as personal insults when they are no such thing which then makes the discussion about you instead of the topic.

What exactly are you suggesting when you completely misquote me and then say “think about why you do it”?

Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 1:37 am

Ok let’s clarify this then.

Kaye says: Idealism is an unrealistic belief in perfection Trish, which is what I feel you have for the Labor Party.

So to clarify this Kaye. You are saying that I have an unrealistic belief that the Labor party is perfect. Hence, that affects my judgement and my ability to think critically about a topic. You cannot say that I have an unrealistic belief in perfection of something and also believe I am open minded, critical and I can openly reject and defend why I reject the counter point to my own stance.

Please just explain why you think that your personal judgement that I am unable to think critically about a topic (which I wrote I may add), adds anything to the debate. and please explain why you think that implying someone has such a skewed and blatantly biased opinion is not an insult, or at least patronizing.

So there is your cut and paste. No misquote at all.

Sorry if you made the thread about me Kaye, but you really could have just explained your position on the topic, rather than actually making it about me or what you think I’m thinking, so I didn’t have to defend that I think your opinion of me is a load of garbage.

Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 1:43 am

Here is the first quote.

Please refer to the same comments above.

Did it not occur to you for a second, that to actually write the article in the first place, I had to actually think critically about the opposing arguments?

HarquebusAugust 23, 2016 at 10:07 am

Trish

Two parties can collude to benefit themselves much better than 150 odd independents.

“The QLD Government has already done this. Next………..”
Whoopedy doo! What about the rest? Next……

“remuneration is set by an Independent tribunal”
No tribunal is going to bite the hand that feeds it.

I despise the Labor Party as much as I despise the Coalition. I don’t like Bill Shorten, Tanya Plibersek, Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard and a whole lot of others. The whole lot of them are a bunch of know nothings who, have contributed to the destruction of the natural world by serving corporate interest at the expense of all and everyone else.
Your one eyed support for and defense of every criticism of the Labor Party makes you look like a brainwashed party minion who can not think for herself. Everyone else is wrong and only you are right.

Your articles and comments are nothing more than opinionated sales pitches in defense of the unworthy and the undeserving and your tactics are no different to those used by China’s obscene propaganda machine.
Rather than criticize others for not agreeing with you, I suggest that you go back to your Labor rabbit hole and start thinking about what’s really important and then, if the Labor Party ever starts delivering real solutions instead of the usual constant barrage of unicorn shit that is their norm then, I might develop some respect for them.

While Labor politicians continue to represent the Labor Party in lieu of their constituents, I will never vote for them.
You have a long way to go.

Cheers.

Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 10:27 am

The ABC has revealed that between 2013 and 2015 Chinese-linked companies and individuals made more than $5.5 million in donations to both Labor and the Coalition.

The donations include $850,000 given to the ALP by a businessman whose address is shared by a centre for retired Communist Party officials.

“114 countries have banned political donations from foreign donors, it’s high time Australia was the 115th,”

Professor George Williams from the University of New South Wales Law School said Australia’s political finance laws are in “very bad shape” compared to other nations.

“We have a system that’s open to the possibility of undue influence and of determining outcomes that aren’t in the best interests of the community,” he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-22/foreign-donations-could-skew-australias-democracy-politicans/7775060

cornlegendAugust 23, 2016 at 10:59 am

Harquebus
“I don’t like Bill Shorten, Tanya Plibersek, Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard and a whole lot of others”
Why didn’t you just name the Labor Shadow Ministers and all the backbenchers as well?

I’ve actually found them to be quite intelligent {Turnbull and Abbott as well, even allowing for their nutter politics}

“remuneration is set by an Independent tribunal”
No tribunal is going to bite the hand that feeds it.

How would you do it, other than the current Independent Tribunal.

Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 11:20 am

I’m sorry you see my writing and comments as opinion sales pieces Harquebus. Perhaps you could point out where I have just flatly denied that destroying the current model and replacing with a system of independents is a better way to go, without giving my reasons for rejecting a new model. If you could perhaps direct me to any arguments advocating as to why a system of independents or minors would be better I’m happy to readdress them. This article isn’t even about Labor but current and new systems of Government. Do you perhaps read all of my posts with a preconceived idea that I have only put one point of view forward? That I’ve written with blatant bias? If so please present an argument to show I have. Please put something forward as to why you reject the current system. If I refute that, then it is your turn to say why I should accept it. To say I’m just one eyed is a bit of a cop out. When I have been insistent and welcoming and asking for an opposing view. If that opposing view is refuted it’s not up to me to put another case forward, it’s up to you.

HarquebusAugust 23, 2016 at 12:27 pm

Cornlegend.
Time and space.
Intelligent idiots and fools with Bob Carr being Australia’s most intelligent idiot fool. All the politicians that I have met are ignorant of the physical laws that govern us. Every one of them.
The tribunal is independent in name only. How ’bout randomly selected citizens? Don’t worry, it’ll never happen.

Trish
I responded to your call above and am not going to repeat myself.
My opinion of you and your articles is of your own making as is my opinion of politicians is theirs.

“point out where I have just flatly denied that destroying the current model and replacing with a system of independents is a better way to go”
I don’t recall accusing you of this. Please point it out for me.

“Please put something forward as to why you reject the current system.”
It’s called the “Sixth Mass Extinction Event”. Look it up, it’s no secret. You, me and all the rest, we are all on the list. All of our opinions will be irrelevant if, the system doesn’t change.

Avagoodwun.

Möbius EckoAugust 23, 2016 at 1:47 pm

Kaye Lee at 10:27 am

The donations include $850,000 given to the ALP by a businessman whose address is shared by a centre for retired Communist Party officials.

Note that the ABC singled out the ALP but not the L-NP, though $5.5 million in donations was specified. Indeed Uhlmann’s piece on ABC News24 emphasised the ALP donation and didn’t mentioned the L-NP except to say that the money was donated to both major parties in his opening.

Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 1:52 pm

Ok so we are in agreement then that the system should remain the same, as you can’t or won’t give any reason why it should be destroyed and why an alternative system of independents and minors should replace it. All righty then! At least that is sorted!

Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 1:59 pm

The questions to be asked about donations and corruption are:
1. Can this system be reformed in the existing system? If not, why?
2. Do we agree that the public have a democratic right to make an informed vote? If yes how do we ensure the AEC funds are enough? Increase Taxpayer AEC funding proportion or something else?
3 if No? Why do the public not have the democratic right to an informed vote and what are the consequences of this?
4. If donations remained is a system of independents and minors still a risk to the same corruption concerns? If no, why not?

Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 2:18 pm

The Malcolm Roberts approach. Show me evidence for me to ignore. Prove me wrong by Friday or I will take it that you endorse what I have said.

Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 2:25 pm

Oh Jesus! Tad pathetic Kaye. Should we not think about anything at all anymore because you don’t like it? Maybe others might want to think about the questions that have arisen by a broad cut and paste which implicitly assumes you mean that Labor are corrupt. Because you didn’t really add anything to it or state your actual view. Hopefully someone will take the questions I put seriously. Destroying and existing system of Governance is not a joke!

Möbius EckoAugust 23, 2016 at 2:34 pm

Kaye Lee I read on some US Republican Senators who are part of a group that before they will believe in climate change are demanding that the scientists come up with a list of impossibilities, such as 70% of all the world’s islands under water, 500 million dead directly related to climate, large swaths of the earth cracked and dry and the extinction of all reptilia.

So much in the Roberts vein that he must have got his inspiration from them.

Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 2:40 pm

I thought it was all settled. You informed us that we are all in agreement. The system is just fine and dandy. No problemo.

And, in case you missed it, it has been proven that politicians from both parties have acted corruptly. Paying an amount of money to ensure the party bloc vote is so much easier than paying for individual votes. Branch stacking and rewards for party hacks has led to some very ordinary people winning preselection for all the wrong reasons.

I am not sure why you think the only way voters can be informed is by parties wasting hundreds of millions on pamphlets and 30 second ads. Seeing photos of your local candidate all over the place doesn’t inform voters of anything. As I mentioned before, there are other ways.

I do not want to “destroy” governance. I want the system changed so we actually have governance with integrity and accountability and we don’t end up handing people like Joe Bullock a job.

Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 2:42 pm

ME,

What better example of the corruption that the party system allows than climate change denial, bought and paid for.

Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 2:49 pm

Oh that is interesting. You want the system changed. It would be productive if you actually stated what would be and how it would work don’t you think?

“You informed us that we are all in agreement. The system is just fine and dandy. No problemo”

I was also responding to Harquebus’ lack of response in a purposely facetious tone and you know it.

“I am not sure why you think the only way voters can be informed is by parties wasting hundreds of millions on pamphlets and 30 second ads. As I mentioned before, there are other ways. – ”

It is your argument that we need to change because of corruption – not mine. So it isn’t about what I think. It is about you responding to my counterpoint as to how we ensure people are informed on much less money, by taking out private donations.

Also, can Donations be removed or reformed to ensure no risk of corruption within the current system? That is an important question raised from your (kind of ambiguous) claim with your cut and paste.

Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 2:50 pm

“What better example of the corruption that the party system allows than climate change denial, bought and paid for.”

That has not improved with the current independents and minor parties we have in 2016. What is your point?

Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 2:54 pm

This has become farcical.

Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 2:59 pm

OK.

cornlegendAugust 23, 2016 at 3:41 pm

“What better example of the corruption that the party system allows than climate change denial, bought and paid for.”
How did Labor do that, It tried, then succeeded, only to have it undone, and have still not given up.
Who do you allege “bought” them ?

HarquebusAugust 23, 2016 at 4:05 pm

Trish

“Ok so we are in agreement then that the system should remain the same, as you can’t or won’t give any reason why it should be destroyed”
Which part of “Sixth Mass Extinction Event” did you not understand? You are a bigger idiot than the sock puppet politicians that you defend.

You are more than farcical, you are a dangerous joke who, is unwilling or incapable of listening, interpreting or understanding. You hear and see only what you want to hear and see and ignore the rest.
When they brainwashed you, they did the complete job, eh?

Let’s hear how Labor is going to reduce consumption, return the balance of nature and save us from a certain bloody future.

No, instead Labor is going to increase energy production, grow populations, grow the economy, build massive amounts of energy guzzling infrastructure and pay off debt all while trying to reduce greenhouse gasses and the budget deficit…. Ha! It ain’t gonna happen. Physics trumps politics every time.

Earth overshoot was on August the 8th. This to me is a far more serious issue than your pathetic arguments about current and hypothetical parliaments.
http://qz.com/753603/as-of-today-we-have-used-up-all-the-earths-resources-for-2016/
http://www.overshootday.org/

Your pathetic arguments and irrelevant questioning only proves to me your ignorance and small mindedness. If you’re not going to be part of the solution then, at least butt out and stop being part of the problem.

If you want to know why politicians are despised so much, take a good long look in the mirror. You are just like them.

Ciao.

Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 4:09 pm

“If you’re not going to be part of the solution then, at least butt out and stop being part of the problem.”

Umm………..You do know I wrote the article?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?

Harquebus – Your hatred and accusations are starting to get a bit disturbing to be honest. I’ll ask you to just tone it down please. There is no need for it.

HarquebusAugust 23, 2016 at 4:14 pm

Trish
Yep.
Get a grip on real world and you’ve got a deal.
Cheers.

paulwalterAugust 23, 2016 at 4:55 pm

For my part I will withhold judgement as to the ALP until this issue becomes more clear.

http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/turnbull-government-cuts-policy-principles-along-with-welfare-20160822-gqy1s9#ixzz4I78Ipphs

If they fail this time on an issue of principle, I am finished with them for good.

Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 4:56 pm

Its blocked for me Paul. What is it about?

Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 5:02 pm

“How did Labor do that”

Why is every comment judged as a criticism of Labor? I will say that I am perturbed about mining approvals by state governments (Queensland comes to mind) but I understand the pressure they are under to provide jobs. I would prefer to see the Qld Labor government looking elsewhere than great big coal mines that put the reef in danger – renewable energy, high speed rail linking Brisbane to Melbourne, public transport, fix up their health services.

NSW is also a worry considering the corruption we have already seen.

The Member for Balmain recently introduced a private member’s bill aimed to reduce corruption in NSW by banning political donations from mining and petroleum companies. ICAC has previously highlighted the corruption risk faced by the mining and resource sector as it directly benefits from government decisions.

The Mining and Petroleum Industry Political Donations Legislation Amendment (Corruption Risk Reduction) Bill 2015 extends to the mining and petroleum industry the current bans on political donations from the tobacco, alcohol, gambling and real estate development industries.

Donations declared to the New South Wales Electoral Commission in the period 2003-14 include over $1 million donated from resources companies in general to Labor, Liberal and The Nationals; lobbyists donated $1.8 million; Minerals Council of New South Wales donated $120,000; AGL donated $123,000; New South Wales Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group donated $106,000; Sydney Gas donated $71,000; Nathan Tinkler donated $50,000; Santos donated $38,000; BHP donated $26,000; Xtrata donated $27,000; Centennial Coal donated $19,000 and Gugarat NRE donated $24,000.

“Corporate interests do not donate money unless they want something in return,” said Mr Parker.

“In rejecting this opportunity to support donations reform, Labor and Liberal have shown themselves to value the interests of the mining industry over a clean, democratic process.”

paulwalterAugust 23, 2016 at 5:17 pm

You’re kidding, Trish?

A Fin Review article by Richard Denness, 22/8, “Government
Cuts Policy Principles Along With Welfare”.

I see the problem, it keeps flipping to an ad.

Ok, so a number of reports claim that the government wants to cut even further unemployment benefit which is already a pittance.

I am waiting to see if the ALP goes with the government, if it does it will be the death of any thing I’d recognise to be Labor if it goes along something this vicious.

cornlegendAugust 23, 2016 at 6:02 pm

Kaye Lee, you cherry picked.
you said
““What better example of the corruption that the party system allows than climate change denial, bought and paid for.”
and I asked how
“How did Labor do that, It tried, then succeeded, only to have it undone, and have still not given up.
Who do you allege “bought” them ?”
I am assuming Labor is part of the “party system” you allege is “bought and paid for “?

Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 6:06 pm

I was actually thinking of the Republicans, in response to ME’s comment.

Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 6:20 pm

Yep I can understand that Paul and I’ll be as angry as hell too. Thx

Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 6:29 pm

You can read the article at tai

http://www.tai.org.au/content/turnbull-government-cuts-policy-principles-along-welfare

paulwalterAugust 23, 2016 at 6:36 pm

I feel really cheesy with this government after Mitch Fifield’s nonsenses last night also. I just get frustrated sometimes..when is this nonsense that passes for politics ending and Australia gets back to real?

Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.comAugust 23, 2016 at 7:13 pm

Excellent. Still going strong.

So, the best response to my post that could be come up with is “it would be like herding cats”. Wow! I really am surprised that so many organisations around the world can successfully function given they aren’t managed by two opposing factions!! I mean, how has the system that apparently works so well in Australian politics not been adopted by every organisation as the most efficient way to make good decisions? I just don’t get it. All those cats running organisations somehow managing to herd themselves. How do they do it?

The fact is that management and business theory has adapted significantly over time, but politics? Not so much. And if you hadn’t notice Trish, politics is getting left behind. Why? Because with its outdated methods of problem solving and decision making, the far more efficient business world is literally pissing all over politicians chips. One of the main purposes of government is to regulate, and it is failing comprehensively. And yet somehow you fail to see that, and think that we just need a Labor government and the world will be rosy again.

I’ve heard exactly the same arguments you put forward used by a mad daft Liberal supporter that I know. Same tired crap. And you don’t see the issue is that the protagonists waste so much time fighting each other, and looking for ways to make the other party look stupid, that they actually fail to solve the problems they’ve been tasked to solve.

We all know that if you want to ensure that the Coalition doesn’t support something, just get Labor to propose it. And you think this makes a good governmental system? So yes, your support of Labor in the way that they play the game is an endorsement of their nemesis, the Coalition. You might think it laughable, but consider why in the catholic church, the concept of Satan is as powerful a force to aid the masses in their devotion as the concept of the Messiah.

As Harquebus quite rightly suggest, the world is currently going down the toilet whilst Canberra fiddles. The Coalition are all over the place on climate change, and whilst Labor have a “position” this doesn’t actually resolve the problem that exists. Because Labor is too bought into the “system” too, and simply continues to play the game.

But do keep defending your position of building walls. I’ll keep looking for ways to build bridges.

paulwalterAugust 23, 2016 at 7:49 pm

The relationship between big business and government is such that politics is the runt of the litter.

Never Been ThereAugust 23, 2016 at 7:58 pm

paulwalter,

“Ok, so a number of reports claim that the government wants to cut even further unemployment benefit which is already a pittance.”

Are they cutting the Newstart Allowance or removing the clean energy supplement for all new welfare beneficiaries? The distinction matters, even if only for the sake of the political truth-telling. This article puts it all in proper perspective and shows what inequity-loving shits these people really are:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/inequality-rises-as-government-plans-to-clip-poorest-further-20160803-gqkmgy.html

cornlegendAugust 23, 2016 at 8:14 pm

Steve Laing – makeourvoiceheard.com
You never had a crack at politics did you?
You sound like a rejected Indie.

Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 8:17 pm

Steve, whether you agree or disagree with the arguments I put forward in my article, at least I have presented actual arguments. At least I developed an actual stance and I am prepared to defend that stance. That is not building walls.

If someone responds that there are flaws in someone’s opposing argument, they shouldn’t bloody sook, call people names, scream abuse, insult them or tell them their deranged or what ever else has gone on here the past 24 hours, they need to bring a better argument!

It is difficult to know what you think, or why you think the article is wrong; along with Kaye and Harquebus particularly; because similar to the blog you posted the other day, comments from the three of you have not put anything up in defense of why you think that we need to change the system. What this system will look like and why it will be better. You particularly haven’t detailed in your comments or your other blog on a similar topic, anything that comes close to informing me or anyone else reading, why we should not keep a collective system of Govt that has not been able to be easily refuted. There have been lots of vague comments or cut and pastes about what you think is wrong with the system, but nothing specific. Nothing detailed and nothing solid that one could look at, as an alternative.

When I say easily refuted, that means that the counter argument is put up, a refute occurred then there was no further debate, just name calling or other crap. Normally if a counterpoint is challenged, then it would stand to reason if the challenge was flawed, then it really should be pointed out, in the good spirit of debate, so the debate can continue. But it doesn’t. The only way it is refuted is to point out the original challenge to the opposing argument, was by a person who supports Labor and that just means the challenge doesn’t stand – automatic disqualification. I just can’t see how that is a effectively pointing out that we need to move away from a collectivist based system – by stating – You are Labor – therefore you are wrong!

I fail to see how that building a bridge, is achieved by:

1. Not bringing forward your crticial points of why we need to change and
2. Expecting people to assume what the main points of your argument are (as they are not stated)
3. and not refuting any counterclaims – just having a cry when someone presents an argument against what you have to say.

This goes for Kaye and Harquebus as well.

However this not what has occurred unfortunately in the comments on this article. So all I have been able to conclude is “some people don’t like the current system, they think its evil, corrupt, and does not serve the people, but they don’t know why exactly and they don’t have a solution for change, but anyone who supports Labor is wrong anyway”

That is the conclusion of this debate, so I guess we are still at square one.

HarquebusAugust 23, 2016 at 8:45 pm

Trish
“have not put anything up in defense of why you think that we need to change the system.”
What a load of rubbish! Take your blinkers off and try to comprehend what it is that people are putting in front of you instead of continually jumping to your own delusional conclusions.
You are a broken record and a complete waste everyone’s time.

Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 8:59 pm

Feel free to point out where!

paulwalterAugust 23, 2016 at 9:20 pm

Trish and Kaye kill me!

They both see things so clearly yet disagree quite robustly a bit.

Btw what was that bunkum Hockey went on about ..spades or something, leaners and shirkers?

Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.comAugust 24, 2016 at 12:37 pm

Trish – you demand arguments, but when they are put you just ignore them.

So let me try once again to just one of the arguments that you have still failed to counter.

I suggest that having two opposing groups as a means to solve problems and make decisions is highly ineffective. There are numerous, peer reviewed, research studies that show that diverse groups create more robust solutions to problems. Yet you believe that a two party system is the optimum because “history”.

The main reason our parliament is set up the way that it is is because of its legal background, which is by its nature highly polar – you are right or wrong, guilty or innocent. I prosecute, you defend, and a success on a technicality is as much as success as a win on evidence. Its all about winning. (Exactly like how you argue).

So why, it the system you suggest is so great, why has it not been adopted more widely? Hard evidence reveals that of all the organisations that exist around the world that need to solve problems and make decisions, a minute number use a party based process. Why do you think that is?

Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.comAugust 24, 2016 at 2:56 pm

Oh, and BTW – the insults started when you called anyone who disagreed with your perspective an indi-bloody-vidual. A highly constructive, bridge building opening statement? I think not.

Just for the record 🙂

Trish CorryAugust 24, 2016 at 7:44 pm

Oh BTW the whole point is they are WORDS OF SONGS!!!!!! Far out!!! Nitpicking award of the freaking year!

trishcorryAugust 24, 2016 at 11:14 pm

Trish – you demand arguments, but when they are put you just ignore them. – Absolute garbage. There are 161 comments in this thread. Are you really claiming that I have not responded to people’s comments?

I’m going to make this nice and clear, so the accusations that I am ignoring people’s comments and not responding to them and that I am trying to make people prove me right can cease. Also the claim that I cannot think critically about someone’s comments because I am a member of the Labor Party – also can cease. I will do one comment in each box, so the complaints about the long responses can also cease.

I will make it nice and clear so the people who think it is Ok to abuse me in this thread can see quite clearly about how I respond to comments. Apparently, if I just comment without setting it out like this, I’m trying to force people to prove me right or some other crap. No. This is not the case. It is actually just how normal people debate or how normal people critically analyse arguments in text. Nothing more, nothing less. Hopefully these people have moved on with their lives, but if you are still here – I am asking you all to drop the name calling, slurs and psycho abuse (the last one is for Harquebus).

Claim 1: I suggest that having two opposing groups as a means to solve problems and make decisions is highly ineffective.

Rebuttal – I semi-reject this firstly because there is a flaw in this claim. The flaw is that this sentence could mean that the two opposing groups solve problems together – this is not so, unless it is a serious matter for the safety or welfare of the country. However, I am assuming that Steve really means, that “There are two opposing groups and when posed with a problem, the problem is only solved by one of those groups on either side of the political spectrum”. So I will go off the assumption of what I believe Steve actually means. (See next comment).

trishcorryAugust 25, 2016 at 12:10 am

Steve’s Claim 2: There are numerous, peer reviewed, research studies that show that diverse groups create more robust solutions to problems.

Rebuttal: I reject this claim, because of the assumption within Steve’s claim that there is no diversity within either of the two major parties. This is not the case. Within each major party there are a diverse range of people who share the same values (plural – not singular). Not only are the values quite substantial, but the diversity of opinion within both parties is diverse. (Terms like ‘cross the floor and conscience vote would not exist otherwise!). The background of members within both major parties are also diverse. (Some parties have more gender, sexual orientation, religious, disability or racial/ethnicity diversity than others). However, therefore, there is a diverse range of people solving problems. The other fact ignored is that the representatives also represent a diverse range of the electorate as they also have been voted in by the public. It does not reflect ALL the views of every person in every electorate – but we can discuss the place for extreme or radical views in Governance another day.

(If Steve doesn’t agree with this, he needs to refrain from the name calling (including saying I have only stated this because I am skewed by my ‘party loyalty’ and bring another/better argument/claim, that shows my rebuttal is flawed).

Rebuttal 2: The claim about the peer reviewed literature is correct for problem solving in general (however there are limits to diversity in decision making). I reject this claim because Steve, has failed to recognise that there is already diversity intrinsic to each party. He has also failed to recognise that within a major party, the diversity of stakeholder contact within a major party, extends much more broadly than it does for a micro/minor or independent. As the Government is not just there to ‘solve a problem’ like in business, but they are there to Govern in the best interests of the country, a diverse connection to stakeholder contact is crucial to identifying issues and working on solutions. The flaw in Steve’s argument in this sense is confined to Steve’s decision on this matter being decided on and also promoting decision making within the confines of bounded rationality. Without a broad range of contacts, the smaller parties and independents make decisions within a limited amount of information, experience and any other limitations related to their own cognisance. Within a major party, people still are limited to bounded rationality in a sense, but the diversity and number of people feeding back into that discussion, expands the borders of their bounded rationality.

(If Steve doesn’t agree with this, he needs to refrain from the name calling (including saying I have only stated this because I am skewed by my ‘party loyalty’) and bring another/better argument/claim, that shows my rebuttal is flawed).

Rebuttal 3. I also reject this claim because although there are peer reviewed articles that do support diversity in decision making, the majority of this section of the literature focuses on human related diversity – gender, culture etc., This is really connected to the seminal works of diversity in decision making and not the contemporary works on decision making which focus on other elements of decision making such as trust and conflict related to diversity and group process interactions. It also does not take into account, emotional contagion, self-efficacy in decision making and attribution theory.

Within decision making in politics, the advantage of the major party identifying and solving problems is that trust is an important factor. As the diverse range of people within the two major parties share the same values, trust is higher. Within the framework of politics, a multi-party model of decision making would make the following factors a hindrance to decision making: Lack of trust between different individuals, the reluctance to share information between cohorts as examples. This would also risk having the least amount of suggestions put forward, or considered, which would actually result in slower decision making, without even analysing the affects of the quality of the decision.

Rebuttal 4: I also reject the claim that Steve has assumed that decision making is made within an equal exchange between two parties. This can be the case the people concerned used constructivist based method to gain mutual understanding; however this is not how debate occurs within politics or groups (it is far too slow). However, decision making is not made this way, but within group process. Therefore there are multiple facets of human interaction and cognitive processing and exchange that take place. For people with vastly different ideologies / values to work together to develop a solution, various issues would arise. Firstly the issue of trust – as mentioned above and secondly the variances and disparity in ideology would mean that the various individuals would receive, process and interpret the information very differently. To give one example: Those on the right of the spectrum take the view that the unemployed are inherently lazy and punitive measures are an incentive. Those on the left of the spectrum recognise that other factors contribute to unemployment and see welfare as a hand up, not a hand out. This would increase conflict in a negative way and impede decision making.

Anyway, that is enough from me. I’ll answer the rest tomorrow. I hope the setting out of the claim and rebuttals, assisted the happy hate group to understand that I was responding to flaws in people’s comments, not fobbing them off or being a one eyed party hack, who has no ability to think critically.

Please be aware that after responding to one sentence in such depth; if anyone implies that I have fobbed Steve off, or that I have only said these things because I can’t think critically because of ‘party loyalty’ etc., will have their comment unapproved and told to get a life.

townsvilleblogAugust 25, 2016 at 7:30 am

I agree with Trish, when I was in the Labor Party there were council workers and small businessmen, women and university Professors and all made contributions to the cause of social justice and fairness in policy.

Bighead1883August 25, 2016 at 8:10 am

Steve Laing – makeourvoiceheard.comAugust 24, 2016 at 12:37 pm

You wrote ” Trish – you demand arguments, but when they are put you just ignore them” .

Not only this thread but in all Trish`s articles she answers her critics,unlike you
Thank you for proving your hypocrisy to us all Steve Laing

diannaartAugust 25, 2016 at 11:06 am

Yes, there is diversity among all groups of people, duh.

There is diversity among people in North Korea, within schools, within shooting clubs, within the RSL, within Christians, within atheists, within football teams, within mothers, within fathers, within, by golly, politicians.

That there is diversity within groups of people is not the point.

We have progressive parties AND independents – makes sense to unite against the regressive side of politics. Well, it makes sense to many except for (some) signed up members of the Labor party, for whom the idea of cooperation, negotiation is too difficult. Good thing Julia Gillard did not think that way – else very little would’ve been achieved during her incumbency.

No one is asking that parliament be dissolved in a clutch of contrary cats. No one. Nor even forming a formal coalition like the Libs and Nats. Just work together people!

Working with people is what sets progressives apart from the rabble of neo-cons in government – or it should be.

If Labor is not prepared to work WITH other progressives, then nothing much will change. Private schools will still receive our tax dollars, refugees treated as garbage, coal mines & gas fracking will be business as usual, equal marriage will remain a dream, big business will continue to evade taxes and so it goes.

cornlegendAugust 25, 2016 at 11:29 am

The reality is, there are about 15% who could be classified as “Left” about the same who are “Right” and all the rest are centre/consevative/uncommitted.{uninterested}
The aim of the game is to win Government and Labor needs to address the issues of the majority of voters and take them along on policy development, not pander to splinter groups who wouldn’t change their stance is lightning struck them .
A classic example of that is where some parties have been, stuck on single digit % for 3 decades or more.
Labor will never please them, so why try?
As for Gillard, her main negotiations were with Oakeshott and Windsor, both willing to be fflexible and negotiate.
Whoever they maintained their Independence and negotiated.
Others have the my way or the highway approach

Trish CorryAugust 25, 2016 at 12:32 pm

I think you need to read my comment again Dianna.

Trish CorryAugust 25, 2016 at 12:34 pm

Exactly Corny. Perhaps I should do a post on radical views in Govt. One thing I’m picking up in the comments is the pro multi party system advocates are not addressing disharmony amongst groups but assuming inherent harmony.

Trish CorryAugust 25, 2016 at 12:38 pm

Diana you also need to think you comment through. It is either a two party system or a multi party system. Therefore yes, you are advocating a change as the voting system also underpins all of this. You can only get your model if more people vote for others OR the voting system is changed.

Trish CorryAugust 25, 2016 at 12:39 pm

It would also be helpful if those anti two party could define the model they envisaged. Otherwise responders are merely guessing what you are talking about

cornlegendAugust 25, 2016 at 12:56 pm

Trish Corry.
Now as Labor is the bigger of all the anti LNP parties, if the micros and Independents want to climb into a “Coalition” tent with Labor, what of their objectives are they willing to drop, or put on the back burner.
It is Labors job to convince a majority that they are worth supporting and as such has to appeal to a wide voter base.
Are the micros/Indies willing to go along with a broad based plan or do they just want to get inside the tent to give them a glince of power, stay intransigent and continue to attack Labor as thy do now,
Wanting cake and eating it too springs to mind

Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.comAugust 25, 2016 at 2:46 pm

Wow. To be able to conflate so many issues into one statement is quite breathtaking. But rather than simply try to discuss one really rather simple statement, you prefer to drop an atomic bomb on it. You disagree with it, then agreed with it. I’m still not sure what your position is, but I did like the little dig’s in brackets – that really was a nice touch.

Before I go any further, let me firstly state that I’ve written a few articles here which I’ve purposefully put out ideas for discussion – indeed I’ve invited discussion. The ideas might be good, or might be bad – more likely the latter than the former, as they are based on only my own perspective, but there we are.

Now it is fair to say that whilst some readers have tried to explore some of those ideas, others have simply attacked them. Particularly if I’ve made ANY suggestion about what Labor might do (like hold out an olive branch to the Liberals – oh, hang on, that seems to be happening right now), where my perspectives have been jumped all over by the “rusted on”. To me, that really sets the tone for how welcoming the Labor party is to outside opinion – they perceive any disagreement as an attack, and react appropriately.

So I’m not going to continue this discussion, because whilst I could, I unfortunately see very little value in doing so. It has done nothing to convince me that I should support Labor going forward (although my preferences will continue to go their way), so if that was the intention, it hasn’t worked. I’m happy to continue to be a indi-bloody-vidual (and I’m sorry I nitpickingly missed whatever reference to whatever song that was – I sure as shit didn’t get it, so that MUST be my fault – always blame the reader).

diannaartAugust 25, 2016 at 3:02 pm

Trish

Well you’ve stopped claiming I am for a parliament of just independents – well done. We almost do have a multiparty system if one considers the Libs and Nats and Labor as separate, then we have a 3 party system.

Looking at the LNP with its gang of far-rights-who-hate-Turnbull – I see a splinter group there, (please Cory Bernardi keep your promise and start you own little group).

As for Labor, another little faction of right wingers could create their own party also – which would free up a more progressive Labor, perhaps headed by the people’s favourite, Albanese.

As for a model – I am not a political scientist, however, I do know there are a variety functioning very well in Europe, such as I have listed previously, for example, France, Germany, even Italy and Greece (Greece stood up for itself when the far-right got too demanding with austerity measures, similar case for Ireland).

I do not posses a magic bullet – even if I did, I have no doubt that the magic answer would be summarily dismissed as you and Cornie and Bighead have dismissed anything and everything other progressives have offered.

So no I don’t have any answers that will satisfy you.

However, we are not even at that stage of discussion

— you don’t believe there is a problem that requires fixing —

You believe Labor as it is now, can win a sufficient majority to introduce its policies – in how many years time?.

Policies which, BTW, only differ from the LNP by degree; by not being as bad – with the exception of refugees, mining and so on.

Labor is still not doing enough to win the cooperation of other progressives.

I just wanted a sensible reasonable discussion – which is all anyone else here has tried to have with you. Disagreeing with you is not a personal insult.

Capiche?

Trish CorryAugust 25, 2016 at 3:10 pm

Goodbye Steve

Trish CorryAugust 25, 2016 at 3:11 pm

Goodbye Dianna

cornlegendAugust 25, 2016 at 4:30 pm

Diannaart
“Labor is still not doing enough to win the cooperation of other progressives.”
WELL. why do the wilted Greens and their followers waffle on, non stop for bloody Alliances,Coalitions or whatever.
” I have no doubt that the magic answer would be summarily dismissed as you and Cornie and Bighead have dismissed anything and everything other progressives have offered.”
I get told that regularly by those trying to change Labor, but not voting for them anyway.
I think, rather than have concerns about Labor, you start to concider why those so called “progressives” and the parties they follow fail so miserably time after time after time, then, after failing, try to tell Labor to follow their way

randalstellaAugust 26, 2016 at 12:15 am

Two excerpts from the article above on the political divide:

“This divide is now markedly between Liberalism, Libertarianism and conservatism and right wing populism which is underpinned by the Individualism of the right versus the more collective Socialism, Environmentalism and Democratic Socialism of the left.”

“To restore true belief in the major parties’ platforms, the major parties must wear their values on their sleeves and promote their liberal/conservative agenda or their democratic socialist one…”

If this issue is so important, it should be taken up with the Labor Party, rather than once again lecturing readers and responders – lecturing them to correct their distrust.

Where is this divide she mentioned espoused?
Which Labor candidates are ever likely to run on a ‘democratic socialist’ platform?
Is there some indication of an answer to this in Albanese’s recent campaign to hold his seat? ‘Save Our Albo’ goes the Daily Telegraph front page; as he became a Murdoch columnist and brave warrior for capitalism.
If this were considered extraordinary, are Labor members discussing it?

Are we supposed to take it as just an election ploy? Done with Murdoch, whose papers have trashed multiple Labor campaigns and candidates; and thus repeatedly trashed the country?

For example, do Labor support the Adani coalmine? Yes they do. Then how can they claim environmental credentials? It is the big issues like this that matter. Mere words are rubbish otherwise.

Berating people about their distrust and disappointment is a waste of time.

Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 12:53 am

Thanks Randalstella. I see that you have put an equally crap attack style comment on Victoria Rollinson’s post on the Labor Herald. As she is one of the best writers in the country – I’ll take your rant as a compliment.

randalstellaAugust 26, 2016 at 1:55 am

Trish,
You must be rather indulged where you come from.
Your intolerance of any questioning has been noted here by others. Often.
You take no notice. You tend to insult instead. Anyone and everyone who might raise the slightest hint of disagreement.
What you display is insularity not collectivism.
The totally uncritical promotion of Labor is the last thing the Party needs. It’s a bigger long-term danger than the Libs, or Murdoch.

The basis of the piece on individualism is simply fatuous.

Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 7:48 am

“Its been noted here by others?”

What is the “People who hate Labor more than the Liberals, who stop by my blog pieces to give their negative opinion of me” little group call themselves to discuss this?

Have a look at your comments on Victoria’s blogs, they are the same as they are on mine. No substance, just popping along to state how crap the Author is and contributing nothing else. The problem is you hate Labor so much you cannot even contribute civilly on a blog by someone who makes it clear they support Labor, even if the article is not even about Labor.

Do you think I should just think about what Randalstella would like to read and write about that? Nope….not happening.

If you want to read opinions you are happy with, just read articles bashing Labor. Why bother reading mine if they will just upset you?

Its pretty sad when this article isn’t even about Labor, but that is all you see.

Seriously, either contribute to the discussion or go and get a life.

Bighead1883August 26, 2016 at 8:54 am

Trish Corry August 26, 2016 at 7:48 am

Well said Trish and I see it as you wrote it

Fancy Randalstella coming up with this gem of hate
“Its been noted here by others?”

randalstellaAugust 26, 2016 at 9:21 am

Trish Corry,
It is a ridiculous line that if someone questions Labor policy or campaigning they must be ‘anti-Labor’.
That is just oppressiveness and an intolerance of other opinion.

I am an occasional poster here.
I cannot recall the last time I responded to one of Rollinson’s blogs. And then I did it rarely.
I hardly ever read her stuff. I can’t remember the last time I did.
The same disinclination goes for you. And I have rarely responded.

Stop the smearing. It is strange and dirty tactics.

diannaartAugust 26, 2016 at 9:44 am

..why do the wilted Greens and their followers waffle on, non stop for bloody Alliances,Coalitions or whatever…

…because progressives want the LNP out of office for a very long time and we recognise Labor cannot do it alone.

Ironic given that Trish’s title began with “Will you Lean on me…”

Labor does not want any leaning. Or have I misunderstood? Labor is a collection of individuals, hostile to any outsiders?

cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 10:24 am

“we recognise Labor cannot do it alone.”
We don’t, we reckon they can and will

cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 10:26 am

And it isn’t just us that don’t want the hangers on,
Multiple State Premiers, Party Officials, MPs, Rank and file and

Chris Bowen, made the reality clear in a recent interview on Radio National.

“We are not interested in any Coalition agreements with any party,” he said. “I wrote about this in my book in 2013; Labor governs alone or not at all. Who parties vote for in a confidence vote is up to them. If there is a confidence vote after the election, and independents and other parties have to choose who to support, that’s a matter for them. We will not be entering into any agreements, coalitions or deals with the Greens or anybody else.”

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has explicitly ruled out forming a coalition government with the Greens
Adam Bandt raised it , but got shut down by Bill
The Greens aren’t running serious in any seat against the Liberal Party so this is an argument where they try to say to Labor voters you can have your cake and eat it to, you can vote for us and really it’s a vote for Labor. It’s absolutely not.”

“But Mr Shorten, who is campaigning in far-north Queensland, said Mr Bandt was “dreaming”.
“Labor will fight this election to form its own government and to form a government in our own right,”
“Labor will not be going into coalition with any party.”
Ms Plibersek says Australians would be “horrified by the idea of another hung parliament’’ as she rebuffed the Greens’ advances.
Ms Plibersek said Labor was “playing to win’’
“We will not enter into a coalition:”Anthony Albanese
Adam Bandt was there again today on Sky News attacking me, he’s got a bit of an unhealthy obsession I think, he can’t seem to do an interview without mentioning me,’ Mr Albanese said.

‘The Greens aren’t in a position to be a threat to anything,’ he said. ‘They have one member of the House of Representatives, where government is formed, the same number as the Katter Australia Party.’
Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus repeated Labor’s policy … that we will not form a coalition with the Greens, full stop,”
Tony Burke “We certainly would not be forming any sort of coalition agreement with the Greens,”‘ Mr Burke told ABC radio.

Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 10:26 am

This discussion highlights for me the problems with a two-party system. It has created polarized parties that are only interested in their own agendas. Politicians (and supporters it seems) must follow the party line without any room for flexibility, criticism, or independent thought, or they will have support removed. Parliamentary committees and debates have become largely irrelevant under the party system. The debate is carried out inside the party room instead of the houses of parliament. Once the party has decided, its members are then bound to agree.

As mentioned before, it also makes corruption easier if you only have to make one donation to secure a bloc of votes.

The party system has also allowed a political class to grow where you join, say, the Young Liberals then become a staffer then are gifted preselection in a safe seat or a winning Senate ticket position. We have seen ridiculous selections made by the Labor Party gifting positions to inadequate union bosses at the expense of very talented candidates. Many politicians go on to be gifted sinecures after they leave office. This was not what was envisaged in the Constitution.

This system has made it all about winning with no thought given to governing.

As far as workable alternatives are concerned, I would suggest you actually read the link I provided to Ted Mack’s speech before launching into your rebuttal. Look at the Swiss system.

PS I find Labor’s hatred of the Greens bordering on irrational

Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 10:39 am

Your opening paragraph is what is wrong with the Anti two party system Kaye. It’s based on complete assumption not fact. Until those who oppose the two party system put up a new model to discuss we will just be going around in circles.

cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 10:41 am

Kaye Lee,
You should have spent time in Grayndler and Sydney to see the Green reaction to Labor .
This is all not a one way street.
That was only a follow on from State seats of Balmain etc where it was real dirty
Melbourne too, iin fact, where Peter Wicks was on hand to see the goings on

Screaming For Vengance – The Age airs its dirty laundry and political bias

or in the Seat of Whitlam {reported to AEC} or Greens witnessed tearing down ALP corflutes and replacing with their own
{even used the same wire, the tight arses}

It isn’t irrational.
I want bugger all to do, with Hansons Party, NXT, LNP or Greens .
Why irrational to single out the Greens?

randalstellaAugust 26, 2016 at 10:48 am

Kaye Lee,
I think it is important that we see this rancorous insularity up close like this.
We then can have no illusions.
I see some stuff here that is so maladaptive that it reads like doom for Labor, a complete catastrophe for this country.

I only hope that some opinionistas here overstate their place in Labor. It seems likely.
Shorten may be too ‘conservative’ for me, but he suggests more promise.
I want him in power as soon as possible. Bugger the sit-back-and-watch the Libs implode bit.They may very well not. They are very poor on policy and very good on organisation. For example, postal votes, that may have decided the last election.
I see Shorten is keeping the momentum going, and that’s a good sign. Powerless people depend on him to fight.

Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 10:50 am

Trish,

That is a perfect example of you completely ignoring what was written. Ted Mack’s speech is too long for me to copy and paste here and if you refuse to read it then you don’t really want to hear an alternative at all. Likewise about other governing systems that have been mentioned.

cornie,

Whilst you might find that very significant, I don’t. The Greens have every right to field candidates and they will obviously be more likely of success in progressive seats. The tearing down and defacing of signs etc has been done by silly people in all parties. I don’t know why you waste so much money on them personally. Seeing a photo of someone doesn’t inform me of anything at all and the constant junk mail gets shoved straight in the bin. The reason I singled out the Greens is that the two progressive parties should be able to find some common ground.

randalstella,

I think Shorten shows some good signs too but I wish they would all stop Green bashing. The foot soldiers are too focused on the politics rather than the policy in my opinion.

cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 11:01 am

Kaye Lee.
I have never denied for a moment the Greens right to contest whatever seat they like .
The will and are treated like any other candidate trying to depose a Labor candidate .
They are viewed as just another party trying to unseat Labor.
Do you think Labor should not fight that and roll over and hand off to the Greens ?
In elections they are as much the opposition as the LNP, Fred Nile or whoever, another name on a ballot paper to be defeated
.

cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 11:03 am

Not once have I read comments by the “uncommitted” of the Labor bashing that the Greens hand out

Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 11:06 am

Delving back into the archives, this is something I wrote a few years ago about ideas for a different type of system.

And now for something completely different …

randalstellaAugust 26, 2016 at 11:14 am

‘I have never denied for a moment the Greens right to contest whatever seat they like.’
That could be only true on an extreme technicality.

cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 11:19 am

diannaart
Just to be clear on this, what earthly benefit is there in in Labor doing some “coalition”?
In the HOR,
McGowan, if on past form will vote LNP 90+% of the time,
NXTs Sharkie, an ex Lib, Briggs, who she deposeds former staffer so ,guess where her vote will go,
Katter, more LNP than likely Labor.
Wilkie, wants to maintain his Independence
Bandt {still free to play in the corner}
In the Senate, if Greens support Labors stance, vote with them, if not nothing changes.
Why some structured coalition and how would it work?

Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 11:20 am

Party squabbling is annoying whoever does it which is what so many of us are trying to point out. We are sick of hearing parties denigrating each other. Our elected representatives should be spending their time listening to expert advice rather than trying to make the other guy look bad which is what the party system makes them do because it’s all about winner takes all.

cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 11:22 am

“That could be only true on an extreme technicality.”
What?
It is quite a simple statement.
What part don’t you understand?
The Greens have a right to contest whatever seat they want
I can’t say it more simply
where is some “technicality” in that?

Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 11:22 am

diannaart said “No one is asking that parliament be dissolved in a clutch of contrary cats. No one. Nor even forming a formal coalition like the Libs and Nats. Just work together people!”

diannaartAugust 26, 2016 at 11:39 am

Kaye Lee

Remember when Howard set up the plebiscite on republicanism?

How we couldn’t just vote for Australia to become a republic, we had to vote for a specific model? A variety of models were never given consideration.

Remember why that failed?

All progressives have to do to work together right now, is to support each other’s preferences. We can consider it a work in progress, learning from other democratic nations and adjusting to suit Australia. We do not have to set anything into concrete – I think it is called adapting to changing circumstances.

randalstellaAugust 26, 2016 at 11:42 am

Why for the love of the live-in Jesus would you think more bluster helps? Must be habit I guess.

Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 11:49 am

Yes diannaart. A majority of people wanted a Republic until the pro side self-immolated because they could not negotiate or compromise. It was an excellent example of deceptive manipulation and the conservatives have used the same strategy to divide the progressives now by encouraging the divisions between Labor and the Greens who together received a higher proportion of the vote in both houses – and Labor falls into their trap yet again with progressives fighting among themselves..

cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 12:48 pm

“Labor falls into their trap yet again”
Labor didn’t fall into any trap.
Their stance was a deliberate and debated choice

Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 12:53 pm

Sorry Kaye. Nope. I was responding to your assumption only. I’m on my phone and don’t really care at this stage to give detailed responses at this point in time.

Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 12:55 pm

Kaye my other response to you is just propose a model You envisage you want to change to. Not just tell someone to read Ted Mack.

Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 12:58 pm

Why would a multi party system not denigrate each other? It could create more conflict not less.

Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 1:00 pm

This is about changing from the two party system. You either want the status quo or you don’t. You either have some idea what this would look like or you don’t. It’s that simple

Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 1:00 pm

What does “nope” mean? And what “assumption”? I did not ask for a detailed response. You have over and again stated that no-one has said what is wrong with the party system and that no-one has offered any ideas about alternatives. I tried to do that. I don’t expect you to drop everything to respond to me. I am just discussing ideas with anyone who is interested.

Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 1:02 pm

No you have not. If so I’ve certainly missed you details on what it would look like and how we would vote to get to that system

Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 1:02 pm

Trish,

I already did that. You ignored it too.

And now for something completely different …

Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 1:03 pm

All I want Someone to do is put forward their own ideas. I can’t even read that link at the moment

Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 1:12 pm

I DID put forward my own ideas. You won’t read them. Ted Mack put forward his own ideas. You won’t read them.

Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 1:13 pm

Okay. Did you state what the system would look like and how we would get there by voting? Because that’s important.

Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 1:26 pm

Yes – as much as one can in a few hundred words. It was more to promote discussion than to specify the administrative minutiae.

randalstellaAugust 26, 2016 at 1:41 pm

Good to see the Greens opposing the same-sex marriage plebiscite.
If there is sufficient cooperation, the pressure increases on Turnbull’s shaky and largely unmotivated hold on power.

Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 1:44 pm

Early on in my marriage I was having a hissy fit about something. As I yelled at my husband he sat there with a bemused look on his face which I was reacting to with “how dare you not care”. As my tirade ran down he quietly said to me “Hey, we are on the same team here, remember?”

Another time I was complaining about one of my kids to a girlfriend who said “Is this really the hill to die for?”

Those are up there with a few other things people have said to me over my lifetime that were wise advice that I try to remind myself of.

Trish, we are on the same side. I am sorry if I have made you feel otherwise.

cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 2:10 pm

You know, if you don’t like the current lot, there is absolutely no reason why you can’t knock up a Party and show them how it should be done {simple 😀 ]
Other than that, it isn’t like Aussies are starved of choice .
Still registered are .
#Sustainable Australia
21st Century Australia
Animal Justice Party
Australia First Party (NSW) Incorporated
Australian Antipaedophile Party
Australian Christians
Australian Country Party
Australian Cyclists Party
Australian Defence Veterans Party
Australian Equality Party (Marriage)
Australian Greens
Australian Labor Party (ALP)
Australian Liberty Alliance
Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party
Australian Progressives
Australian Recreational Fishers Party
Australian Sex Party
Bullet Train For Australia
Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)
Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Consumer Rights & No-Tolls
Country Liberals (Northern Territory)
CountryMinded
Democratic Labour Party (DLP)
Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party
Drug Law Reform Australia
Family First Party
Glenn Lazarus Team
Health Australia Party
Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party
Jacqui Lambie Network
John Madigan’s Manufacturing and Farming Party
Katter’s Australian Party
Liberal Democratic Party
Liberal Party of Australia (including seven additional branches
Mature Australia Party
National Party of Australia
Nick Xenophon Team
Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)
Online Direct Democracy – (Empowering the People!)
Outdoor Recreation Party (Stop The Greens)
Palmer United Party
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation
Pirate Party Australia
Renewable Energy Party
Rise Up Australia Party
Secular Party of Australia
Seniors United Party of Australia
Science Party
Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party
Smokers Rights Party
Socialist Alliance
Socialist Equality Party
The Arts Party
The Australian Mental Health Party
Voluntary Euthanasia Party
VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy!

so choose away, form alliances and go after those evil Labor pollies who won’t play with the Greens .
Choose wisely though, remember the old proverb

“Who picks a tool unsuited to a task should not complain if it does no more than cut the hand that holds it”.

Darkovan Proverb

Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 2:21 pm

The whole system of government needs changing in my opinion. It is archaic, unwieldy, unrepresentative, unproductive and VERY expensive. Part of the problem is that people vote for parties rather than the best person for the job. Who in their right mind would actually elect Malcolm Roberts? But because he belongs to a party, there he is with the balance of power, making decisions that affect my life.

HarquebusAugust 26, 2016 at 2:31 pm

I have been listening in on this debate and have to say, Kaye Lee won it hands down long ago.
Time to move on.

Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 2:33 pm

It shouldn’t be a debate with a winner and a loser. That’s pretty much my whole point. It should be a discussion of what people find wrong and tossing round of ideas on how to fix it. Sadly, party politics isn’t about solutions, just about beating the other guy.

jimhazAugust 26, 2016 at 2:43 pm

[the same side]

Such a pity the left can’t work together on an issue by issue basis. The only political influencing power the left has is numbers, as the right are the owners of economic and political influence power.

It needs to be on a consensus issue by issue basis to draw the moderates in, where the numbers are, who will only agree on some issues.

I wonder if they are more left organisations than right based ones. It seems to be the case. I’ve got no ideas, but maybe some form of feed into a collective website resource would help.

jimhazAugust 26, 2016 at 2:52 pm

If the ALP agrees to any Newstart related welfare cuts I also will no longer vote for them, even as a lesser evil. The ALPs treatment of the unemployed has been poor for way too long – neither Gillard or Rudd did anything to help..

Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 3:44 pm

“The BCA has previously supported an increase in the rate of Newstart and other allowance payments. Such an increase must be considered as part of a comprehensive review of Australia’s tax and transfer system.

The BCA had previously joined forces with the Australian Council of Social Services and the Australian Council of Trade Unions to call for an increase in the payment of $50 a week, arguing the current level of payment provided for an inadequate standard of living.”

We have the unions, the business sector and the social service sector in agreement, and our “elected representatives” do the exact opposite of their advice.

HarquebusAugust 26, 2016 at 4:09 pm

Kaye Lee
Noted.

“I would rather discover a single fact, even a small one, than debate the great issues at length without discovering anything at all.” — Galileo Galilei, c. 1640

Kaye LeeAugust 27, 2016 at 11:54 am

Trish,

I was wondering if you had a chance to read up about the Swiss system or to read my suggestion that we directly elect Ministers to form the executive and for local government to then vote on legislation. I would be interested to hear your comments about these alternative governing ideas.

diannaartAugust 27, 2016 at 6:51 pm

Another consideration we need to make in a more representational form of politics is the adversarial system we currently use. This type of system needs a binary system in which to work – if ‘work’ is an appropriate word here for a system that has devolve into a tit for tat form of petty brinkmanship – which is the result of 2 parties sharing a lot more in common than not.

Dissatisfaction with Australian style politics has been around for quite a while, along with multi-party representation. Neither concept was dreamt up overnight by anyone at AIMN – rather we have been considering the worsening state of politics for a long time – too long.

To break free of our destructive adversarial political culture, Australia should adopt a European style proportional representation voting system, says Dr Klaas Woldring, 6 March 2012

…The key to unlocking the potential for a new political culture is a major change to the electoral system. This would at the same time create a political climate that actually favours constitutional change. An understanding could develop that the Constitution has to be rewritten altogether.

There are several other reasons why a new electoral regime would remove the weakest link(s). Australia needs a much greater, constructive diversity of political interests. Instead of petty, destructive, adversarialism, a search for common ground would emerge —a healthy development. The introduction of proportional representation (especially the open party list system) would enhance a diverse political culture that would renew the trust and inspire the voters. Much has changed in Australian society in the last 110 years but the political system has not. Contrary to what some theorists argue – that a paradigm shift requires a complete breakdown of the old order – there are several national examples of where major constitutional change has been initiated and achieved in circumstances of relative calm and reflection. Recent examples are Sweden, Finland and, to some extent, Canada. Australia can do this as well….

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/change-the-electoral-system-and-end-adversarial-politics,3996

The above article was written in 2012, when Australia had a hung parliament and the closest we have ever come to a multi-party system.

What I have been asking Trish & Cornie to consider, will continue to fall upon deaf ears.

I doubt that either the LNP or Labor wishes to relinquish any power.

That doesn’t mean it can’t happen though. We just need more votes for alternative parties and independents. Examples are listed in the above excerpt.

cornlegendAugust 27, 2016 at 8:59 pm

OH Dear a Northern Territory Labor Government to add to the fun now

cornlegendAugust 27, 2016 at 9:03 pm

diannaart
There you go, I knew you’d get it,
“We just need more votes for alternative parties and independents. Examples are listed in the above excerpt.”
Now you won’t have to give a thought to that Labor mob, or Alliances with them.
All you need is a concerted effort on ” Examples are listed in the above excerpt.” and you can stress about Labor/Alliances no more ,:–D

cornlegendAugust 27, 2016 at 9:06 pm

Antony Green predicting up to 15 seats to Labor #ntvotes

abcnewsNT
✔
@abcnewsNT

Labor to form government in Northern Territory after election win.

Stephanie Zillman @Steph_Zillman

But….. Labor victory in Katherine!? A truly incredible swing #ntvotes

cornlegendAugust 27, 2016 at 9:11 pm

40% counted, Labor on 16
Labor Party
40.9% +4.4%

Country Liberal

32.7% -17.9%

Greens

3.3% 0.0%

1 Territory

3.0% +3.0%

Others

20.2%

Bighead1883August 27, 2016 at 10:10 pm

What a rout in the NT Cornie

cornlegendAugust 27, 2016 at 10:14 pm

For even MSM to call it “A landslide victory over the CLP” says something

Michael TaylorAugust 27, 2016 at 10:23 pm

WA next. And with Baird slipping in the polls it just gets better.

cornlegendAugust 27, 2016 at 10:29 pm

bloody hell, swings in seats on 2pp of 34% 28% 33% to Labor
Line em up Michael ACT, tick, WA, tick, NSW……………………………

HarquebusAugust 27, 2016 at 10:44 pm

Another government falls due to their absurd ideology which, isn’t much different to Labor’s who, will in due course, tumble just the same and for the same reason.

Michael TaylorAugust 27, 2016 at 10:50 pm

We’ll worry about that when the time comes, H’. For now, let us saviour the moment.

HarquebusAugust 27, 2016 at 11:07 pm

You’ve always been good to me Michael.
Done.
Avagoodwun.

cornlegendAugust 27, 2016 at 11:12 pm

It seems like the CLPp will need Indie preferences to win 1 seat .
Harquebus
A bit early to start whinning yet, the counting isn’t even completed .
Still. I’m coming to expect that

diannaartAugust 28, 2016 at 10:39 am

Good that Labor won – hardly expected anything else given the population in NT.

NT Labor, have one term in which to redress the many problems facing the NT. One term – that appears to be the trend (for watchers of trends). For non-trend watchers, this still means Labor has one term to sort out the mess of indigenous incarceration. Don Dale occurred no matter which of the Dynamic Duo is in government.

Labor could also question the beneficiaries of the Great Northern Development that federal LNP has ideas about, or is that what big business has ideas about?

Just treating First Nation people as people would be a good start. Locking people up for minor infringements does not work, never has, just creates more brutal people; prison officers and guests of the state (most have not been charged with any actual crimes). Just work on this Labor. Ignore the LNP, in fact just ignore Canberra – both the LNP and Labor are only about the next election, so don’t expect too much from the federal Dynamic Duo.

Matters NotAugust 28, 2016 at 10:50 am

The CLP suffered a swing against them in the order of 19%. Labor had swing towards them of 7%.

While the CLP were big losers just who were the big winners?

Personally I wouldn’t read too much into the NT election. There, the political party of choice (or not) is extremely fluid. And I expect this lack of loyalty will again feature in the months and years ahead.

cornlegendAugust 28, 2016 at 11:38 am

“Personally I wouldn’t read too much into the NT election.”

Of course not 😀

helvityniAugust 28, 2016 at 11:40 am

Now that many Dutch prisons are empty, they have offered to take in other countries’ criminals.

Maybe the CLP could have sent the young one-off car thieves to Holland to be rehabilitated as they themselves don’t believe in such progressive things but prefer dishing inhumane punishment instead.

Hopefully Labor, Independents and Greens will do things better up there in the Northern Territory..

diannaartAugust 28, 2016 at 12:04 pm

Hopefully Labor, Independents and Greens will do things better up there in the Northern Territory..

Something to look forward to…

cornlegendAugust 28, 2016 at 12:53 pm

“Hopefully Labor, Independents and Greens will do things better up there in the Northern Territory”
The Independents are almost all renegade former CLP members and the Greens at the present count have 2.8% of the vote, down 0.5%
Labor should end up withh about 18 of the 25 seats and the CLP and the CLP/former CLP will be the Opposition.
It could seem possible that the former lot could bump the former ruling CLP down to the 3rd Party in NT Politics

cornlegendAugust 28, 2016 at 1:03 pm

The 4 NT Independents{?}

Robyn Lambley

after the 2012 election became Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister to Terry Mills. She resigned (or was dropped) in the last minute attempts to save Mills’ leadership and then was appointed Minister for Health by Adam Giles. She was shifted to Education in December 2014, and then sacked from the ministry in February 2015 after backing Williem Westra van Holthe’s move to replace Giles as Chief Minister. Lambley left the Country Liberal Party in June 2015.

Kezia Purick
Elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012 for the Country Liberals, Purick resigned from the party ro become an Independent in July 2015 while remaing as Speaker.

Gerry Wood and Delia Lawrie would be viewed as Independent

cornlegendAugust 28, 2016 at 1:48 pm

Biggy, our discussion of a few days ago,, spot on,
The anti LNP/ALP Greens sympathisers/apologists as you predicted, ignored the NT election as if it didn’t happen
Found fault with Labor before the count was even half way,
Pay the man the prize 😀

Matters NotAugust 28, 2016 at 2:21 pm

Don’t forget Delia Lawrie’s background. She was a member of the ALP from 2001 to 2015, who only resigned when not endorsed for the 2016 election. She is currently leading 1 473 to 1 404 over the endorsed Labor candidate. Might go either way although the numbers in these electorates are on the ‘small’ size.

At one stage, there were even three members of the Palmer United Party, albeit for a only a short period of time. Almost as soon as ‘the plane ride was over’.

As I said above, party membership is somewhat fluid in the NT. It’s also an electorate that swings wildly. Just ask Claire Martin who won 19 seats to the ALP, 4 to the opposition CLP and 2 to independents in 2005. It was the second-largest majority government in the history of the Territory – bigger then the likely majority in this election.

History suggests that governments in the NT lose big time. Perhaps something to do with the weather.

diannaartAugust 28, 2016 at 2:23 pm

I already stated I was glad to see Labor win – I also noted that NT has a very small population, not enough to carry much more than the Deadly Duo, or was that the Dynamic…. never mind….

NT isn’t big enough – but can set examples. One example it set was a workable euthanasia bill – till Howard stepped in – that’s part of NT’s problem…. it’s a territory. (Also worth noting that Marshall Perron from the CLP introduced the euthanasia bill). Even in the NT there is a little bit of diversity.

Good that Cornie and Biggie have each other, as I and others are aware that any good governance that Labor may do, will have nothing to do with them.

cornlegendAugust 28, 2016 at 2:55 pm

diannaart

“Good that Cornie and Biggie have each other, as I and others are aware that any good governance that Labor may do, will have nothing to do with them.”
Sorry to disappoint you , it isn’t just Biggy and I, some just won’t put up with the ….
Try Twitter on Biggys, and chat to Rudd, Gillard Shorten and a conga line of ALP MPs and Senators

diannaartAugust 28, 2016 at 3:38 pm

No, Cornie

I am aware of how Biggie, Trish and yourself treat others who do not see Labor in the same holy light as you. Not very friendly at all.

Happy to chat to Shorten, Gillard, Albo and many other people but very wary around Kevin “climate change is our biggest moral challenge” Rudd.

I also keep clear of conga lines, something to do with Mark Latham…

Very happy to note when Labor matches actions with words. Action I am looking forward to happen in my lifetime, includes a ban on coal mining, the poor souls detained in our concentration, I mean, detention camps brought to Australia to be cared for and housed for as long as they require, no more funding for private schools, or big business and more.

I have already written about these issues to a diversity of politicians.

Now they have to act.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithAugust 28, 2016 at 4:01 pm

townsvilleblog re: August 22, 2016 at 9:30 am,

did you ever get an answer to your pertinent and simple question, “One last question Trish/Biggy? Are there any democratic socialists left in the ALP or are they all now social democrats?”

Jennifer Meyer-SmithAugust 28, 2016 at 4:05 pm

diannaart,

it will be interesting to see what effort Labor and its stalwarts make to significantly increase Newstart for genuinely vulnerable people on Welfare.

Kudos to Trish for taking up the baton in another article, but I’d be interested to know what Biggy thinks about that.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithAugust 28, 2016 at 4:25 pm

I agree with Helvi @ 11.40 am today.

cornlegendAugust 28, 2016 at 4:51 pm

Diannaart,
“Very happy to note when Labor matches actions with words. Action I am looking forward to happen in my lifetime, includes a ban on coal mining, the poor souls detained in our concentration, I mean, detention camps brought to Australia to be cared for and housed for as long as they require, no more funding for private schools, or big business and more.”
An excellent starting point for your gaggle of Indies to get onto.
Labor and its member will formulate policy to meet the needs of the majorit of Australians, not the demands of some

Jennifer, Labor doesn’t need to work with non existant Greens in NT, and the Independents will find their way around

Jennifer Meyer-SmithAugust 28, 2016 at 5:03 pm

cornlegend,

despite the obvious that Labor won a landslide in NT yesterday, you’re wrong to dismiss the possibility of a Labor/Greens partnership.

It lost Labor the last Federal election and it looks bad to potential voters everywhere else.

Return to home page

Login here Register here

auntyutaAugust 21, 2016 at 7:40 am

“Paul Keating is remembered and revered for his wit and quips. However, I truly believe he was able to be outstanding during his time, as both major parties were at true odds with each other in terms of ideology and Keating was able to harness this as a true battle of ideas between left and right.

I also believe that Shorten is definitely on the right path with his latest reforms more left of the spectrum than the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years and he is also wearing democratic socialism on his sleeve. Time will tell where he goes with this.

If Turnbull is threatened by the rise of the Independents and minor parties – he must do the same. However, this will mean he will need to admit what he actually does believe in. This will be his greatest challenge yet.”

Let’s hope what you point out here about Shorten and Turnbull is the direction the two major parties will be going otherwise you cannot blame people for looking for alternatives!
Trish CorryAugust 21, 2016 at 7:43 am

Thanks Auntyuta – I have no control over what Shorten or Turnbull decide. However, I did address this with “Time will tell where Shorten goes with this” and if Turnbull is threatened he must do the same – or similar from memory. But that was the gist of it, without going back and cutting and pasting.

The central point of my argument is that we need to bring value based politics back, or otherwise, people will be scrambling for crumbs somewhere else and they won’t even know what they are eating; as the minors and independents aren’t exactly dripping with Value statements and ideology either. Voters need to look for something else that appeals to them. Such as a single issue or some other populist type attraction.
Möbius EckoAugust 21, 2016 at 7:54 am

I believe it’s no coincidence that a Murdoch hack becomes the MD of the ABC and now ABC3, a predominantly kids channel, is to be renamed to ABC Me on September 17. The promos for this change are all about individualism and how desirable it is.
michael laceyAugust 21, 2016 at 8:14 am

The Nazis before 1933 were buffoonish figures, as were Radovan Karadžic and Slobodan Miloševic in Yugoslavia and as Trump is. But when these buffoonish figures take power, they become extremely frightening. They didn’t come from nowhere. The Nazis came from the collapse of the Weimar, Radovan Karadžic came out of the economic collapse of Yugoslavia and Trump out of the collapse of the American economy. They sit in the wings here in this country, they never go away waiting for the opportunity that strengthens their position. Neoliberalism is that mechanism that offers up these opportunities it believes in social hierarchy and privilege, so the only prosperity is limited to them. Neoliberalism wants to see absolutely nothing that benefits those who work for an hourly wage, attacking structures like medicare, minimum wage laws, every piece of legislation ever proposed to improve working conditions, unions, who “extort” employers by collectively bargaining, environmental regulations, federal support and federal standards for public education, public broadcasting,
Marriage equality, progressive income tax.
Neoliberalism functions to create an obedient, docile, uncritical workforce who will work to support the upper-class’s lifestyle.
Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 9:05 am

You certainly got through many points of discussion there Trish and the MSM`s tenet on individualism is to break up collectivism within workplace/political “familial” structures {unions]

Do you know I recently read a so called serious article about how some Greens [progressive my arse] author says the unions hijacked the ALP in 1916 without realising the two are one [the symbiosis of need against corporate greed]

The neo-con mantra of the “free market” is your parent/carer/ladder-rung,forgets greed does not fix pot holes in the road or maintain bridges/hospitals/schools etc {pick a story> https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=us%20crumbling%20infrastructure%5D

We`ve seen 20 years of so called Progressiveness from Greens and if they could list their achievements for us all to see it may make me take my critical eye off them {thank you for the 4 One Nation Senators Mr di Natale}

Be like Labor you Greens and fight Tories
wamAugust 21, 2016 at 9:37 am

wowowo great thinking post – my little brain is reeling!!! I think it is the best read ever from you, trish,
Perhaps the key is women into the church or out of the indoctrination?
HarquebusAugust 21, 2016 at 10:26 am

Perhaps if party politicians started representing their constituents instead of their parties, they might get the majority in parliament that they crave for. Labor politicians are the worst in this respect and is why I will not vote for them.
The Labor Party is also the best when it comes to removing liberties and freedoms. They are very good at it and is another reason not to vote for them.
Michael TaylorAugust 21, 2016 at 10:33 am

“The Labor Party is also the best when it comes to removing liberties and freedoms”.

And what is your opinion of the Liberal Party?
diannaartAugust 21, 2016 at 10:58 am

Indeed ‘Individualism’ is catch-all a term for use by those who believe in laissez-faire economics.

I agree with Trish on the above mentioned point.

However, there is a glaring omission in her article, that of diversity.

The far-right LNP and still right-leaning Labor party both eschew diversity within their ranks: “My way or the highway” and, thus, many voices are silenced.

Labor, during the Rudd/Gillard (not so much with the 2nd incarnation of Rudd) years, passed many good nation building policies in a hung parliament. They would not have had any success at all without the diverse support from the Greens, Oakeshott, Windsor et al.

This thinking that Labor or the LNP (ironic title, no?) is the answer for everything is very 20th century. A diversity of parties and independents is not an evil it is more reflective of democracy than a binary system can ever be. It is also a lot more messy and difficult – all that negotiation and compromise; terms which are anathema to the LNP and not exactly Labor’s first preference either.

Given the trend both here and overseas in OECD countries, I wonder when, if ever, Labor will return to govern with a majority like it used to have in the 20th century.

Right now we have a fractured parliament, thanks to Turnbull and the Greens, a dismal senate, consisting mostly of right wing supporters. Individuals in abundance, but diversity not so much.
vivienne29August 21, 2016 at 11:28 am

Take no notice of Harquebus – just another rusted on lying Liberal who used to infest The Drum and now looking for a place to write unsubstantiated rot.
HarquebusAugust 21, 2016 at 12:00 pm

Michael Taylor.
Runners up and almost as bad.

vivienne29
You have made an incorrect assumption and I am not in the habit of lying.
I have admitted many times to participating in many fora and have I outlasted theDrum which, was never more than a censored website designed to mislead the public. Good riddance to it and good riddance to Chip Roley.
Try arguing your case. Insults don’t cut it.
Trish CorryAugust 21, 2016 at 12:28 pm

Dianna do you mean to say if Labor had a majority they would not have passed their own policies? Or in some bizarre way are you saying Greens and Ind formulated these policies? Are you saying that there is no risk to independents supporting harmful policy? You say this is the best way – with independents but then appear to grizzle about our current democratic result. Tad confusing I’m afraid.
Trish CorryAugust 21, 2016 at 12:35 pm

Bytheway I’m currently sitting in a regional Labor conference and looking at the democratic grass roots format which feeds into Labor policy and the huge range of diverse people before me; to say Labor is not inclusive, democratic or diverse is laughable. I think you are talking out of your hat.
stephengb2014August 21, 2016 at 12:41 pm

I am a Labor supporter in general but I do think that Labor lost its way under Hawke and Keating, these two were the most supportive of neoliberlist economics I have ever seen.

They crippled the one bargaining chip for workers, by removing the the right to strike except under fairly strict circumstance. This was a purely neoliberalist dream.

Next they started the privatisation of blue chip government services, again a neoliberal agenda item.

Then there was the creation of Medicare, which in reality is not a universal health care system but a part payment health care scheme.

The only good thing about the Hawke Keating government was the floating of the dollar.
diannaartAugust 21, 2016 at 1:27 pm

Trish

I offer my most profound apologies for talking out of my hat.

I will try to be clearer for you.

Labor would have been able to pass its nation building policies if it had had a majority in the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years.

Instead it was aided by the Greens and Independents who supported them by voting with them to enable the policies to be passed.

I am sure that you do have a variety of people in your Labor meetings. So do the LNP. None of which means much when we get down to ideology. The variety of people in Labor still need to work with other people of the political spectrum. So do the LNP. Sometimes this works, as I have illustrated with the example of cooperation required during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years. Sometimes not so much, as in the Turnbull and Greens alteration of senate voting procedures.

Please let me know if you have any difficulties understanding my comments. I am here to help.
Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 1:42 pm

Michael Taylor August 21, 2016 at 10:33 am

I`m stunned at the concise and articulate answer you got to your question Michael
Michael TaylorAugust 21, 2016 at 1:44 pm

?
townsvilleblogAugust 21, 2016 at 2:18 pm

Trish, I honestly believe that The central point of my argument is that we need to bring value based politics back, or otherwise, people will be scrambling for crumbs somewhere else and they won’t even know what they are eating Would be achieved if the AWU/SDA alliance who run the ALP could sacrifice their internal power and open up the party to democracy where members were all equal and all members got a vote for the leadership at State Branch level National level and parliamentary level, it could quite easily turn into a people’s party that would develop policy much closer to what the public actually want. Great article Trish.
townsvilleblogAugust 21, 2016 at 2:26 pm

stephengb2014 I agree with you wholeheartedly they were the best tory PMs that we ever had, did bugger all for working people, Keating will tell you how he delivered superannuation for working people, but what he won’t say is how many pay rises we had to forego to receive it. We need a centre-left party, not a centre-right one that we currently have. It was noticeable that the only leadership ballot we have had the members (35,000) voted for Albo, and the politicians (101) voted for Shorten, meaning that members only got half of a vote, or considerably less if you take the numbers into account. The membership is considerably more to the Left than the politicians, but some of us know why this is, it has to do with preselections and the AWU/SDA alliance.
townsvilleblogAugust 21, 2016 at 2:29 pm

Trish, how many regional conference motions turn into official policy once they have gone to Brisbane, the Northern Conference used to pass a lot of motions too, but once they hit Brisbane, they disappeared, do you find the same with yours?
August 21, 2016 at 12:35 pm

Bytheway I’m currently sitting in a regional Labor conference and looking at the democratic grass roots format which feeds into Labor policy and the huge range of diverse people before me; to say Labor is not inclusive, democratic or diverse is laughable. I think you are talking out of your hat.
townsvilleblogAugust 21, 2016 at 2:34 pm

diannaart I had no difficulty understanding what you meant, Trish perhaps your thought pattern has been diverted by the conference I’m sure that if you were able to give dianna’s comment full concentration you would realize what point she is making. Hope it’s a great conference for you.
townsvilleblogAugust 21, 2016 at 2:43 pm

The median wage in Australia is $43,000 per annum that is good if both parents work, but if one parent can’t for reason of disability, sickness or other reason it is not much for a family of 5 to live on. Most ‘fair dinkum’ unions help their members to achieve pay increases and better conditions if the union members all stick together. A workplace usually has a crawler. a ‘would be’ boss, and sometimes they both combine in the one person to destabilize the others. If workers will stick together no employer could ever beat them. Australian workers need either welfare top ups to their stingy wage or much higher wages, if not for unions we would still be down a coal mine with a canary on our shoulder.
Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 2:47 pm

stephengb2014 August 21, 2016 at 12:41 pm

You`ve made 5 points concerning Labor in your comment

Your first point is doubtful in all aspects

Your second point is horseshit [only horseshit in better as it can be used as fertiliser]

Your third point is correct

Your fourth point concerning Medicare is pathetic and Fraser had wiped out Medibank and Medicare was created in it`s stead as Universal Health Care {explain your part payment statement]

And your last point is total crap as well because the Hawke/Keating era was the highest spending Australia ever had on Health/Education and infrastructure ***PERIOD***

20% out of 100% an F-4
Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 3:00 pm

townsvilleblog August 21, 2016 at 2:34 pm

Well I certainly did and still do

If you had watched the changes in ALPNatCon2014/5 and 6 you will clearly see a turning to the Left within Labor

Ged Kearney has clearly stated in 15 and 16 firstly that AS policy changes have to be implemented {read ALP AS policy]

The ACTU is the most powerful union force within Labor and since Paul Howes took his corporate ballbag and went the AWU is moving more to centre

De Bruyn`s SDA is the “DLP” and he`s Vince Gair reincarnated

If you want Labor reform,join up and begin at branch level just like Trish Corry /Cornlegend/JohnB and myself do
It`s because people actually participate that changes are occuring
HarquebusAugust 21, 2016 at 3:07 pm

Bighead1883
If that was the case, we could all just join the Liberal Party and all of our problems will be solved.

“Don’t forget the golden rule.” — King from the Wizard of Id.
“What’s the golden rule?” — Serf from the Wizard of Id.
“Whoever has the gold makes the rules.” — Minstrel from the Wizard of Id.
Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 3:45 pm

Harquebus August 21, 2016 at 3:07 pm

What are you on about ?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqVrKKNVUAAogZF.jpg
trishcorryAugust 21, 2016 at 3:49 pm

Biggy – those who are not in the party (I’m assuming Townsville blog has not rejoined) are missing the ‘stay in the party and make the changes you want to see’ become a reality. Dianna has presented many comments about a plethora of individual voices being better than the two party system, but no actual solid arguments to support it.

Dianna – your argument that these reforms passed due to the Greens and Ind, was due to the actual nature of the parliament. They did not develop the policy, they simply supported it. If they decided to go the other way and support Abbott, how would that have panned out? You are speaking of this as if it is the ideal model. We will see how your ideal model pans out with the Ind currently supporting the right. Katter for one, is one who likes to ‘hold parties to ransom’ on policy. Thanks to Katter and the sacked Labor MP Billy Gordon, massive tree clearing policy by the LNP is still currently in place. Defeated in Parliament.

As to your diversity argument about Labor, which you clarified; Labor most certainly does. What you have a lot of difficulty in accepting is that we do engage with other ideologies – we process it, we understand it, we apply it to the Australia we want to see and if it does not fit we reject it. That is what you have difficulty comprehending. I know it is easier to see Labor as some insular entity which operates in a bubble; but that is far from the case. You cannot defeat the enemy unless you know exactly how they think. Keating was superb at this, as not only did he understand how they think, he verbalised it.

I think when you talk about this wonderful democracy that is in your head, that all the power is in the hands of the ideas you support. The existing model you praised in Denmark, I extensively refuted in a different article by another author and you did not have one single solid counter argument for. The other thing that I did not have the word count to really cover is one of informed voting. Voting for populist politicians based on a single issue or because they are a famous person, is not conducive to democracy. Democracy can only be achieved if the real battle of ideas in days gone by does re-emerge.

There are also only so many segments within the political spectrum and every single one of these Ind or minor party politicians fall into that spectrum. The point of my article is that ideology does matter (there is a rise in people saying it does not). I do not believe that ONP voters for example is an increase in the right wing vote, of the right wing Nationalism alignment, but it is from disaffected voters who are not either receiving the information from the major parties on their reforms (or it isn’t connecting) OR change politically is moving too slowly for these people and they are seeking an answer, that possibly no one can give them immediately.

Well possibly a party could – for example, with jobs, you could apply real socialism and apply massive job creation in public services and infrastructure projects, but then the voters also need to disagree with the conservative opposition to that argument and agree that this will mean a slower return to surplus. This is why my article addresses wearing their ideology on their sleeve and pushing what underpins their decision making. The minors and independents do not do this. If you read Pauline Hanson’s ONP party, her policies are a conflicting confusion of a range of ideologies, as her policies are set up to appeal to a wide range of people, but would not be effective necessary change in reality. Many of her policies if implemented would fail. I think we are paying far too much attention to Hanson herself and we should debate her actual ideas and how they will affect this country.
HarquebusAugust 21, 2016 at 3:52 pm

Bighead1883
“join up and begin at branch level”
Join the Liberal Party and attack from within.
Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 3:59 pm

Trish,I made this meme long ago explaining not only my reality but that of many of my comrades
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqXIKEwUsAAsNnn.jpg
Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 4:03 pm

Harquebus August 21, 2016 at 3:52 pm

Go ahead
winAugust 21, 2016 at 4:49 pm

Surely each individual is only important if he/she accepts that EVERY other individual is equally important. This includes those of other color, other status, other religion or none., female or male.or none of the above. This only really happens in a cohesive society, that if fractured, rushes to heal quickly. i.e. community, that fight wingers refuse to acknowledge.
winAugust 21, 2016 at 4:51 pm

And I would like to see the ALP move MORE to the left, because the right is inhumane in its very premises .
Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 5:00 pm

win August 21, 2016 at 4:51 pm

So you want to see a RWNJ in action and promote tax evasion etc here in Australia?

Tasmanian Senator Nick McKim has praised the Uber/Airbnb effect on the economy for ‘turning a generation of interconnected people into entrepreneurs’. Unconcerned with the significant implications of such practices on labour rights, McKim has welcomed the growth of such ways of business, gleefully suggesting that ‘services such as equipment rental, energy supply, labour hire, money lending and even child care will be next’.
His Maiden Speech in which he said it ,

http://nick-mckim.greensmps.org.au/content/media-releases/nicks-inaugural-speech
The AIM NetworkAugust 21, 2016 at 5:20 pm

So you want to see a RWNJ in action and promote tax evasion etc here in Australia?

Now that’s what I call putting words in someone’s mouth.
Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 5:28 pm

Now that’s what I call putting words in someone’s mouth.

Only that`s not what I did
Here`s some of what he said and if you agree with him then you are PRO neo conservatism>>

It’s been observed recently that Uber, the world’s largest taxi company, owns no vehicles, and that Airbnb, the world’s largest accommodation provider, owns no real estate. Something highly disruptive is happening. It’s called the shared economy, or the collaborative economy, and it’s coming to a mobile device near you. And it’s turning a generation of interconnected people into entrepreneurs.

The collaborative economy is a peer-to-peer economic ecosystem which relies on data and connectivity, and it’s growing exponentially at increasing speed.

A PriceWaterhouseCoopers report found that just the four major sectors of the collaborative economy had annual global revenue of $21 billion – a figure that it predicts will explode to $478 billion within a decade.

It is already transforming sectors like accommodation and transport, and services such as equipment rental, energy supply, labour hire, money lending and even child care will be next.

It brings down prices, it cuts out middle-people, it encourages innovation and, crucially, it’s environmentally friendly because it avoids greenhouse emissions through the more efficient use of existing resources. It’s the free market working as it should, for the benefit of people and the environment.
The AIM NetworkAugust 21, 2016 at 5:34 pm

You said:

win August 21, 2016 at 4:51 pm

So you want to see a RWNJ in action and promote tax evasion etc here in Australia?

It was obvious to me that you was referring to the comment at 4:51.

Sorry, but I can’t read people’s minds.
The AIM NetworkAugust 21, 2016 at 5:37 pm

You also said:

Here`s some of what he said and if you agree with him then you are PRO neo conservatism>>

It’s been observed recently that Uber, the world’s largest taxi company, owns no vehicles, and that Airbnb, the world’s largest accommodation provider, owns no real estate. Something highly disruptive is happening. It’s called the shared economy, or the collaborative economy, and it’s coming to a mobile device near you. And it’s turning a generation of interconnected people into entrepreneurs.

The collaborative economy is a peer-to-peer economic ecosystem which relies on data and connectivity, and it’s growing exponentially at increasing speed.

A PriceWaterhouseCoopers report found that just the four major sectors of the collaborative economy had annual global revenue of $21 billion – a figure that it predicts will explode to $478 billion within a decade.

It is already transforming sectors like accommodation and transport, and services such as equipment rental, energy supply, labour hire, money lending and even child care will be next.

It brings down prices, it cuts out middle-people, it encourages innovation and, crucially, it’s environmentally friendly because it avoids greenhouse emissions through the more efficient use of existing resources. It’s the free market working as it should, for the benefit of people and the environment.

I think you need to go back and have a look at Win’s 4:51 comment again. You’re putting more than words in someone’s mouth . . . you’re putting a whole book!
Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 5:39 pm

Yes that was the comment I replied to explaining that you don`t have to be Labor to be a RWNJ in your thinking
You can be a Greens as is McKim
Bighead1883August 21, 2016 at 5:42 pm

The AIM Network August 21, 2016 at 5:37 pm

win @ 4.51 And I would like to see the ALP move MORE to the left, because the right is inhumane in its very premises

My premise is easy to see

Mr Pew,I might be blind,but I have acute hearing
Trish CorryAugust 21, 2016 at 5:57 pm

I got what Biggy meant. People always, always talk about Labor as if they are the only ones that deviate from anything but the (which extreme??) true left. People never question the Greens, because people just assume the Greens are wholesome, good, sunshine and butterflies with the arm and fist ingrained on their wings. Which is certainly not the case. But one goes blue in the face trying to explain that, because people simply go nah nah nah I’m not listening you rusted on Labor hack.

Hahah biggy, I’m sure he said “but I have a cute earring” lol. I love, love, love that movie!
The AIM NetworkAugust 21, 2016 at 6:06 pm

Well there must be something wrong with me eyes then.
Trish CorryAugust 21, 2016 at 6:10 pm

Maybe it is just one of those things where people in certain groups just know what each other means. He did clarify it though by putting the thing about McKim straight after. Victoria will always be right with her article about “Everyone is obsessed with Labor”
diannaartAugust 21, 2016 at 6:47 pm

Trish Corry claims: People never question the Greens, because people just assume the Greens are wholesome, good, sunshine and butterflies with the arm and fist ingrained on their wings.

Diannaart August 21, 2016 at 10:58 am: Right now we have a fractured parliament, thanks to Turnbull and the Greens, a dismal senate, consisting mostly of right wing supporters. Individuals in abundance, but diversity not so much.

I don’t see any political party or individual who has not ever made mistakes. Nor do I see Trish ever wanting a genuine discussion about diversity, independents and small political parties – for her, and I can quote Trish on this, it is all about: Dianna has presented many comments about a plethora of individual voices being better than the two party system

No, Trish, I have talked about negotiation between Labor, Greens, other smaller parties and Independents working towards a common goal.

No, Trish, Labor is not alone in developing policy, you claimed They (the Greens) sic did not develop the policy, they simply supported it. The greens support policies which are in alignment with their own policies.

Trish: The existing model you praised in Denmark, I extensively refuted in a different article by another author and you did not have one single solid counter argument for

No you did not counter the argument, you dismissed my points – not the same thing.

Nor have I brought up further examples because you will not actually engage with the topic, you write a lot of words without saying very much at all and just dismiss anything which does not fit into your perfect Labor dreamin’
Trish CorryAugust 21, 2016 at 7:01 pm

or do I see Trish ever wanting a genuine discussion about diversity, independents and small political parties…

No, Trish, I have talked about negotiation between Labor, Greens, other smaller parties and Independents working towards a common goal.

Umm….you kind of argued with me for hours the other day about how a system of independents and minor parties is much, much better than the current model. You used Denmark as an example. Have you forgotten?

But yet Dianna…. over the previous article on a similar topic and this one – you are still unable to articulate why a system of independents is better than the current model. So if you want a discussion about diversity of independents versus the current system, I’m all for it, but you must at least make an effort to present your case, rather than “its just better.” I’m very happy to discuss the negatives and positives of each model as it would apply to a system in Australia. So please – go ahead. Considering this is one central argument in my article, I hardly think I’m the one shy about it.

I think I wrote over 1000 words on your claims with Denmark. Including refuting issues ranging from their variance in political system, their nationalism, that they are a monarchy, their variances in trade, domestic product and GDP, the complications of wider and sparse geography and infrastructure here, the rise of nationalist parties, their Christianity, their high taxing system etc., etc., I hardly call that dismissing what you were saying! Maybe I should try harder, but people already complain I write comments that are too lengthy.

I do feel you are trying to just avoid putting your argument out there to be discussed because you keep saying I’m the one who is lazy. I kind of just wrote an article on the very topic between 3.00 am and 7.30 am this morning and published it – so….Kind of confused how that is lazy. All my arguments are there for everyone to read, criticise, refute, ignore, blame me for being a Labor member, a sheep, a non-thinker, a hack or simply just agree with me. But that certainly is not the definition of lazy in my book.

So please, please, please present your argument. You have been saying for a while now how great this ‘new system is that will tear down the one we have now’ So please – let us know why this would be better. Instead of saying I have ignored or dismissed something you have not even put forward yet (remember, because it is better is not a solid argument).

I’m pretty sure Labor develops Labor policy. Your point was that Labor policy would not have been implemented if it was not for the Greens. This was ONLY due to the nature of parliament. The Greens had no hand in developing said policy or reforms. Under a majority Govt, the Greens would not have been given a second glance. How is that hard to understand?

So I guess in relation to my article, you are siding with individualism as the basis of our system and process which underpins decision making for legislation and reform?
HarquebusAugust 21, 2016 at 11:31 pm

Here’s a goodwun.

“Other common binary assumptions are reversed in these pages: socialism causes pollution whereas capitalism protects the environment; socialism leads to war whereas capitalism is peaceful; socialism consolidates power among an elite few whereas capitalism decentralizes and disperses power, which ultimately resides with individual consumers making small economic adjustments based on their particular needs.”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/17/book-review-the-problem-with-socialism/
trishcorryAugust 22, 2016 at 7:03 am

umm…..that is random. Your point?
townsvilleblogAugust 22, 2016 at 9:18 am

Trish/Biggy, I take your point about rejoining, I fought for 15 years for change internally but today the Queensland Branch is still dominated by the AWU/SDA alliance who are basically non-representative of their members and right wing. They hold the internal positions of power on policy committees though I do agree that you are both correct in encouraging me to rejoin, and I’m moving closer to that situation every day, as the filth is dealt out by the ‘conservative’ Turnbull govt to the poor people such as myself. Latest move a $14.10 cut to the pension, but still no forcing the corporations to pay over 5% in income tax.
townsvilleblogAugust 22, 2016 at 9:30 am

One last question Trish/Biggy? Are there any democratic socialists left in the ALP or are they all now social democrats?
townsvilleblogAugust 22, 2016 at 9:46 am

Personally I believe there is strength in the party system, you are either a capitalist or a socialist I’ve never found anything in between. The strength of the Labor Party is its membership of people who believe that policy should favor the many not the few, as the conservatives believe. I believe that Labor has increased its membership since the last election and the party needs as many activists as they can possibly get, to wave the flag. It is interesting that following every election that the tories will not own up to voting tory. No one ever admits to voting these bastards into power but obviously someone does. Independents don’t really offer the voter anything because their policies have no hope of becoming legislation, the party collective is for me the only way to go.
diannaartAugust 22, 2016 at 11:05 am

Mockery is not debate. It is childish and indicative of ignorance.

Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, and Philippines are examples of nations that have used a multi-party system effectively in their democracies. In these countries, usually no single party has a parliamentary majority by itself. Instead, multiple political parties form coalitions for the purpose of developing power blocks for governing.

The above countries have operating multi-party systems of government. Some work better than others. There is no perfect system, however, multi-party does achieve better representation of a nation.

MPS is an alternative of value to discuss.

Given that whatever I say to Trish is thoughtlessly rejected, I am wasting my time here. If people are interested in understanding more about multi-party systems they can do so – the internet has a wealth of information available.

Learning and understanding should never be rejected because of an ideology.

It is a shame if Labor party members are not interested in discussing progressive ideas, such narrow-mindedness places them on a level with the LNP – which, BTW, is a coalition and working very well for the far-right.
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:15 am

Yes if you cannot articulate why except other countries have done it, you are indeed wasting your time. Please stop reading my posts in a strange tone. I was not mocking you at all!!
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:17 am

Diana I asked you to present one argument but you still insist I’m ignoring or being ignorant. That is really unfair when you insist on giving me no argument from your point of view to accept or refute. Stop blaming everything on party alignment of other people and take some responsibility.
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:19 am

Nope democratic socialists. Not that I know everyone but that is what we align with.
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:20 am

So join and build the left! That is why things have changed
Bighead1883August 22, 2016 at 12:51 pm

townsvilleblog August 22, 2016 at 9:18 am

You wrote ‘Latest move a $14.10 cut to the pension, but still no forcing the corporations to pay over 5% in income tax”
How can Labor do anything about Federal income taxing when it`s the LNP who are in power?
When Labor tried to reign in corporate tax evasion prior the 2013 Federal election the LNP refused to support them
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqbmJ07W8AAE8U7.jpg

Oh we have plenty of Democratic Socialists in Labor Lead by Albo [Hard Left] in HoR and Doug Cameron in the Senate
https://youtu.be/yGUDzzpcmj0?t=4
guestAugust 22, 2016 at 1:51 pm

Some of the argument here is rather obtuse, and some of it is very wise. But that is the nature of debate; so many angles to consider.

But we might consider the following statements made hundreds of years apart:

“There is no society, only individuals.” (after Margaret Thatcher)

“No man is an island entire of itself.” (John Donne)

There are people who regard themselves as “self made”. We have people here in Oz who have done very well for themselves financially and/or in fame or status. Some of them are people who came as migrants. We take some comfort that this is possible in Oz.

But Shakespeare (“The Tempest”) said:

“Some are born great, some achieve greatness, some have greatness thrust upon them.”

In each of those possible ways we could suppose there were other people involved, whether those people were parents, workers, soldiers, miners, servants, teachers, doctors, philosophers, historians, politicians…

It would be difficult to achieve greatness with no help at all from anyone else.

Consider wealth, for example. How many presently wealthy individuals inherited wealth from parents? Quite a number, I would suggest. And wealth can suggest ability, to be a politician, for example. But that does not always follow. We see our current PM having difficulty with politics, having inherited wealth, having been educated in prestigious places of education, having been supported by wealthy patrons and people in high places…

The C19th idea of Utilitarian Self-help was explored by Dickens in his writing. Very often the person in difficulty is rescued by good people. The crowd can play part,too, as we see in “Oliver Twist”.

Yet that kind of Utilitarian Self-help view is exhibited in the Liberal idea of taking “personal responsibility”. If one is poor, it is their own fault.

We saw it in the controversy over the Leak cartoon about Don Dale. It was not the guards or even the boys at fault; it was the parents who had been bad parents. No mention of the bureaucratic failure of governments or community utilities which have allowed the poverty and degradation of people over decades. It is all the fault of the poor themselves because they have not taken “personal responsibility”.

We see it in the treatment of refugees on Manus and Nauru. It is not Government’s responsibility for torture and trauma; it is the fault of the refugee themselves for daring to come by boat and wanting to enjoy what we enjoy.

I find the idea of individual liberty and freedom of speech as practised by the Liberals to be abhorrent self-interest only. Rich vs poor, as someone suggested above. Money talks.

It seems that events in the world tell us that things are falling apart and the centre cannot hold if we continue in the self-centred way we are at present. So we see people gathereing and saying Enough is enough! while the wealthy batten down and hide behind gated estates and in tax havens. Number one rules, OK?. .
diannaartAugust 22, 2016 at 2:02 pm

Well said, Guest.

To which I will add, another retort that exists happily with both the left and right of politics:

“You’re either with me or against me”

The “me” being either a group or an individual.

😉
Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.comAugust 22, 2016 at 4:41 pm

Bravo! You know that the two-party system is well and truly broken when it has to be so stoutly defended. Particularly because to defend Labor, you have to defend the Coalition too. Because without the Coalition, Labor are redundant. Labor party supporters defending the Coalition? What can I say.

Fundamentally party politics is lazy politics. “Unlike independents, people know what they stand for”. Utter bollocks. I bet, as an example, most people don’t know the religion of the person they voted for? So how do they know how they will vote for issues like euthanasia? Or funding religious schools? Most people who vote for Labor or the Coalition are really just voting for their preferred brand. They have no idea of the policy details.

Whilst the rank and file of the Labor party now have greater sway in deciding who is leader, this is a relatively new thing. Like the Coalition, power brokers behind the scenes make the call – hence why Bill and not Albo. Democracy? They can’t even do it in their own organisation, so what chance in the country.

And here is a thing. We are all individuals, whether you like it or not. I have two identical twin daughters. I would get my head bitten off if I suggested they should act collectively at all time. Yet they sometimes do, and they sometimes don’t – and believe it or not, it actually works.

The reality is that we are both. We are selfish and independent, yet we also need to work co-operatively. This is a fundamental of the human condition. To suggest you have either to be one or the other is a basic denial of our biology. Start dealing with it.

The concept that the Coalition will either declare the true hand of their beliefs is about as unrealistic as expecting them to hold to their election promises. Yet Labor continue to play the game fairly, and the Coalition are more than happy to hold them to it (whilst ignoring the rule book entirely).

And the idea that great reform has been due to the two party system is highly dubious, indeed I’d suggest wishful thinking. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but most great ideas have come from individuals, whether that is Einstein, or Michelangelo.

As a means of communication in the pre-mass communication landscape, political parties probably made some kind of sense. Because back then they weren’t the highly regimented, autocratic organisations that they are now. Just because one was a Whig did not mean that you’d always vote with that party.

What do people vote for now? The party? The candidate? As an outsider watching the election coverage, you could be excused for believing that the election was entirely presidential – Turnbull versus Shorten. Other parties and candidates are simply ignored – made irrelevant because of a media that wants to propagate yet another lazy duopoly – far, far easier to control.

Labor’s steadfast adherence to the two-party system is in part what keeps the Coalition predominantly running the country. They make for a very easy target which is one reason they keep losing. There are a significant number of voters out there who will NEVER vote Labor. Personally I don’t fully understand why, but I do know that they exist in a more sizeable number, than those who will never vote for the Coalition parties, and that will always make it difficult for Labor to get into power and stay there for long enough to do the great reforms that you so proudly pronounce are what 2 party politics are good for.

In summary if you want to live in a country predominantly run by the Coalition, keep supporting Labor – because historically the reality is that since the war we’ve had 46 years of Tory rule compared to just 26 years of Labor, so what does that tell you?

And now I’d better retire to the bunker…
cornlegendAugust 22, 2016 at 4:47 pm

FFS, I just turned up here to read this
” Particularly because to defend Labor, you have to defend the Coalition too. Because without the Coalition, Labor are redundant. Labor party supporters defending the Coalition? What can I say.”
WhAT CAN YOU SAY ?
I have never heard such bollocks ,
Sure you don’t want to edit?
There is absolutely no basis for that assumption
guestAugust 22, 2016 at 6:08 pm

What does that tell me, Steve Laing?

I could elaborate at length, but in a word: propaganda!

And as for a bunch of independents coming to some useful decision – it would be like herding cats.
cornlegendAugust 22, 2016 at 6:26 pm

“And as for a bunch of independents coming to some useful decision – it would be like herding cats.”

love it 😀
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 6:42 pm

For goodness sake can someone – anyone please put up a solid argument as a rebuttal against the two party system and why it should be destroyed, instead of just saying “because a different system is better” OR “because people are individuals” or accusing me of Labor bias!

Someone refuting my article give me some substance, Please! This matter actually really does deserve some critical discussion.

Imagine if I argued that we should abolish any party that could be deemed a protest party like the Greens because all they do is disrupt democracy and impede progress – Without adding any substance to my claim. Imagine if I did that!
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 7:00 pm

The herding of cats comment is spot on Guest. I think that we will be seeing a lot of cats being herded in the senate at least!
HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 7:05 pm

Trish.

Party politicians do not represent the will of their constituents, they instead represent the will of their party donors.
Which Labor or Liberal politician polls their electorate and votes accordingly? None.

One hundred and fifty independent representatives would be a vast improvement on the sheep that we have not representing us now.
Michael TaylorAugust 22, 2016 at 7:10 pm

In Canberra I was regularly polled by the offices of both my federal and territorial Labor member.
HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 7:10 pm

A bunch of independents could easily come to a decision, all it takes is a majority.
Of course, herding sheep is much easier.
HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 7:14 pm

Michael.
Was it a safe Labor seat? I am in rock solid Labor seats state and federally and never had my opinion asked once.
The next question to ask is, did they take any notice and vote accordingly or was it just to evaluate resistance.
cornlegendAugust 22, 2016 at 7:22 pm

Harquebus
My continual whinge within Labor is the bloody amount of internal polling and focus group stuff they do.
It is never ending
On the Independents meeting,
In the group of 5 we have now {I include Bandt, just so he won’t be lonely} would they have to have frequent breaks to consult with their Parties, so as not to go against their own policy? NXT and Greens
Geez, I’d like to be there when they were electing a spokesperson, etc
HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 7:24 pm

Something I remember reading:

“So the population of Australia might be around 24 million, but only a small proportion really make a difference to the outcome of a federal election.”
“Approximately 12.9% or 3.1 million people”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-22/election-2016-who-really-decides/7395568
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 7:24 pm

I work on elections and we phone bank, door knock, do street booths and by June 2016 Bill Shorten has also done over 30 community forums. Sorry you have never been contacted, but it may just be the result of randomness of statistics. Not everyone gets polled. I’m 46 and I have been phoned twice in my entire life for polling for the federal election by the big researchers. Both by Morgan Poll.
HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 7:27 pm

Trish
That is only half the story. Did the Labor Party implement policies based on majority polling?
It’s one thing to evaluate public opinion, it is another to vote accordingly.
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 7:28 pm

That is correct Harquebus – this is due to the number of swinging voters, the number of safe seats vs marginal seats and the way the electorates’ boundaries are set out. The AEC does boundary reviews continuously based on population growth. Another important reason to fill our your census. Stats rock!
cornlegendAugust 22, 2016 at 7:29 pm

Trish Corry
On Independents
“It’s no exaggeration to say that the undecided could go one way or another.” – George Bush Sr

On consultation, I think EVERY ALP candidate did multiple community forums as well
HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 7:30 pm

Cornlegend
Internal polling, in my opinion, doesn’t really count. What was the purpose of the focus groups? Was it to get the message or to determine the best way of delivering one?
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 7:34 pm

Well, this article, is not particularly about the Labor party. It is about collectivism/socialism/social democracy vs. Individualism. However, within the Labor party, policy is decided through a democratic grassroots system. Of course caucus can implement policy, however every year at regional, state and federal level, all members have input into policy and we have state and federal conferences where members vote on policy. Community members can be part of that by joining Labor. MPs and candidates of course would feed back and input into policy based on the feedback from community members.

What I love about Labor is as a member we have a great process for input and participation and even as members we can help our communities we live in. and Bill Shorten is great! He is so genuine and interested in what we are doing in our electorates and if you ask him a question he is genuinely concerned. He asked me to send him some more information on my question for example and has done to others as well. He is also an incredibly intelligent man and I don’t give out that type of compliment lightly.
HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 7:49 pm

Trish
The last I heard, Labor was losing members. Does this have anything with your plea to sign up?
As I have stated, party politicians do not represent me and until they do, I won’t be voting for any of them. Sorry. They represent their parties and their party donors and no amount of spin is going to pretty up this despicable fact.
We should not have to join a political party in order to have majority rule.
cornlegendAugust 22, 2016 at 7:50 pm

Harquebus
“Internal polling, in my opinion, doesn’t really count”
Internal pollimg within electorates ..
Have you checked out how often your Labor MP does street meets, BBQs, etc
A good example, just using one would be Terri Butler
http://www.terributlermp.com/calendar

Are you making this up as you go?
Since Bill Shorten took over leadership membership has increased by 10,000
Matters NotAugust 22, 2016 at 8:02 pm

it would be like herding cats.

That understates the problem. More like herding ‘feral’ cats. ?

Yet there’s a significant number of voters on the ‘left’ who are pissed off with their representatives. While ALP ‘policy’ (and its development) might gladden the hearts of Branch members, make them feel good, provide a rationale for debates and the like, they are just ‘guides’ for action at some (deliberately) undefined future. Party policy is a guarantee of nothing re implementation.

While one could go back to the ‘split’ of the 1950s and cite Vince Gair versus Jack Duggan and the causes of same (the policy of three weeks’ annual leave), perhaps some more recent examples might be in order.

When Goss was elected in 1989, it was soon made clear that it wasn’t a Labor Party government that was elected but a Goss labor government. While the Labor Party may have a whole set of ‘policies’, it was the Goss government that had ‘priorities’. And it was the ‘priorities’ that reigned supreme. Indeed there was somewhat frantic search across the public service to collect and destroy the ‘documents’ that had been widely distributed before the election.

Beattie much the same, without going into detail. It was always the Beattie labor government rather than the Beattie Labor Government.

Then there was the election of Rudd. The written policies were great. But implementing same – rather limp. Take ‘education’ as an example. Rudd could have ‘given a Gonski’ in his first term. In many ways, there was noting ‘new ‘ in Gonski. The ‘problem’ of school funding was well known and how it might be addressed had been well canvassed over time. (The real architect was Ken Boston who could have written the report in a spare wet weekend.) But Rudd refused to act in his first term. He refused to address a problem of ‘equity’ that was at the heart of written Labor Policy. He refused to act when he had the political capital.

ALP ‘policies’ meant nothing. Rudd’s ‘priorities’ ruled.

I could go on but won’t.
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 8:14 pm

@Harquebus – Labor has increased membership substantially since 2012 at least. Where did you get that info from? Also I don’t think I’d put out a plea for you to join Labor, you need to share Labor values.
HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 8:15 pm

Cornlegend
Thank you for the corrections and no, I haven’t but, I do email my reps. and many other politicians, over one hundred, regularly.
Mark Butler has responded only a couple of times and Zoe Bettison has never.
I have recently heard back from Tanya Plibersek however, it was obvious that she had not understood and only responded with a cut and paste Labor policy. Malcolm Turnbull and Jay Weatherill have also responded a couple of times, Bill Shorten has never.
Jay Weatherill has also responded in writing to a written letter when I actually used my real name. Again, Zoe couldn’t give a shit.
The vast majority of responses that I get from politicians come from their aides.
I have also met Penny Wong during the 2013 election and was pleased that she recognized Harquebus who, I introduced myself as.
HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 8:21 pm

Trish.
It was a while ago and was why I said “The last I heard”.
Thank you for the correction. I did just come across this while trying to determine it one way or another.
Again, it is a few years out of date.

“parties are notoriously secretive about their membership numbers.”

The party’s over: which clubs have the most members?

Cheers.
Matters NotAugust 22, 2016 at 8:35 pm

The vast majority of responses that I get from politicians come from their aides.

What’s with this vast majority nonsense? Any elected politician who personally responds to correspondence will have a very, very short political life. (Wasting their ‘political’ time and all that.)

Harquebus, from my reading of your posts, I can’t imagine any serious political office giving you anything more than a ‘form letter’ reply. You would be regarded as a universal, serial ‘pest’. And take it from me, political ‘aides’ do talk to each other – have a laugh. And then respond in like manner.
Kaye LeeAugust 22, 2016 at 8:53 pm

I think Ted Mack’s views worth repeating in this conversation….

“Political parties as they have developed over the last century seem like two mafia families seeking control of the public purse for distribution to themselves, supporters, the special interests who fund them and for buying votes at the next election. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. They are effectively unregulated private organisations but they now control government treasuries.

When they unite with common interests, for example funding themselves, the public are mostly powerless except on the rare occasions when public outrage is too great.

…the dominance of the major parties by little known and unimpressive faction leaders who have effective control of Australia’s democracy and destiny… might be tolerable if the major parties acted with integrity but they do not. Their constant battles for power are venal, vicious and vulgar.

Over the last 30 years politicians’ staff has increased dramatically. At federal level there are now some 17 hundred personal staff to ministers and members. The states probably account for over two thousand more. Add to this the direct political infiltration of federal-state public services and quangos with hundreds more jobs for the boys and girls, there is now a well-established political class.

This has provided the political parties with a career path for members. In many cases it often produces skilled, partisan, “whatever it takes” warriors with a richly rewarded life through local state and federal governments to a well-funded retirement. Unfortunately while this career path, as Tony Fitzgerald states, does include principled well-motivated people … it also attracts professional politicians with little or no general life experience and unscrupulous opportunists, unburdened by ethics, who obsessively pursue power, money or both.

….virtually all government decisions are made in private by small groups of people who are in many cases not in parliament. Public funding of elections was first introduced into NSW in 1981 and federally in 1984 on the basis that it would reduce private donations. Neville Wran presented the Bill and concluded his speech by saying this Bill will remove the risk of parties selling political favours and declares to the world that the great political parties of New South Wales are not up for sale.

Since then an escalating “arms war” of election spending has developed with public funding steadily increasing and private funding increasing even faster.

The taxpayer cost of federal elections has increased from $38 million in 1984 to $161 million in 2010. Of the latter $53 million was public funding to parties and candidates. Currently, in spite of massive increases, public funding is less than 20 per cent of about $350 million total election spending. We are now effectively the second best democracy money can buy.”
Matters NotAugust 22, 2016 at 9:18 pm

Yes KL, Mack does provide ‘insight’ as to how it really works. Branches can (and do) develop ‘policy’ which is taken to the next level where some ‘horse trading’ occurs and then, more often than not, is then referred to an appropriate ‘committee’ which ‘refines’ the ‘proposals’. Those ‘committees’ are invariably dominated by groups who have a vested interested in ensuring a particular outcome.

Then there’s further ‘horse trading’, along the lines of if you support this set of policies, then we will support yours. Now what could be more democratic than that?

A real set of ‘feel’ good policies all round. And everyone is happy. Time for a drink. Plenty of congratulations. See you next year. And we will do it all again.

Is the next Labor leader bound by those policies? Only in theory. But certainly not in practice. We must have ‘priorities’ and all that.

(But don’t tell the foot soldiers because we need well meaning people to hand out — and all that.) ?
HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 9:35 pm

Matters Not.
I posted links to a couple of examples just over a week ago when you were participating in your usual sport of Harquebus bashing. You obviously didn’t check them out. Instead, you prefer to make something up that conforms to your small world view.
You know nothing.

Kaye Lee.
That was a great post. Can I please have the source.
Kaye LeeAugust 22, 2016 at 9:51 pm

Harquebus,

It was the 2013 Henry Parkes Oration. It is 12 pages long but very worth reading the whole thing.

https://parkesfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/hporation2013.pdf

Shorter abstract here

Government of the people, by the powerbrokers, for the mates
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 10:07 pm

Ted Mack is an Independent – so yes, his points are worth looking at. Let’s have a look at some of them:

“Political parties as they have developed over the last century seem like two mafia families seeking control of the public purse for distribution to themselves, supporters, the special interests who fund them and for buying votes at the next election. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. They are effectively unregulated private organisations but they now control government treasuries.”

The first assumption in this point, is that political parties are only in it for themselves. How on earth has Australia ever progressed then?
This comment is as silly as that Roberts Senator stating that NASA is skewing the data on Climate change for personal gain.

“When they unite with common interests, for example funding themselves, the public are mostly powerless except on the rare occasions when public outrage is too great.”

At the age of 23 I had electricity legislation changed by having a sentence amended to “over 18 except for the provision of necessity.” I was advocating on behalf of some under 18 homeless young people who could not get the electricity connected. So this shows that individuals can indeed have legislation changed, as can community groups or segments of the country. To say legislation is only changed in times of rage or that community members don’t have any input, is a complete fallacy.

“…the dominance of the major parties by little known and unimpressive faction leaders who have effective control of Australia’s democracy and destiny… might be tolerable if the major parties acted with integrity but they do not. Their constant battles for power are venal, vicious and vulgar.”

I can’t speak for other parties, but it is well documented that Labor has undergone and is still undergoing a system of reform in this area. Abbott has also mentioned democratising his party. It would also be ignorant to say that the Greens don’t have the conservative-environmentalists, the environmentalists and the socialists as groups within their party. ONP, Family First and DLP for example don’t have factions. Why are they better than a major party or a minor/major party like the Greens? The fact is they are not. I personally agree with the idea of factions. It is democracy inside of democracy. Solidarity inside of solidarity. Once again, he puts forth no argument how a system of independents would not have this. To pass legislation they would need to form blocs. To say that political jostling in blocs would not occur, is not supported by any organisational psychology and sociology theory involving human interaction in groups.

“Over the last 30 years politicians’ staff has increased dramatically. At federal level there are now some 17 hundred personal staff to ministers and members. The states probably account for over two thousand more. Add to this the direct political infiltration of federal-state public services and quangos with hundreds more jobs for the boys and girls, there is now a well-established political class.”

So, is he implying that public servants are a waste of tax payers dollars. If he put forward an argument that the number of people required with the relevant Knowledge skills and abilities to undertake the necessary task components of the jobs that assist politicians to assist communities, to develop the nation, were in abundance, then he may have an argument. But he hasn’t and does not. We have already seen the affects of administration cuts in the public sector under Newman and how that affected real people and communities. I hope he means personnel staff and not personal staff!

“This has provided the political parties with a career path for members. In many cases it often produces skilled, partisan, “whatever it takes” warriors with a richly rewarded life through local state and federal governments to a well-funded retirement. Unfortunately while this career path, as Tony Fitzgerald states, does include principled well-motivated people … it also attracts professional politicians with little or no general life experience and unscrupulous opportunists, unburdened by ethics, who obsessively pursue power, money or both.”

I’m glad he noted that this does include well motivated people. He really should add genuine people dedicated to community and the nation. Career progression is underpinned by the theories of job satisfaction and the constructs which underpin those theories. This is found in all professions, including politics. He seems to hold himself in high esteem above all others. The fact that he denied himself a pension – well big deal. He could just be a wealthy man able to afford a political stunt. If I choose to be as cynical as he is being in his arguments.

“….virtually all government decisions are made in private by small groups of people who are in many cases not in parliament. Public funding of elections was first introduced into NSW in 1981 and federally in 1984 on the basis that it would reduce private donations. Neville Wran presented the Bill and concluded his speech by saying this Bill will remove the risk of parties selling political favours and declares to the world that the great political parties of New South Wales are not up for sale. Since then an escalating “arms war” of election spending has developed with public funding steadily increasing and private funding increasing even faster.”

His premise here is that donation reform is unable to occur if major parties are in power. That is not true. The other arguments are implicit, in that a system of independents would solve this. Not so. If his view is that powerful entities donate for political favours and donation reform is not able to be achieved (that must still stand for the hypothetical, otherwise his first point is moot) So a system of independents would need to vote in blocs to pass legislation, so if political donations existed, then why would powerful entities not just donate to these blocs, if we are to believe his argument to be true?

The other thing he omits is that Independents receive the same funding from the AEC as candidates in parties.

“The taxpayer cost of federal elections has increased from $38 million in 1984 to $161 million in 2010. Of the latter $53 million was public funding to parties and candidates. Currently, in spite of massive increases, public funding is less than 20 per cent of about $350 million total election spending. We are now effectively the second best democracy money can buy.”

Yes democracy does cost money and so it should! Why should a voter have to make a decision based on lack of information? The number one key reason of the failure of the trust in the recent census was lack of communication and lack of information to the public. As an independent, did he not communicate with his electorate? Did he just stand in the town square and shout hear ye! Hear ye! through a megaphone? Is his argument to have less information disseminated, or is his argument that private donations should be exempt and the tax payer should fund more and the funding from the AEC should increase?

So thanks for posting that Kaye. So is this you in agreement of an individualist based system of decision making in parliament and are you also standing against collective decision making in parliament, or were you just posting someone elses view point. BTW a quick read of Ted Mack is he aligns fairly much inbetween nationalism and libertarianism. Of course his views would be against collectivism. But it doesn’t mean that there are flaws in his arguments that can be refuted.
Matters NotAugust 22, 2016 at 10:09 pm

you were participating in your usual sport of Harquebus bashing

Really. ? Harquebus bashing? Please. I have a life. Forgive me, but aren’t you the one who argues that ‘offence’ is never taken? ? Only given? That we all ought to toughen up? But apparently, that only applies to the ‘other’, does it not? Except of course when you take it personally?

As for your links? I did check out your link to the Frankfurt School? ? Hilarious as it was. What with your wide reading and all that, I now just dismiss your links as those of a ‘nutter’. Sorry.

But, here’s a promise from me. I will completely ignore you in the future.
cornlegendAugust 22, 2016 at 10:29 pm

If bloody Independents are so wonderful, it’s 115 or so years since Federation and we have 3 in the H.O.R
I guess the punters don’t think so :-{
And Sophie gone off working for Gina now , damn my day got worse
HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 10:30 pm

Kaye Lee.
Many thanks.

Matters Not.
There you go off on a tangent again. Assuming that I take offense to anything you say is laughable.
I believe that link was about Critical Theory which, until that point I had never heard off, admitted such and only posted for sharing purposes and commentary.
Completely ignore me? Ha! We’ll see how long that lasts.
At least you’re good for a laugh.
Cheers.
HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 10:48 pm

Trish.
You’re trying too hard. Some of your arguments are a bit lame.
Kaye LeeAugust 22, 2016 at 11:07 pm

Trish,

Where to begin? Let me start at the end.

I posted “someone else’s views” because I found it a very interesting read from someone who has actually been in the position of being an independent politician, unlike you or me, and thought others might as well.

You are idealistic Trish (so are the Greens) and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that unless it makes you so intractible, so programmed to defend that you cannot ever consider that there could be any other way. You are loyal and committed – both admirable qualities – but are you willing to entertain suggestions on how the system could be improved?

You make statements like “Career progression is underpinned by the theories of job satisfaction and the constructs which underpin those theories. This is found in all professions, including politics.”

Are you suggesting that progression in politics is a reward for altruistic service to the people, or that ministerial appointments are merit based and have nothing to do with how you voted at the latest leadership spill?

“The first assumption in this point, is that political parties are only in it for themselves….This comment is as silly as that Roberts Senator stating that NASA is skewing the data on Climate change for personal gain.”

Ya think? You don’t think politicians ever “skew the data” to win?

Could I also point out that “personal staff to ministers and members” is not the same thing as “public servants”.

“donation reform is unable to occur if major parties are in power. That is not true.”

Oh really? ICAC would indicate otherwise.

“a system of independents would need to vote in blocs to pass legislation”

Or they could all have the right to introduce bills on the basis of expert advice and vote how they, as individuals, assessed that advice combined with the best interests of their electorate and, more broadly, the country and planet. You don’t need a bloc if you have good advice and a conscience.

“Why should a voter have to make a decision based on lack of information?”

We own a national broadcasting service with a very wide reach. We have an AEC who could provide information about candidates. Politicians and candidates can give interviews, write newspaper articles, create a blog, attend meetings and debates. I find junk mail, phone calls, door knocking, and railway pamphlet thrusting very annoying.

I wish I thought Labor wanted to listen and improve but it seems, at least from their supporters, that there is nothing they could possibly do better.
Matters NotAugust 22, 2016 at 11:08 pm

If bloody Independents are so wonderful, it’s 115 or so years since Federation and we have 3 in the H.O.R I guess the punters don’t think so

Now that’s really insightful. ?

FFS. There’s a radical change in the political ‘common sense’ and all the (self claimed) ‘power brokers’ can resort to is along the lines of: Well it hasn’t happened yet. ?

Dear oh dear. The sad fact is that it won’t even be on the agenda for the next ‘branch meeting’. Why, we have to discuss whose turn it is to hand out … ? Or maybe who is holding the next ..

The whole arrangement is screwed.

But having said that I’m not sure the best way to proceed. Nevertheless, I do know that the current path is just a nonsense,
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:15 pm

“Trish you’re trying too hard. Some of your arguments are a bit lame.”

Well Harquebus – please set me straight then, with your non-lame support of his points.
Kaye LeeAugust 22, 2016 at 11:22 pm

Our current system is “winner takes all” which promotes the “whatever it takes” mentality. We have a winner, an understudy, and some burs under the saddle. Personally I would like to see a multi-party executive.
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:30 pm

I’m going to put all of my responses to you Kaye, in separate comment boxes, so it isn’t another swarm of text.

I posted “someone else’s views” because I found it a very interesting read from someone who has actually been in the position of being an independent politician, unlike you or me, and thought others might as well.

Thanks for clarifying that Kaye. It was merely a question of whether this was your view, or whether you just thought this view should some discussion. The two do not need to be mutually exclusive.
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:31 pm

“You are idealistic Trish (so are the Greens) and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that unless it makes you so intractible, so programmed to defend that you cannot ever consider that there could be any other way. You are loyal and committed – both admirable qualities – but are you willing to entertain suggestions on how the system could be improved?”

Thanks for that personal judgement of again, someone you don’t know! I see idealism as a non-thinking, fantasy world clap trap, so thanks again! (Not!)

“So programmed to defend that you cannot ever consider that there could be any other way.”

OK – what do you call my initial article and the specifically articulated points of rebuttal for each point? Your personal view of how committed to a party I am is completely irrelevant, unless you can refute why my counter arguments have absolutely no merit, – please do so. Otherwise, you are just being blatantly insulting. For example, I have given examples throughout my counterpoints where I talk about WHY a system of independents would not solve the problem. How is that being idealistic and just aligning with my party for the sake of it. I’d really, really, like to hear your explanation for this.
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:32 pm

“Are you suggesting that progression in politics is a reward for altruistic service to the people, or that ministerial appointments are merit based and have nothing to do with how you voted at the latest leadership spill?”

I am saying that career progression is underpinned by the theories of job satisfaction – digs as far back as the underlying constructs of Maslows theory and Herzbergs theory and each person has different drivers that propel them towards career progression. That is why you may see a 60 year old who has been an A03 since they were 15 and a 30 year old CEO in the same company. As to aligning with the right people to progress oneself, does this not happen in other professions? If a system of independents was in place, we would still need ministers yes? Then would the same alignment with others to secure votes of confidence not occur, or would they just draw them out of a hat? Once again, that argument (not it is your argument. I have put it there in the absence of one!) is not supported by any organizational behaviour or sociology based theory involving people in groups. You could possibly have an independent panel of experts assess politicians on a pure merit based scale, but then, that could also be implemented within a party system and is does not need to exist within an Individualist based system. So what is your point?
Kaye LeeAugust 22, 2016 at 11:33 pm

Trish, could I suggest before you formulate your “:separate comment boxes” that you actually read Ted Mack’s speech in its entirety and comment on it rather than responding to me. It is a speech worthy of consideration.
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:35 pm

Ya think? You don’t think politicians ever “skew the data” to win?

Ya think you could actually come up with a decent counterpoint to mine? That would be helpful! Please explain how society has not progressed under a two party system and why a system of independents would progress society more. That is if we assume the system of independents voted in were progressive and not conservative. Please explain why a system of independents would not be conducive to political donations if they had to form blocs to vote? If you state that we wouldn’t have political donations, then that is a moot point, as political donation reform has been and will continue under a party system.

Is your personal preference to not disseminate enough information to voters and deny them their democratic right of informed choice, or is your personal preference that the tax payer fund more towards this to guarantee voters their democratic right of informed choice?
Kaye LeeAugust 22, 2016 at 11:35 pm

Idealism is an unrealistic belief in perfection Trish, which is what I feel you have for the Labor Party.
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:36 pm

Trish, could I suggest before you formulate your “:separate comment boxes” that you actually read Ted Mack’s speech in its entirety and comment on it rather than responding to me. It is a speech worthy of consideration.

Kaye, I have just read up on him. If you want someone to respond to more than what you have put in an online forum, you need to put this effort in. Not expect other people to go an read more because you think it adds weight to your claims.
Matters NotAugust 22, 2016 at 11:36 pm

you are just being blatantly insulting

Wow. Yep, I’ve noticed that about KL. Insults, here, there and everywhere. ? ? ?

Please. Any chance of a different dialogue?

(That others can provide an instant response is annoying). But understandable.
Kaye LeeAugust 22, 2016 at 11:37 pm

FFS Trish, I am out. There is no discussing anything with you. You want total agreement or nothing. Your “prove me wrong” attitude reminds me of Malcolm Roberts
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:42 pm

Idealism is an unrealistic belief in perfection Trish, which is what I feel you have for the Labor Party.

Would you like some sprinkles on your nice cold chunk of insult there Kaye? I’ve already pointed out you are being insulting. ARe you really saying to me, that as someone who has quite a decent level of education, who is well read, who takes the time to put together, (I would like to think) articulate well thought out pieces over a number of years, that I am unable to think for myself, to view other parties and assess them? To view other situations and assess them? That I am incapable of critical thought? That I don’t have the capacity to reject or accept other points of view? Why are you implying that I am a narrow minded dimwit? You are putting me alongside radical nationalists or radical socialists or far right libertarians, or which I am none of these.

It probably would be best if you just stuck to the arguments, instead of another round of your personal judgements about me. We have been there before, you do not appear to listen that you are indeed insulting in the way you speak about me, so please just stick to the arguments, as I don’t desire to sit through more of any of your judgements of what you think about me as a person it and personally I don’t find it acceptable. I think it is down right rude.
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:49 pm

I don’t have a prove me wrong attitude Kaye. Just put up an actual bloody point of view and defend something for once instead of pointing your finger at me.

I told you last time that you applied personal value judgements about me as a person, I would call it out. I am not going to sit here and have you lavish your personal judgements about me on a public forum and just sit back in silence. What does it bring to the debate Kaye? It brings nothing but hostility.

This party hack bullshit has got to stop. It is constantly used as an excuse by people who can’t/won’t/don’t have the gumption to back what they are saying and actually debate a topic.
Matters NotAugust 22, 2016 at 11:53 pm

Dear oh dear. Want to have a debate about how ‘branches’ in the ALP are just a sideshow?

But maybe not?

Look above.
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:55 pm

If you like. What are your points?
HarquebusAugust 22, 2016 at 11:55 pm

Trish.

I kept it short because I don’t want to be here all night. I’m only going to do a couple.
No offense was meant. Your response was, in my opinion, nitpicking and too long.

“Political parties as they have developed over the last century seem like two mafia families seeking control of the public purse for distribution to themselves, supporters, the special interests who fund them and for buying votes at the next election. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. They are effectively unregulated private organisations but they now control government treasuries.”

The first assumption in this point, is that political parties are only in it for themselves. How on earth has Australia ever progressed then?

In my opinion, that is not an assumption but, I can see that for a die hard like you that, it could be. All of my friends and peers also see political parties as Ted Mack does. None has any respect for major parties. They are despised by all. Who’s fault is that?
It also depends on one’s definition of progress. For me, it means the continual destruction of all that is required to sustain us and we thank both major parties for that.

“When they unite with common interests, for example funding themselves, the public are mostly powerless except on the rare occasions when public outrage is too great.”

At the age of 23 I had electricity legislation changed by having a sentence amended to “over 18 except for the provision of necessity.” I was advocating on behalf of some under 18 homeless young people who could not get the electricity connected. So this shows that individuals can indeed have legislation changed, as can community groups or segments of the country. To say legislation is only changed in times of rage or that community members don’t have any input, is a complete fallacy.

Your example of legislative change is out of context. The sentence states, “with common interests, for example funding themselves”.
Try changing legislation so as to remove pollies perks and lurks for example. You will have less than buckley’s and no hope at all at getting that done.

You get an A for effort only.

Cheers.

I’m outta here.
Seeyatermorra.
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:57 pm

In my opinion, that is not an assumption but, I can see that for a die hard like you that, it could be. All of my friends and peers also see political parties as Ted Mack does. None has any respect for major parties. They are despised by all. Who’s fault is that?
It also depends on one’s definition of progress. For me, it means the continual destruction of all that is required to sustain us and we thank both major parties for that.

OK – so how will a system of Independents be the opposite of what you see?
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:57 pm

Try changing legislation so as to remove pollies perks and lurks for example. You will have less than buckley’s and no hope at all at getting that done.

The QLD Government has already done this. Next………..
Trish CorryAugust 22, 2016 at 11:59 pm

To add to that one – how will a system of Independents change this to what you want to see? 1. The remuneration is set by an Independent tribunal and 2. If it wasn’t, then they would need to form blocs to vote to change it.
BacchusAugust 23, 2016 at 12:28 am

ARe you really saying to me, that as someone who has quite a decent level of education, who is well read, who takes the time to put together, (I would like to think) articulate well thought out pieces over a number of years, that I am unable to think for myself, to view other parties and assess them?

You seem to be doing a remarkable job of exactly that Trish 😉 Perhaps your belief in your own self-worth is VASTLY over-rated?
Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 12:32 am

I tried not to write this but I feel I also have the right to not just accept what you are accusing me of Trish.

You have written before that people have told you to “stop being so sensitive”, a comment that would also perturb me because we should be able to tell people what hurts us, but your assertion that I am not addressing the issues and am just on a personal vendetta to insult you is just wrong.

You start important conversations with your articles Trish and then shut them down with your comments.
Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 12:36 am

Kaye what is the difference between calling someone a fat pig and implying someone is incapable of critical thinking and their brain is so numb that they can only think in one trajectory? No. I don’t shut them down. I think I have a right to point out that your unnecessary value judgements about me as a person add absolutely nothing to the debate. I think I have the right to ask you to stick to the arguments because I shouldn’t have to defend my level of intelligence, because you decide my intelligence is below par. Maybe just think about that. Maybe think about why you do it, what you think it adds and why you think it adds anything to a debate.
Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 12:38 am

Yes, we are all entitled to our opinion Bacchus, as you are to yours. I don’t normally talk myself up, I’m actually quite introverted and honestly, it felt awkward and probably came out awkward. I was simply trying to point out I’m actually not a moron.
Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 12:41 am

and Kaye, if you actually want to state why the system does need to be torn down and how a system of independents would make the system better, please do so, because you have not done so thus far.
Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 1:09 am

“I think I have a right to point out that your unnecessary value judgements about me as a person add absolutely nothing to the debate. I think I have the right to ask you to stick to the arguments because I shouldn’t have to defend my level of intelligence, because you decide my intelligence is below par. Maybe just think about that. Maybe think about why you do it, what you think it adds and why you think it adds anything to a debate.”

Now you are really pissing me off. You play the intellectual card all the time Trish, no doubt with credentials to back it up. You also seem to view comments as personal insults when they are no such thing which then makes the discussion about you instead of the topic.

What exactly are you suggesting when you completely misquote me and then say “think about why you do it”?
Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 1:37 am

Ok let’s clarify this then.

Kaye says: Idealism is an unrealistic belief in perfection Trish, which is what I feel you have for the Labor Party.

So to clarify this Kaye. You are saying that I have an unrealistic belief that the Labor party is perfect. Hence, that affects my judgement and my ability to think critically about a topic. You cannot say that I have an unrealistic belief in perfection of something and also believe I am open minded, critical and I can openly reject and defend why I reject the counter point to my own stance.

Please just explain why you think that your personal judgement that I am unable to think critically about a topic (which I wrote I may add), adds anything to the debate. and please explain why you think that implying someone has such a skewed and blatantly biased opinion is not an insult, or at least patronizing.

So there is your cut and paste. No misquote at all.

Sorry if you made the thread about me Kaye, but you really could have just explained your position on the topic, rather than actually making it about me or what you think I’m thinking, so I didn’t have to defend that I think your opinion of me is a load of garbage.
Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 1:43 am

Here is the first quote.

“You are idealistic Trish (so are the Greens) and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that unless it makes you so intractible, so programmed to defend that you cannot ever consider that there could be any other way.

Please refer to the same comments above.

Did it not occur to you for a second, that to actually write the article in the first place, I had to actually think critically about the opposing arguments?
HarquebusAugust 23, 2016 at 10:07 am

Trish

Two parties can collude to benefit themselves much better than 150 odd independents.

“The QLD Government has already done this. Next………..”
Whoopedy doo! What about the rest? Next……

“remuneration is set by an Independent tribunal”
No tribunal is going to bite the hand that feeds it.

I despise the Labor Party as much as I despise the Coalition. I don’t like Bill Shorten, Tanya Plibersek, Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard and a whole lot of others. The whole lot of them are a bunch of know nothings who, have contributed to the destruction of the natural world by serving corporate interest at the expense of all and everyone else.
Your one eyed support for and defense of every criticism of the Labor Party makes you look like a brainwashed party minion who can not think for herself. Everyone else is wrong and only you are right.

Your articles and comments are nothing more than opinionated sales pitches in defense of the unworthy and the undeserving and your tactics are no different to those used by China’s obscene propaganda machine.
Rather than criticize others for not agreeing with you, I suggest that you go back to your Labor rabbit hole and start thinking about what’s really important and then, if the Labor Party ever starts delivering real solutions instead of the usual constant barrage of unicorn shit that is their norm then, I might develop some respect for them.

While Labor politicians continue to represent the Labor Party in lieu of their constituents, I will never vote for them.
You have a long way to go.

Cheers.
Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 10:27 am

The ABC has revealed that between 2013 and 2015 Chinese-linked companies and individuals made more than $5.5 million in donations to both Labor and the Coalition.

The donations include $850,000 given to the ALP by a businessman whose address is shared by a centre for retired Communist Party officials.

“114 countries have banned political donations from foreign donors, it’s high time Australia was the 115th,”

Professor George Williams from the University of New South Wales Law School said Australia’s political finance laws are in “very bad shape” compared to other nations.

“We have a system that’s open to the possibility of undue influence and of determining outcomes that aren’t in the best interests of the community,” he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-22/foreign-donations-could-skew-australias-democracy-politicans/7775060
cornlegendAugust 23, 2016 at 10:59 am

Harquebus
“I don’t like Bill Shorten, Tanya Plibersek, Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard and a whole lot of others”
Why didn’t you just name the Labor Shadow Ministers and all the backbenchers as well?

I’ve actually found them to be quite intelligent {Turnbull and Abbott as well, even allowing for their nutter politics}

“remuneration is set by an Independent tribunal”
No tribunal is going to bite the hand that feeds it.

How would you do it, other than the current Independent Tribunal.
Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 11:20 am

I’m sorry you see my writing and comments as opinion sales pieces Harquebus. Perhaps you could point out where I have just flatly denied that destroying the current model and replacing with a system of independents is a better way to go, without giving my reasons for rejecting a new model. If you could perhaps direct me to any arguments advocating as to why a system of independents or minors would be better I’m happy to readdress them. This article isn’t even about Labor but current and new systems of Government. Do you perhaps read all of my posts with a preconceived idea that I have only put one point of view forward? That I’ve written with blatant bias? If so please present an argument to show I have. Please put something forward as to why you reject the current system. If I refute that, then it is your turn to say why I should accept it. To say I’m just one eyed is a bit of a cop out. When I have been insistent and welcoming and asking for an opposing view. If that opposing view is refuted it’s not up to me to put another case forward, it’s up to you.
HarquebusAugust 23, 2016 at 12:27 pm

Cornlegend.
Time and space.
Intelligent idiots and fools with Bob Carr being Australia’s most intelligent idiot fool. All the politicians that I have met are ignorant of the physical laws that govern us. Every one of them.
The tribunal is independent in name only. How ’bout randomly selected citizens? Don’t worry, it’ll never happen.

Trish
I responded to your call above and am not going to repeat myself.
My opinion of you and your articles is of your own making as is my opinion of politicians is theirs.

“point out where I have just flatly denied that destroying the current model and replacing with a system of independents is a better way to go”
I don’t recall accusing you of this. Please point it out for me.

“Please put something forward as to why you reject the current system.”
It’s called the “Sixth Mass Extinction Event”. Look it up, it’s no secret. You, me and all the rest, we are all on the list. All of our opinions will be irrelevant if, the system doesn’t change.

Avagoodwun.
Möbius EckoAugust 23, 2016 at 1:47 pm

Kaye Lee at 10:27 am

The donations include $850,000 given to the ALP by a businessman whose address is shared by a centre for retired Communist Party officials.

Note that the ABC singled out the ALP but not the L-NP, though $5.5 million in donations was specified. Indeed Uhlmann’s piece on ABC News24 emphasised the ALP donation and didn’t mentioned the L-NP except to say that the money was donated to both major parties in his opening.
Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 1:52 pm

Ok so we are in agreement then that the system should remain the same, as you can’t or won’t give any reason why it should be destroyed and why an alternative system of independents and minors should replace it. All righty then! At least that is sorted!
Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 1:59 pm

The questions to be asked about donations and corruption are:
1. Can this system be reformed in the existing system? If not, why?
2. Do we agree that the public have a democratic right to make an informed vote? If yes how do we ensure the AEC funds are enough? Increase Taxpayer AEC funding proportion or something else?
3 if No? Why do the public not have the democratic right to an informed vote and what are the consequences of this?
4. If donations remained is a system of independents and minors still a risk to the same corruption concerns? If no, why not?
Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 2:18 pm

The Malcolm Roberts approach. Show me evidence for me to ignore. Prove me wrong by Friday or I will take it that you endorse what I have said.
Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 2:25 pm

Oh Jesus! Tad pathetic Kaye. Should we not think about anything at all anymore because you don’t like it? Maybe others might want to think about the questions that have arisen by a broad cut and paste which implicitly assumes you mean that Labor are corrupt. Because you didn’t really add anything to it or state your actual view. Hopefully someone will take the questions I put seriously. Destroying and existing system of Governance is not a joke!
Möbius EckoAugust 23, 2016 at 2:34 pm

Kaye Lee I read on some US Republican Senators who are part of a group that before they will believe in climate change are demanding that the scientists come up with a list of impossibilities, such as 70% of all the world’s islands under water, 500 million dead directly related to climate, large swaths of the earth cracked and dry and the extinction of all reptilia.

So much in the Roberts vein that he must have got his inspiration from them.
Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 2:40 pm

I thought it was all settled. You informed us that we are all in agreement. The system is just fine and dandy. No problemo.

And, in case you missed it, it has been proven that politicians from both parties have acted corruptly. Paying an amount of money to ensure the party bloc vote is so much easier than paying for individual votes. Branch stacking and rewards for party hacks has led to some very ordinary people winning preselection for all the wrong reasons.

I am not sure why you think the only way voters can be informed is by parties wasting hundreds of millions on pamphlets and 30 second ads. Seeing photos of your local candidate all over the place doesn’t inform voters of anything. As I mentioned before, there are other ways.

I do not want to “destroy” governance. I want the system changed so we actually have governance with integrity and accountability and we don’t end up handing people like Joe Bullock a job.
Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 2:42 pm

ME,

What better example of the corruption that the party system allows than climate change denial, bought and paid for.
Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 2:49 pm

Oh that is interesting. You want the system changed. It would be productive if you actually stated what would be and how it would work don’t you think?

“You informed us that we are all in agreement. The system is just fine and dandy. No problemo”

I was also responding to Harquebus’ lack of response in a purposely facetious tone and you know it.

“I am not sure why you think the only way voters can be informed is by parties wasting hundreds of millions on pamphlets and 30 second ads. As I mentioned before, there are other ways. – ”

It is your argument that we need to change because of corruption – not mine. So it isn’t about what I think. It is about you responding to my counterpoint as to how we ensure people are informed on much less money, by taking out private donations.

Also, can Donations be removed or reformed to ensure no risk of corruption within the current system? That is an important question raised from your (kind of ambiguous) claim with your cut and paste.
Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 2:50 pm

“What better example of the corruption that the party system allows than climate change denial, bought and paid for.”

That has not improved with the current independents and minor parties we have in 2016. What is your point?
Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 2:54 pm

This has become farcical.
Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 2:59 pm

OK.
cornlegendAugust 23, 2016 at 3:41 pm

“What better example of the corruption that the party system allows than climate change denial, bought and paid for.”
How did Labor do that, It tried, then succeeded, only to have it undone, and have still not given up.
Who do you allege “bought” them ?
HarquebusAugust 23, 2016 at 4:05 pm

Trish

“Ok so we are in agreement then that the system should remain the same, as you can’t or won’t give any reason why it should be destroyed”
Which part of “Sixth Mass Extinction Event” did you not understand? You are a bigger idiot than the sock puppet politicians that you defend.

You are more than farcical, you are a dangerous joke who, is unwilling or incapable of listening, interpreting or understanding. You hear and see only what you want to hear and see and ignore the rest.
When they brainwashed you, they did the complete job, eh?

Let’s hear how Labor is going to reduce consumption, return the balance of nature and save us from a certain bloody future.

No, instead Labor is going to increase energy production, grow populations, grow the economy, build massive amounts of energy guzzling infrastructure and pay off debt all while trying to reduce greenhouse gasses and the budget deficit…. Ha! It ain’t gonna happen. Physics trumps politics every time.

Earth overshoot was on August the 8th. This to me is a far more serious issue than your pathetic arguments about current and hypothetical parliaments.
http://qz.com/753603/as-of-today-we-have-used-up-all-the-earths-resources-for-2016/
http://www.overshootday.org/

Your pathetic arguments and irrelevant questioning only proves to me your ignorance and small mindedness. If you’re not going to be part of the solution then, at least butt out and stop being part of the problem.

If you want to know why politicians are despised so much, take a good long look in the mirror. You are just like them.

Ciao.
Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 4:09 pm

“If you’re not going to be part of the solution then, at least butt out and stop being part of the problem.”

Umm………..You do know I wrote the article?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?

Harquebus – Your hatred and accusations are starting to get a bit disturbing to be honest. I’ll ask you to just tone it down please. There is no need for it.
HarquebusAugust 23, 2016 at 4:14 pm

Trish
Yep.
Get a grip on real world and you’ve got a deal.
Cheers.
paulwalterAugust 23, 2016 at 4:55 pm

For my part I will withhold judgement as to the ALP until this issue becomes more clear.

http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/turnbull-government-cuts-policy-principles-along-with-welfare-20160822-gqy1s9#ixzz4I78Ipphs

If they fail this time on an issue of principle, I am finished with them for good.
Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 4:56 pm

Its blocked for me Paul. What is it about?
Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 5:02 pm

“How did Labor do that”

Why is every comment judged as a criticism of Labor? I will say that I am perturbed about mining approvals by state governments (Queensland comes to mind) but I understand the pressure they are under to provide jobs. I would prefer to see the Qld Labor government looking elsewhere than great big coal mines that put the reef in danger – renewable energy, high speed rail linking Brisbane to Melbourne, public transport, fix up their health services.

NSW is also a worry considering the corruption we have already seen.

The Member for Balmain recently introduced a private member’s bill aimed to reduce corruption in NSW by banning political donations from mining and petroleum companies. ICAC has previously highlighted the corruption risk faced by the mining and resource sector as it directly benefits from government decisions.

The Mining and Petroleum Industry Political Donations Legislation Amendment (Corruption Risk Reduction) Bill 2015 extends to the mining and petroleum industry the current bans on political donations from the tobacco, alcohol, gambling and real estate development industries.

Donations declared to the New South Wales Electoral Commission in the period 2003-14 include over $1 million donated from resources companies in general to Labor, Liberal and The Nationals; lobbyists donated $1.8 million; Minerals Council of New South Wales donated $120,000; AGL donated $123,000; New South Wales Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group donated $106,000; Sydney Gas donated $71,000; Nathan Tinkler donated $50,000; Santos donated $38,000; BHP donated $26,000; Xtrata donated $27,000; Centennial Coal donated $19,000 and Gugarat NRE donated $24,000.

“Corporate interests do not donate money unless they want something in return,” said Mr Parker.

“In rejecting this opportunity to support donations reform, Labor and Liberal have shown themselves to value the interests of the mining industry over a clean, democratic process.”
paulwalterAugust 23, 2016 at 5:17 pm

You’re kidding, Trish?

A Fin Review article by Richard Denness, 22/8, “Government
Cuts Policy Principles Along With Welfare”.

I see the problem, it keeps flipping to an ad.

Ok, so a number of reports claim that the government wants to cut even further unemployment benefit which is already a pittance.

I am waiting to see if the ALP goes with the government, if it does it will be the death of any thing I’d recognise to be Labor if it goes along something this vicious.
cornlegendAugust 23, 2016 at 6:02 pm

Kaye Lee, you cherry picked.
you said
““What better example of the corruption that the party system allows than climate change denial, bought and paid for.”
and I asked how
“How did Labor do that, It tried, then succeeded, only to have it undone, and have still not given up.
Who do you allege “bought” them ?”
I am assuming Labor is part of the “party system” you allege is “bought and paid for “?
Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 6:06 pm

I was actually thinking of the Republicans, in response to ME’s comment.
Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 6:20 pm

Yep I can understand that Paul and I’ll be as angry as hell too. Thx
Kaye LeeAugust 23, 2016 at 6:29 pm

You can read the article at tai

http://www.tai.org.au/content/turnbull-government-cuts-policy-principles-along-welfare
paulwalterAugust 23, 2016 at 6:36 pm

I feel really cheesy with this government after Mitch Fifield’s nonsenses last night also. I just get frustrated sometimes..when is this nonsense that passes for politics ending and Australia gets back to real?
Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.comAugust 23, 2016 at 7:13 pm

Excellent. Still going strong.

So, the best response to my post that could be come up with is “it would be like herding cats”. Wow! I really am surprised that so many organisations around the world can successfully function given they aren’t managed by two opposing factions!! I mean, how has the system that apparently works so well in Australian politics not been adopted by every organisation as the most efficient way to make good decisions? I just don’t get it. All those cats running organisations somehow managing to herd themselves. How do they do it?

The fact is that management and business theory has adapted significantly over time, but politics? Not so much. And if you hadn’t notice Trish, politics is getting left behind. Why? Because with its outdated methods of problem solving and decision making, the far more efficient business world is literally pissing all over politicians chips. One of the main purposes of government is to regulate, and it is failing comprehensively. And yet somehow you fail to see that, and think that we just need a Labor government and the world will be rosy again.

I’ve heard exactly the same arguments you put forward used by a mad daft Liberal supporter that I know. Same tired crap. And you don’t see the issue is that the protagonists waste so much time fighting each other, and looking for ways to make the other party look stupid, that they actually fail to solve the problems they’ve been tasked to solve.

We all know that if you want to ensure that the Coalition doesn’t support something, just get Labor to propose it. And you think this makes a good governmental system? So yes, your support of Labor in the way that they play the game is an endorsement of their nemesis, the Coalition. You might think it laughable, but consider why in the catholic church, the concept of Satan is as powerful a force to aid the masses in their devotion as the concept of the Messiah.

As Harquebus quite rightly suggest, the world is currently going down the toilet whilst Canberra fiddles. The Coalition are all over the place on climate change, and whilst Labor have a “position” this doesn’t actually resolve the problem that exists. Because Labor is too bought into the “system” too, and simply continues to play the game.

But do keep defending your position of building walls. I’ll keep looking for ways to build bridges.
paulwalterAugust 23, 2016 at 7:49 pm

The relationship between big business and government is such that politics is the runt of the litter.
Never Been ThereAugust 23, 2016 at 7:58 pm

paulwalter,

“Ok, so a number of reports claim that the government wants to cut even further unemployment benefit which is already a pittance.”

Are they cutting the Newstart Allowance or removing the clean energy supplement for all new welfare beneficiaries? The distinction matters, even if only for the sake of the political truth-telling. This article puts it all in proper perspective and shows what inequity-loving shits these people really are:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/inequality-rises-as-government-plans-to-clip-poorest-further-20160803-gqkmgy.html
cornlegendAugust 23, 2016 at 8:14 pm

Steve Laing – makeourvoiceheard.com
You never had a crack at politics did you?
You sound like a rejected Indie.
Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 8:17 pm

Steve, whether you agree or disagree with the arguments I put forward in my article, at least I have presented actual arguments. At least I developed an actual stance and I am prepared to defend that stance. That is not building walls.

If someone responds that there are flaws in someone’s opposing argument, they shouldn’t bloody sook, call people names, scream abuse, insult them or tell them their deranged or what ever else has gone on here the past 24 hours, they need to bring a better argument!

It is difficult to know what you think, or why you think the article is wrong; along with Kaye and Harquebus particularly; because similar to the blog you posted the other day, comments from the three of you have not put anything up in defense of why you think that we need to change the system. What this system will look like and why it will be better. You particularly haven’t detailed in your comments or your other blog on a similar topic, anything that comes close to informing me or anyone else reading, why we should not keep a collective system of Govt that has not been able to be easily refuted. There have been lots of vague comments or cut and pastes about what you think is wrong with the system, but nothing specific. Nothing detailed and nothing solid that one could look at, as an alternative.

When I say easily refuted, that means that the counter argument is put up, a refute occurred then there was no further debate, just name calling or other crap. Normally if a counterpoint is challenged, then it would stand to reason if the challenge was flawed, then it really should be pointed out, in the good spirit of debate, so the debate can continue. But it doesn’t. The only way it is refuted is to point out the original challenge to the opposing argument, was by a person who supports Labor and that just means the challenge doesn’t stand – automatic disqualification. I just can’t see how that is a effectively pointing out that we need to move away from a collectivist based system – by stating – You are Labor – therefore you are wrong!

I fail to see how that building a bridge, is achieved by:

1. Not bringing forward your crticial points of why we need to change and
2. Expecting people to assume what the main points of your argument are (as they are not stated)
3. and not refuting any counterclaims – just having a cry when someone presents an argument against what you have to say.

This goes for Kaye and Harquebus as well.

However this not what has occurred unfortunately in the comments on this article. So all I have been able to conclude is “some people don’t like the current system, they think its evil, corrupt, and does not serve the people, but they don’t know why exactly and they don’t have a solution for change, but anyone who supports Labor is wrong anyway”

That is the conclusion of this debate, so I guess we are still at square one.
HarquebusAugust 23, 2016 at 8:45 pm

Trish
“have not put anything up in defense of why you think that we need to change the system.”
What a load of rubbish! Take your blinkers off and try to comprehend what it is that people are putting in front of you instead of continually jumping to your own delusional conclusions.
You are a broken record and a complete waste everyone’s time.
Trish CorryAugust 23, 2016 at 8:59 pm

Feel free to point out where!
paulwalterAugust 23, 2016 at 9:20 pm

Trish and Kaye kill me!

They both see things so clearly yet disagree quite robustly a bit.

Btw what was that bunkum Hockey went on about ..spades or something, leaners and shirkers?
Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.comAugust 24, 2016 at 12:37 pm

Trish – you demand arguments, but when they are put you just ignore them.

So let me try once again to just one of the arguments that you have still failed to counter.

I suggest that having two opposing groups as a means to solve problems and make decisions is highly ineffective. There are numerous, peer reviewed, research studies that show that diverse groups create more robust solutions to problems. Yet you believe that a two party system is the optimum because “history”.

The main reason our parliament is set up the way that it is is because of its legal background, which is by its nature highly polar – you are right or wrong, guilty or innocent. I prosecute, you defend, and a success on a technicality is as much as success as a win on evidence. Its all about winning. (Exactly like how you argue).

So why, it the system you suggest is so great, why has it not been adopted more widely? Hard evidence reveals that of all the organisations that exist around the world that need to solve problems and make decisions, a minute number use a party based process. Why do you think that is?
Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.comAugust 24, 2016 at 2:56 pm

Oh, and BTW – the insults started when you called anyone who disagreed with your perspective an indi-bloody-vidual. A highly constructive, bridge building opening statement? I think not.

Just for the record 🙂
Trish CorryAugust 24, 2016 at 7:44 pm

Oh BTW the whole point is they are WORDS OF SONGS!!!!!! Far out!!! Nitpicking award of the freaking year!
trishcorryAugust 24, 2016 at 11:14 pm

Trish – you demand arguments, but when they are put you just ignore them. – Absolute garbage. There are 161 comments in this thread. Are you really claiming that I have not responded to people’s comments?

I’m going to make this nice and clear, so the accusations that I am ignoring people’s comments and not responding to them and that I am trying to make people prove me right can cease. Also the claim that I cannot think critically about someone’s comments because I am a member of the Labor Party – also can cease. I will do one comment in each box, so the complaints about the long responses can also cease.

I will make it nice and clear so the people who think it is Ok to abuse me in this thread can see quite clearly about how I respond to comments. Apparently, if I just comment without setting it out like this, I’m trying to force people to prove me right or some other crap. No. This is not the case. It is actually just how normal people debate or how normal people critically analyse arguments in text. Nothing more, nothing less. Hopefully these people have moved on with their lives, but if you are still here – I am asking you all to drop the name calling, slurs and psycho abuse (the last one is for Harquebus).

Claim 1: I suggest that having two opposing groups as a means to solve problems and make decisions is highly ineffective.

Rebuttal – I semi-reject this firstly because there is a flaw in this claim. The flaw is that this sentence could mean that the two opposing groups solve problems together – this is not so, unless it is a serious matter for the safety or welfare of the country. However, I am assuming that Steve really means, that “There are two opposing groups and when posed with a problem, the problem is only solved by one of those groups on either side of the political spectrum”. So I will go off the assumption of what I believe Steve actually means. (See next comment).
trishcorryAugust 25, 2016 at 12:10 am

Steve’s Claim 2: There are numerous, peer reviewed, research studies that show that diverse groups create more robust solutions to problems.

Rebuttal: I reject this claim, because of the assumption within Steve’s claim that there is no diversity within either of the two major parties. This is not the case. Within each major party there are a diverse range of people who share the same values (plural – not singular). Not only are the values quite substantial, but the diversity of opinion within both parties is diverse. (Terms like ‘cross the floor and conscience vote would not exist otherwise!). The background of members within both major parties are also diverse. (Some parties have more gender, sexual orientation, religious, disability or racial/ethnicity diversity than others). However, therefore, there is a diverse range of people solving problems. The other fact ignored is that the representatives also represent a diverse range of the electorate as they also have been voted in by the public. It does not reflect ALL the views of every person in every electorate – but we can discuss the place for extreme or radical views in Governance another day.

(If Steve doesn’t agree with this, he needs to refrain from the name calling (including saying I have only stated this because I am skewed by my ‘party loyalty’ and bring another/better argument/claim, that shows my rebuttal is flawed).

Rebuttal 2: The claim about the peer reviewed literature is correct for problem solving in general (however there are limits to diversity in decision making). I reject this claim because Steve, has failed to recognise that there is already diversity intrinsic to each party. He has also failed to recognise that within a major party, the diversity of stakeholder contact within a major party, extends much more broadly than it does for a micro/minor or independent. As the Government is not just there to ‘solve a problem’ like in business, but they are there to Govern in the best interests of the country, a diverse connection to stakeholder contact is crucial to identifying issues and working on solutions. The flaw in Steve’s argument in this sense is confined to Steve’s decision on this matter being decided on and also promoting decision making within the confines of bounded rationality. Without a broad range of contacts, the smaller parties and independents make decisions within a limited amount of information, experience and any other limitations related to their own cognisance. Within a major party, people still are limited to bounded rationality in a sense, but the diversity and number of people feeding back into that discussion, expands the borders of their bounded rationality.

(If Steve doesn’t agree with this, he needs to refrain from the name calling (including saying I have only stated this because I am skewed by my ‘party loyalty’) and bring another/better argument/claim, that shows my rebuttal is flawed).

Rebuttal 3. I also reject this claim because although there are peer reviewed articles that do support diversity in decision making, the majority of this section of the literature focuses on human related diversity – gender, culture etc., This is really connected to the seminal works of diversity in decision making and not the contemporary works on decision making which focus on other elements of decision making such as trust and conflict related to diversity and group process interactions. It also does not take into account, emotional contagion, self-efficacy in decision making and attribution theory.

Within decision making in politics, the advantage of the major party identifying and solving problems is that trust is an important factor. As the diverse range of people within the two major parties share the same values, trust is higher. Within the framework of politics, a multi-party model of decision making would make the following factors a hindrance to decision making: Lack of trust between different individuals, the reluctance to share information between cohorts as examples. This would also risk having the least amount of suggestions put forward, or considered, which would actually result in slower decision making, without even analysing the affects of the quality of the decision.

(If Steve doesn’t agree with this, he needs to refrain from the name calling (including saying I have only stated this because I am skewed by my ‘party loyalty’) and bring another/better argument/claim, that shows my rebuttal is flawed).

Rebuttal 4: I also reject the claim that Steve has assumed that decision making is made within an equal exchange between two parties. This can be the case the people concerned used constructivist based method to gain mutual understanding; however this is not how debate occurs within politics or groups (it is far too slow). However, decision making is not made this way, but within group process. Therefore there are multiple facets of human interaction and cognitive processing and exchange that take place. For people with vastly different ideologies / values to work together to develop a solution, various issues would arise. Firstly the issue of trust – as mentioned above and secondly the variances and disparity in ideology would mean that the various individuals would receive, process and interpret the information very differently. To give one example: Those on the right of the spectrum take the view that the unemployed are inherently lazy and punitive measures are an incentive. Those on the left of the spectrum recognise that other factors contribute to unemployment and see welfare as a hand up, not a hand out. This would increase conflict in a negative way and impede decision making.

(If Steve doesn’t agree with this, he needs to refrain from the name calling (including saying I have only stated this because I am skewed by my ‘party loyalty’) and bring another/better argument/claim, that shows my rebuttal is flawed).

Anyway, that is enough from me. I’ll answer the rest tomorrow. I hope the setting out of the claim and rebuttals, assisted the happy hate group to understand that I was responding to flaws in people’s comments, not fobbing them off or being a one eyed party hack, who has no ability to think critically.

Please be aware that after responding to one sentence in such depth; if anyone implies that I have fobbed Steve off, or that I have only said these things because I can’t think critically because of ‘party loyalty’ etc., will have their comment unapproved and told to get a life.
townsvilleblogAugust 25, 2016 at 7:30 am

I agree with Trish, when I was in the Labor Party there were council workers and small businessmen, women and university Professors and all made contributions to the cause of social justice and fairness in policy.
Bighead1883August 25, 2016 at 8:10 am

Steve Laing – makeourvoiceheard.comAugust 24, 2016 at 12:37 pm

You wrote ” Trish – you demand arguments, but when they are put you just ignore them” .

Not only this thread but in all Trish`s articles she answers her critics,unlike you
Thank you for proving your hypocrisy to us all Steve Laing
diannaartAugust 25, 2016 at 11:06 am

Yes, there is diversity among all groups of people, duh.

There is diversity among people in North Korea, within schools, within shooting clubs, within the RSL, within Christians, within atheists, within football teams, within mothers, within fathers, within, by golly, politicians.

That there is diversity within groups of people is not the point.

We have progressive parties AND independents – makes sense to unite against the regressive side of politics. Well, it makes sense to many except for (some) signed up members of the Labor party, for whom the idea of cooperation, negotiation is too difficult. Good thing Julia Gillard did not think that way – else very little would’ve been achieved during her incumbency.

No one is asking that parliament be dissolved in a clutch of contrary cats. No one. Nor even forming a formal coalition like the Libs and Nats. Just work together people!

Working with people is what sets progressives apart from the rabble of neo-cons in government – or it should be.

If Labor is not prepared to work WITH other progressives, then nothing much will change. Private schools will still receive our tax dollars, refugees treated as garbage, coal mines & gas fracking will be business as usual, equal marriage will remain a dream, big business will continue to evade taxes and so it goes.
cornlegendAugust 25, 2016 at 11:29 am

The reality is, there are about 15% who could be classified as “Left” about the same who are “Right” and all the rest are centre/consevative/uncommitted.{uninterested}
The aim of the game is to win Government and Labor needs to address the issues of the majority of voters and take them along on policy development, not pander to splinter groups who wouldn’t change their stance is lightning struck them .
A classic example of that is where some parties have been, stuck on single digit % for 3 decades or more.
Labor will never please them, so why try?
As for Gillard, her main negotiations were with Oakeshott and Windsor, both willing to be fflexible and negotiate.
Whoever they maintained their Independence and negotiated.
Others have the my way or the highway approach
Trish CorryAugust 25, 2016 at 12:32 pm

I think you need to read my comment again Dianna.
Trish CorryAugust 25, 2016 at 12:34 pm

Exactly Corny. Perhaps I should do a post on radical views in Govt. One thing I’m picking up in the comments is the pro multi party system advocates are not addressing disharmony amongst groups but assuming inherent harmony.
Trish CorryAugust 25, 2016 at 12:38 pm

Diana you also need to think you comment through. It is either a two party system or a multi party system. Therefore yes, you are advocating a change as the voting system also underpins all of this. You can only get your model if more people vote for others OR the voting system is changed.
Trish CorryAugust 25, 2016 at 12:39 pm

It would also be helpful if those anti two party could define the model they envisaged. Otherwise responders are merely guessing what you are talking about
cornlegendAugust 25, 2016 at 12:56 pm

Trish Corry.
Now as Labor is the bigger of all the anti LNP parties, if the micros and Independents want to climb into a “Coalition” tent with Labor, what of their objectives are they willing to drop, or put on the back burner.
It is Labors job to convince a majority that they are worth supporting and as such has to appeal to a wide voter base.
Are the micros/Indies willing to go along with a broad based plan or do they just want to get inside the tent to give them a glince of power, stay intransigent and continue to attack Labor as thy do now,
Wanting cake and eating it too springs to mind
Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.comAugust 25, 2016 at 2:46 pm

Wow. To be able to conflate so many issues into one statement is quite breathtaking. But rather than simply try to discuss one really rather simple statement, you prefer to drop an atomic bomb on it. You disagree with it, then agreed with it. I’m still not sure what your position is, but I did like the little dig’s in brackets – that really was a nice touch.

Before I go any further, let me firstly state that I’ve written a few articles here which I’ve purposefully put out ideas for discussion – indeed I’ve invited discussion. The ideas might be good, or might be bad – more likely the latter than the former, as they are based on only my own perspective, but there we are.

Now it is fair to say that whilst some readers have tried to explore some of those ideas, others have simply attacked them. Particularly if I’ve made ANY suggestion about what Labor might do (like hold out an olive branch to the Liberals – oh, hang on, that seems to be happening right now), where my perspectives have been jumped all over by the “rusted on”. To me, that really sets the tone for how welcoming the Labor party is to outside opinion – they perceive any disagreement as an attack, and react appropriately.

So I’m not going to continue this discussion, because whilst I could, I unfortunately see very little value in doing so. It has done nothing to convince me that I should support Labor going forward (although my preferences will continue to go their way), so if that was the intention, it hasn’t worked. I’m happy to continue to be a indi-bloody-vidual (and I’m sorry I nitpickingly missed whatever reference to whatever song that was – I sure as shit didn’t get it, so that MUST be my fault – always blame the reader).
diannaartAugust 25, 2016 at 3:02 pm

Trish

Well you’ve stopped claiming I am for a parliament of just independents – well done. We almost do have a multiparty system if one considers the Libs and Nats and Labor as separate, then we have a 3 party system.

Looking at the LNP with its gang of far-rights-who-hate-Turnbull – I see a splinter group there, (please Cory Bernardi keep your promise and start you own little group).

As for Labor, another little faction of right wingers could create their own party also – which would free up a more progressive Labor, perhaps headed by the people’s favourite, Albanese.

As for a model – I am not a political scientist, however, I do know there are a variety functioning very well in Europe, such as I have listed previously, for example, France, Germany, even Italy and Greece (Greece stood up for itself when the far-right got too demanding with austerity measures, similar case for Ireland).

I do not posses a magic bullet – even if I did, I have no doubt that the magic answer would be summarily dismissed as you and Cornie and Bighead have dismissed anything and everything other progressives have offered.

So no I don’t have any answers that will satisfy you.

However, we are not even at that stage of discussion

— you don’t believe there is a problem that requires fixing —

You believe Labor as it is now, can win a sufficient majority to introduce its policies – in how many years time?.

Policies which, BTW, only differ from the LNP by degree; by not being as bad – with the exception of refugees, mining and so on.

Labor is still not doing enough to win the cooperation of other progressives.

I just wanted a sensible reasonable discussion – which is all anyone else here has tried to have with you. Disagreeing with you is not a personal insult.

Capiche?
Trish CorryAugust 25, 2016 at 3:10 pm

Goodbye Steve
Trish CorryAugust 25, 2016 at 3:11 pm

Goodbye Dianna
cornlegendAugust 25, 2016 at 4:30 pm

Diannaart
“Labor is still not doing enough to win the cooperation of other progressives.”
WELL. why do the wilted Greens and their followers waffle on, non stop for bloody Alliances,Coalitions or whatever.
” I have no doubt that the magic answer would be summarily dismissed as you and Cornie and Bighead have dismissed anything and everything other progressives have offered.”
I get told that regularly by those trying to change Labor, but not voting for them anyway.
I think, rather than have concerns about Labor, you start to concider why those so called “progressives” and the parties they follow fail so miserably time after time after time, then, after failing, try to tell Labor to follow their way
randalstellaAugust 26, 2016 at 12:15 am

Two excerpts from the article above on the political divide:

“This divide is now markedly between Liberalism, Libertarianism and conservatism and right wing populism which is underpinned by the Individualism of the right versus the more collective Socialism, Environmentalism and Democratic Socialism of the left.”

“To restore true belief in the major parties’ platforms, the major parties must wear their values on their sleeves and promote their liberal/conservative agenda or their democratic socialist one…”

If this issue is so important, it should be taken up with the Labor Party, rather than once again lecturing readers and responders – lecturing them to correct their distrust.

Where is this divide she mentioned espoused?
Which Labor candidates are ever likely to run on a ‘democratic socialist’ platform?
Is there some indication of an answer to this in Albanese’s recent campaign to hold his seat? ‘Save Our Albo’ goes the Daily Telegraph front page; as he became a Murdoch columnist and brave warrior for capitalism.
If this were considered extraordinary, are Labor members discussing it?

Are we supposed to take it as just an election ploy? Done with Murdoch, whose papers have trashed multiple Labor campaigns and candidates; and thus repeatedly trashed the country?

For example, do Labor support the Adani coalmine? Yes they do. Then how can they claim environmental credentials? It is the big issues like this that matter. Mere words are rubbish otherwise.

Berating people about their distrust and disappointment is a waste of time.
Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 12:53 am

Thanks Randalstella. I see that you have put an equally crap attack style comment on Victoria Rollinson’s post on the Labor Herald. As she is one of the best writers in the country – I’ll take your rant as a compliment.
randalstellaAugust 26, 2016 at 1:55 am

Trish,
You must be rather indulged where you come from.
Your intolerance of any questioning has been noted here by others. Often.
You take no notice. You tend to insult instead. Anyone and everyone who might raise the slightest hint of disagreement.
What you display is insularity not collectivism.
The totally uncritical promotion of Labor is the last thing the Party needs. It’s a bigger long-term danger than the Libs, or Murdoch.

The basis of the piece on individualism is simply fatuous.
Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 7:48 am

“Its been noted here by others?”

What is the “People who hate Labor more than the Liberals, who stop by my blog pieces to give their negative opinion of me” little group call themselves to discuss this?

Have a look at your comments on Victoria’s blogs, they are the same as they are on mine. No substance, just popping along to state how crap the Author is and contributing nothing else. The problem is you hate Labor so much you cannot even contribute civilly on a blog by someone who makes it clear they support Labor, even if the article is not even about Labor.

Do you think I should just think about what Randalstella would like to read and write about that? Nope….not happening.

If you want to read opinions you are happy with, just read articles bashing Labor. Why bother reading mine if they will just upset you?

Its pretty sad when this article isn’t even about Labor, but that is all you see.

Seriously, either contribute to the discussion or go and get a life.
Bighead1883August 26, 2016 at 8:54 am

Trish Corry August 26, 2016 at 7:48 am

Well said Trish and I see it as you wrote it

Fancy Randalstella coming up with this gem of hate
“Its been noted here by others?”
randalstellaAugust 26, 2016 at 9:21 am

Trish Corry,
It is a ridiculous line that if someone questions Labor policy or campaigning they must be ‘anti-Labor’.
That is just oppressiveness and an intolerance of other opinion.

I am an occasional poster here.
I cannot recall the last time I responded to one of Rollinson’s blogs. And then I did it rarely.
I hardly ever read her stuff. I can’t remember the last time I did.
The same disinclination goes for you. And I have rarely responded.

Stop the smearing. It is strange and dirty tactics.
diannaartAugust 26, 2016 at 9:44 am

..why do the wilted Greens and their followers waffle on, non stop for bloody Alliances,Coalitions or whatever…

…because progressives want the LNP out of office for a very long time and we recognise Labor cannot do it alone.

Ironic given that Trish’s title began with “Will you Lean on me…”

Labor does not want any leaning. Or have I misunderstood? Labor is a collection of individuals, hostile to any outsiders?
cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 10:24 am

“we recognise Labor cannot do it alone.”
We don’t, we reckon they can and will
cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 10:26 am

And it isn’t just us that don’t want the hangers on,
Multiple State Premiers, Party Officials, MPs, Rank and file and

Chris Bowen, made the reality clear in a recent interview on Radio National.

“We are not interested in any Coalition agreements with any party,” he said. “I wrote about this in my book in 2013; Labor governs alone or not at all. Who parties vote for in a confidence vote is up to them. If there is a confidence vote after the election, and independents and other parties have to choose who to support, that’s a matter for them. We will not be entering into any agreements, coalitions or deals with the Greens or anybody else.”

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has explicitly ruled out forming a coalition government with the Greens
Adam Bandt raised it , but got shut down by Bill
The Greens aren’t running serious in any seat against the Liberal Party so this is an argument where they try to say to Labor voters you can have your cake and eat it to, you can vote for us and really it’s a vote for Labor. It’s absolutely not.”

“But Mr Shorten, who is campaigning in far-north Queensland, said Mr Bandt was “dreaming”.
“Labor will fight this election to form its own government and to form a government in our own right,”
“Labor will not be going into coalition with any party.”
Ms Plibersek says Australians would be “horrified by the idea of another hung parliament’’ as she rebuffed the Greens’ advances.
Ms Plibersek said Labor was “playing to win’’
“We will not enter into a coalition:”Anthony Albanese
Adam Bandt was there again today on Sky News attacking me, he’s got a bit of an unhealthy obsession I think, he can’t seem to do an interview without mentioning me,’ Mr Albanese said.

‘The Greens aren’t in a position to be a threat to anything,’ he said. ‘They have one member of the House of Representatives, where government is formed, the same number as the Katter Australia Party.’
Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus repeated Labor’s policy … that we will not form a coalition with the Greens, full stop,”
Tony Burke “We certainly would not be forming any sort of coalition agreement with the Greens,”‘ Mr Burke told ABC radio.
Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 10:26 am

This discussion highlights for me the problems with a two-party system. It has created polarized parties that are only interested in their own agendas. Politicians (and supporters it seems) must follow the party line without any room for flexibility, criticism, or independent thought, or they will have support removed. Parliamentary committees and debates have become largely irrelevant under the party system. The debate is carried out inside the party room instead of the houses of parliament. Once the party has decided, its members are then bound to agree.

As mentioned before, it also makes corruption easier if you only have to make one donation to secure a bloc of votes.

The party system has also allowed a political class to grow where you join, say, the Young Liberals then become a staffer then are gifted preselection in a safe seat or a winning Senate ticket position. We have seen ridiculous selections made by the Labor Party gifting positions to inadequate union bosses at the expense of very talented candidates. Many politicians go on to be gifted sinecures after they leave office. This was not what was envisaged in the Constitution.

This system has made it all about winning with no thought given to governing.

As far as workable alternatives are concerned, I would suggest you actually read the link I provided to Ted Mack’s speech before launching into your rebuttal. Look at the Swiss system.

PS I find Labor’s hatred of the Greens bordering on irrational
Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 10:39 am

Your opening paragraph is what is wrong with the Anti two party system Kaye. It’s based on complete assumption not fact. Until those who oppose the two party system put up a new model to discuss we will just be going around in circles.
cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 10:41 am

Kaye Lee,
You should have spent time in Grayndler and Sydney to see the Green reaction to Labor .
This is all not a one way street.
That was only a follow on from State seats of Balmain etc where it was real dirty
Melbourne too, iin fact, where Peter Wicks was on hand to see the goings on

Screaming For Vengance – The Age airs its dirty laundry and political bias

or in the Seat of Whitlam {reported to AEC} or Greens witnessed tearing down ALP corflutes and replacing with their own
{even used the same wire, the tight arses}

It isn’t irrational.
I want bugger all to do, with Hansons Party, NXT, LNP or Greens .
Why irrational to single out the Greens?
randalstellaAugust 26, 2016 at 10:48 am

Kaye Lee,
I think it is important that we see this rancorous insularity up close like this.
We then can have no illusions.
I see some stuff here that is so maladaptive that it reads like doom for Labor, a complete catastrophe for this country.

I only hope that some opinionistas here overstate their place in Labor. It seems likely.
Shorten may be too ‘conservative’ for me, but he suggests more promise.
I want him in power as soon as possible. Bugger the sit-back-and-watch the Libs implode bit.They may very well not. They are very poor on policy and very good on organisation. For example, postal votes, that may have decided the last election.
I see Shorten is keeping the momentum going, and that’s a good sign. Powerless people depend on him to fight.
Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 10:50 am

Trish,

That is a perfect example of you completely ignoring what was written. Ted Mack’s speech is too long for me to copy and paste here and if you refuse to read it then you don’t really want to hear an alternative at all. Likewise about other governing systems that have been mentioned.

cornie,

Whilst you might find that very significant, I don’t. The Greens have every right to field candidates and they will obviously be more likely of success in progressive seats. The tearing down and defacing of signs etc has been done by silly people in all parties. I don’t know why you waste so much money on them personally. Seeing a photo of someone doesn’t inform me of anything at all and the constant junk mail gets shoved straight in the bin. The reason I singled out the Greens is that the two progressive parties should be able to find some common ground.

randalstella,

I think Shorten shows some good signs too but I wish they would all stop Green bashing. The foot soldiers are too focused on the politics rather than the policy in my opinion.
cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 11:01 am

Kaye Lee.
I have never denied for a moment the Greens right to contest whatever seat they like .
The will and are treated like any other candidate trying to depose a Labor candidate .
They are viewed as just another party trying to unseat Labor.
Do you think Labor should not fight that and roll over and hand off to the Greens ?
In elections they are as much the opposition as the LNP, Fred Nile or whoever, another name on a ballot paper to be defeated
.
cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 11:03 am

Not once have I read comments by the “uncommitted” of the Labor bashing that the Greens hand out
Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 11:06 am

Delving back into the archives, this is something I wrote a few years ago about ideas for a different type of system.

And now for something completely different …
randalstellaAugust 26, 2016 at 11:14 am

‘I have never denied for a moment the Greens right to contest whatever seat they like.’
That could be only true on an extreme technicality.
cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 11:19 am

diannaart
Just to be clear on this, what earthly benefit is there in in Labor doing some “coalition”?
In the HOR,
McGowan, if on past form will vote LNP 90+% of the time,
NXTs Sharkie, an ex Lib, Briggs, who she deposeds former staffer so ,guess where her vote will go,
Katter, more LNP than likely Labor.
Wilkie, wants to maintain his Independence
Bandt {still free to play in the corner}
In the Senate, if Greens support Labors stance, vote with them, if not nothing changes.
Why some structured coalition and how would it work?
Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 11:20 am

Party squabbling is annoying whoever does it which is what so many of us are trying to point out. We are sick of hearing parties denigrating each other. Our elected representatives should be spending their time listening to expert advice rather than trying to make the other guy look bad which is what the party system makes them do because it’s all about winner takes all.
cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 11:22 am

“That could be only true on an extreme technicality.”
What?
It is quite a simple statement.
What part don’t you understand?
The Greens have a right to contest whatever seat they want
I can’t say it more simply
where is some “technicality” in that?
Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 11:22 am

diannaart said “No one is asking that parliament be dissolved in a clutch of contrary cats. No one. Nor even forming a formal coalition like the Libs and Nats. Just work together people!”
diannaartAugust 26, 2016 at 11:39 am

Kaye Lee

Remember when Howard set up the plebiscite on republicanism?

How we couldn’t just vote for Australia to become a republic, we had to vote for a specific model? A variety of models were never given consideration.

Remember why that failed?

All progressives have to do to work together right now, is to support each other’s preferences. We can consider it a work in progress, learning from other democratic nations and adjusting to suit Australia. We do not have to set anything into concrete – I think it is called adapting to changing circumstances.
randalstellaAugust 26, 2016 at 11:42 am

Why for the love of the live-in Jesus would you think more bluster helps? Must be habit I guess.
Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 11:49 am

Yes diannaart. A majority of people wanted a Republic until the pro side self-immolated because they could not negotiate or compromise. It was an excellent example of deceptive manipulation and the conservatives have used the same strategy to divide the progressives now by encouraging the divisions between Labor and the Greens who together received a higher proportion of the vote in both houses – and Labor falls into their trap yet again with progressives fighting among themselves..
cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 12:48 pm

“Labor falls into their trap yet again”
Labor didn’t fall into any trap.
Their stance was a deliberate and debated choice
Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 12:53 pm

Sorry Kaye. Nope. I was responding to your assumption only. I’m on my phone and don’t really care at this stage to give detailed responses at this point in time.
Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 12:55 pm

Kaye my other response to you is just propose a model You envisage you want to change to. Not just tell someone to read Ted Mack.
Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 12:58 pm

Why would a multi party system not denigrate each other? It could create more conflict not less.
Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 1:00 pm

This is about changing from the two party system. You either want the status quo or you don’t. You either have some idea what this would look like or you don’t. It’s that simple
Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 1:00 pm

What does “nope” mean? And what “assumption”? I did not ask for a detailed response. You have over and again stated that no-one has said what is wrong with the party system and that no-one has offered any ideas about alternatives. I tried to do that. I don’t expect you to drop everything to respond to me. I am just discussing ideas with anyone who is interested.
Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 1:02 pm

No you have not. If so I’ve certainly missed you details on what it would look like and how we would vote to get to that system
Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 1:02 pm

Trish,

I already did that. You ignored it too.

And now for something completely different …
Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 1:03 pm

All I want Someone to do is put forward their own ideas. I can’t even read that link at the moment
Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 1:12 pm

I DID put forward my own ideas. You won’t read them. Ted Mack put forward his own ideas. You won’t read them.
Trish CorryAugust 26, 2016 at 1:13 pm

Okay. Did you state what the system would look like and how we would get there by voting? Because that’s important.
Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 1:26 pm

Yes – as much as one can in a few hundred words. It was more to promote discussion than to specify the administrative minutiae.
randalstellaAugust 26, 2016 at 1:41 pm

Good to see the Greens opposing the same-sex marriage plebiscite.
If there is sufficient cooperation, the pressure increases on Turnbull’s shaky and largely unmotivated hold on power.
Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 1:44 pm

Early on in my marriage I was having a hissy fit about something. As I yelled at my husband he sat there with a bemused look on his face which I was reacting to with “how dare you not care”. As my tirade ran down he quietly said to me “Hey, we are on the same team here, remember?”

Another time I was complaining about one of my kids to a girlfriend who said “Is this really the hill to die for?”

Those are up there with a few other things people have said to me over my lifetime that were wise advice that I try to remind myself of.

Trish, we are on the same side. I am sorry if I have made you feel otherwise.
cornlegendAugust 26, 2016 at 2:10 pm

You know, if you don’t like the current lot, there is absolutely no reason why you can’t knock up a Party and show them how it should be done {simple 😀 ]
Other than that, it isn’t like Aussies are starved of choice .
Still registered are .
#Sustainable Australia
21st Century Australia
Animal Justice Party
Australia First Party (NSW) Incorporated
Australian Antipaedophile Party
Australian Christians
Australian Country Party
Australian Cyclists Party
Australian Defence Veterans Party
Australian Equality Party (Marriage)
Australian Greens
Australian Labor Party (ALP)
Australian Liberty Alliance
Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party
Australian Progressives
Australian Recreational Fishers Party
Australian Sex Party
Bullet Train For Australia
Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)
Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Consumer Rights & No-Tolls
Country Liberals (Northern Territory)
CountryMinded
Democratic Labour Party (DLP)
Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party
Drug Law Reform Australia
Family First Party
Glenn Lazarus Team
Health Australia Party
Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party
Jacqui Lambie Network
John Madigan’s Manufacturing and Farming Party
Katter’s Australian Party
Liberal Democratic Party
Liberal Party of Australia (including seven additional branches
Mature Australia Party
National Party of Australia
Nick Xenophon Team
Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)
Online Direct Democracy – (Empowering the People!)
Outdoor Recreation Party (Stop The Greens)
Palmer United Party
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation
Pirate Party Australia
Renewable Energy Party
Rise Up Australia Party
Secular Party of Australia
Seniors United Party of Australia
Science Party
Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party
Smokers Rights Party
Socialist Alliance
Socialist Equality Party
The Arts Party
The Australian Mental Health Party
Voluntary Euthanasia Party
VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy!

so choose away, form alliances and go after those evil Labor pollies who won’t play with the Greens .
Choose wisely though, remember the old proverb

“Who picks a tool unsuited to a task should not complain if it does no more than cut the hand that holds it”.

Darkovan Proverb
Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 2:21 pm

The whole system of government needs changing in my opinion. It is archaic, unwieldy, unrepresentative, unproductive and VERY expensive. Part of the problem is that people vote for parties rather than the best person for the job. Who in their right mind would actually elect Malcolm Roberts? But because he belongs to a party, there he is with the balance of power, making decisions that affect my life.
HarquebusAugust 26, 2016 at 2:31 pm

I have been listening in on this debate and have to say, Kaye Lee won it hands down long ago.
Time to move on.
Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 2:33 pm

It shouldn’t be a debate with a winner and a loser. That’s pretty much my whole point. It should be a discussion of what people find wrong and tossing round of ideas on how to fix it. Sadly, party politics isn’t about solutions, just about beating the other guy.
jimhazAugust 26, 2016 at 2:43 pm

[the same side]

Such a pity the left can’t work together on an issue by issue basis. The only political influencing power the left has is numbers, as the right are the owners of economic and political influence power.

It needs to be on a consensus issue by issue basis to draw the moderates in, where the numbers are, who will only agree on some issues.

I wonder if they are more left organisations than right based ones. It seems to be the case. I’ve got no ideas, but maybe some form of feed into a collective website resource would help.
jimhazAugust 26, 2016 at 2:52 pm

If the ALP agrees to any Newstart related welfare cuts I also will no longer vote for them, even as a lesser evil. The ALPs treatment of the unemployed has been poor for way too long – neither Gillard or Rudd did anything to help..
Kaye LeeAugust 26, 2016 at 3:44 pm

“The BCA has previously supported an increase in the rate of Newstart and other allowance payments. Such an increase must be considered as part of a comprehensive review of Australia’s tax and transfer system.

The BCA had previously joined forces with the Australian Council of Social Services and the Australian Council of Trade Unions to call for an increase in the payment of $50 a week, arguing the current level of payment provided for an inadequate standard of living.”

We have the unions, the business sector and the social service sector in agreement, and our “elected representatives” do the exact opposite of their advice.
HarquebusAugust 26, 2016 at 4:09 pm

Kaye Lee
Noted.

“I would rather discover a single fact, even a small one, than debate the great issues at length without discovering anything at all.” — Galileo Galilei, c. 1640
Kaye LeeAugust 27, 2016 at 11:54 am

Trish,

I was wondering if you had a chance to read up about the Swiss system or to read my suggestion that we directly elect Ministers to form the executive and for local government to then vote on legislation. I would be interested to hear your comments about these alternative governing ideas.
diannaartAugust 27, 2016 at 6:51 pm

Another consideration we need to make in a more representational form of politics is the adversarial system we currently use. This type of system needs a binary system in which to work – if ‘work’ is an appropriate word here for a system that has devolve into a tit for tat form of petty brinkmanship – which is the result of 2 parties sharing a lot more in common than not.

Dissatisfaction with Australian style politics has been around for quite a while, along with multi-party representation. Neither concept was dreamt up overnight by anyone at AIMN – rather we have been considering the worsening state of politics for a long time – too long.

To break free of our destructive adversarial political culture, Australia should adopt a European style proportional representation voting system, says Dr Klaas Woldring, 6 March 2012

…The key to unlocking the potential for a new political culture is a major change to the electoral system. This would at the same time create a political climate that actually favours constitutional change. An understanding could develop that the Constitution has to be rewritten altogether.

There are several other reasons why a new electoral regime would remove the weakest link(s). Australia needs a much greater, constructive diversity of political interests. Instead of petty, destructive, adversarialism, a search for common ground would emerge —a healthy development. The introduction of proportional representation (especially the open party list system) would enhance a diverse political culture that would renew the trust and inspire the voters. Much has changed in Australian society in the last 110 years but the political system has not. Contrary to what some theorists argue – that a paradigm shift requires a complete breakdown of the old order – there are several national examples of where major constitutional change has been initiated and achieved in circumstances of relative calm and reflection. Recent examples are Sweden, Finland and, to some extent, Canada. Australia can do this as well….

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/change-the-electoral-system-and-end-adversarial-politics,3996

The above article was written in 2012, when Australia had a hung parliament and the closest we have ever come to a multi-party system.

What I have been asking Trish & Cornie to consider, will continue to fall upon deaf ears.

I doubt that either the LNP or Labor wishes to relinquish any power.

That doesn’t mean it can’t happen though. We just need more votes for alternative parties and independents. Examples are listed in the above excerpt.
cornlegendAugust 27, 2016 at 8:59 pm

OH Dear a Northern Territory Labor Government to add to the fun now
cornlegendAugust 27, 2016 at 9:03 pm

diannaart
There you go, I knew you’d get it,
“We just need more votes for alternative parties and independents. Examples are listed in the above excerpt.”
Now you won’t have to give a thought to that Labor mob, or Alliances with them.
All you need is a concerted effort on ” Examples are listed in the above excerpt.” and you can stress about Labor/Alliances no more ,:–D
cornlegendAugust 27, 2016 at 9:06 pm

Antony Green predicting up to 15 seats to Labor #ntvotes

abcnewsNT
✔
@abcnewsNT

Labor to form government in Northern Territory after election win.

Stephanie Zillman @Steph_Zillman

But….. Labor victory in Katherine!? A truly incredible swing #ntvotes
cornlegendAugust 27, 2016 at 9:11 pm

40% counted, Labor on 16
Labor Party
40.9% +4.4%

Country Liberal

32.7% -17.9%

Greens

3.3% 0.0%

1 Territory

3.0% +3.0%

Others

20.2%
Bighead1883August 27, 2016 at 10:10 pm

What a rout in the NT Cornie
cornlegendAugust 27, 2016 at 10:14 pm

For even MSM to call it “A landslide victory over the CLP” says something
Michael TaylorAugust 27, 2016 at 10:23 pm

WA next. And with Baird slipping in the polls it just gets better.
cornlegendAugust 27, 2016 at 10:29 pm

bloody hell, swings in seats on 2pp of 34% 28% 33% to Labor
Line em up Michael ACT, tick, WA, tick, NSW……………………………
HarquebusAugust 27, 2016 at 10:44 pm

Another government falls due to their absurd ideology which, isn’t much different to Labor’s who, will in due course, tumble just the same and for the same reason.
Michael TaylorAugust 27, 2016 at 10:50 pm

We’ll worry about that when the time comes, H’. For now, let us saviour the moment.
HarquebusAugust 27, 2016 at 11:07 pm

You’ve always been good to me Michael.
Done.
Avagoodwun.
cornlegendAugust 27, 2016 at 11:12 pm

It seems like the CLPp will need Indie preferences to win 1 seat .
Harquebus
A bit early to start whinning yet, the counting isn’t even completed .
Still. I’m coming to expect that
diannaartAugust 28, 2016 at 10:39 am

Good that Labor won – hardly expected anything else given the population in NT.

NT Labor, have one term in which to redress the many problems facing the NT. One term – that appears to be the trend (for watchers of trends). For non-trend watchers, this still means Labor has one term to sort out the mess of indigenous incarceration. Don Dale occurred no matter which of the Dynamic Duo is in government.

Labor could also question the beneficiaries of the Great Northern Development that federal LNP has ideas about, or is that what big business has ideas about?

Just treating First Nation people as people would be a good start. Locking people up for minor infringements does not work, never has, just creates more brutal people; prison officers and guests of the state (most have not been charged with any actual crimes). Just work on this Labor. Ignore the LNP, in fact just ignore Canberra – both the LNP and Labor are only about the next election, so don’t expect too much from the federal Dynamic Duo.
Matters NotAugust 28, 2016 at 10:50 am

The CLP suffered a swing against them in the order of 19%. Labor had swing towards them of 7%.

While the CLP were big losers just who were the big winners?

Personally I wouldn’t read too much into the NT election. There, the political party of choice (or not) is extremely fluid. And I expect this lack of loyalty will again feature in the months and years ahead.
cornlegendAugust 28, 2016 at 11:38 am

“Personally I wouldn’t read too much into the NT election.”

Of course not 😀
helvityniAugust 28, 2016 at 11:40 am

Now that many Dutch prisons are empty, they have offered to take in other countries’ criminals.

Maybe the CLP could have sent the young one-off car thieves to Holland to be rehabilitated as they themselves don’t believe in such progressive things but prefer dishing inhumane punishment instead.

Hopefully Labor, Independents and Greens will do things better up there in the Northern Territory..
diannaartAugust 28, 2016 at 12:04 pm

Hopefully Labor, Independents and Greens will do things better up there in the Northern Territory..

Something to look forward to…
cornlegendAugust 28, 2016 at 12:53 pm

“Hopefully Labor, Independents and Greens will do things better up there in the Northern Territory”
The Independents are almost all renegade former CLP members and the Greens at the present count have 2.8% of the vote, down 0.5%
Labor should end up withh about 18 of the 25 seats and the CLP and the CLP/former CLP will be the Opposition.
It could seem possible that the former lot could bump the former ruling CLP down to the 3rd Party in NT Politics
cornlegendAugust 28, 2016 at 1:03 pm

The 4 NT Independents{?}

Robyn Lambley

after the 2012 election became Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister to Terry Mills. She resigned (or was dropped) in the last minute attempts to save Mills’ leadership and then was appointed Minister for Health by Adam Giles. She was shifted to Education in December 2014, and then sacked from the ministry in February 2015 after backing Williem Westra van Holthe’s move to replace Giles as Chief Minister. Lambley left the Country Liberal Party in June 2015.

Kezia Purick
Elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012 for the Country Liberals, Purick resigned from the party ro become an Independent in July 2015 while remaing as Speaker.

Gerry Wood and Delia Lawrie would be viewed as Independent
cornlegendAugust 28, 2016 at 1:48 pm

Biggy, our discussion of a few days ago,, spot on,
The anti LNP/ALP Greens sympathisers/apologists as you predicted, ignored the NT election as if it didn’t happen
Found fault with Labor before the count was even half way,
Pay the man the prize 😀
Matters NotAugust 28, 2016 at 2:21 pm

Don’t forget Delia Lawrie’s background. She was a member of the ALP from 2001 to 2015, who only resigned when not endorsed for the 2016 election. She is currently leading 1 473 to 1 404 over the endorsed Labor candidate. Might go either way although the numbers in these electorates are on the ‘small’ size.

At one stage, there were even three members of the Palmer United Party, albeit for a only a short period of time. Almost as soon as ‘the plane ride was over’.

As I said above, party membership is somewhat fluid in the NT. It’s also an electorate that swings wildly. Just ask Claire Martin who won 19 seats to the ALP, 4 to the opposition CLP and 2 to independents in 2005. It was the second-largest majority government in the history of the Territory – bigger then the likely majority in this election.

History suggests that governments in the NT lose big time. Perhaps something to do with the weather.
diannaartAugust 28, 2016 at 2:23 pm

I already stated I was glad to see Labor win – I also noted that NT has a very small population, not enough to carry much more than the Deadly Duo, or was that the Dynamic…. never mind….

NT isn’t big enough – but can set examples. One example it set was a workable euthanasia bill – till Howard stepped in – that’s part of NT’s problem…. it’s a territory. (Also worth noting that Marshall Perron from the CLP introduced the euthanasia bill). Even in the NT there is a little bit of diversity.

Good that Cornie and Biggie have each other, as I and others are aware that any good governance that Labor may do, will have nothing to do with them.
cornlegendAugust 28, 2016 at 2:55 pm

diannaart

“Good that Cornie and Biggie have each other, as I and others are aware that any good governance that Labor may do, will have nothing to do with them.”
Sorry to disappoint you , it isn’t just Biggy and I, some just won’t put up with the ….
Try Twitter on Biggys, and chat to Rudd, Gillard Shorten and a conga line of ALP MPs and Senators
diannaartAugust 28, 2016 at 3:38 pm

No, Cornie

I am aware of how Biggie, Trish and yourself treat others who do not see Labor in the same holy light as you. Not very friendly at all.

Happy to chat to Shorten, Gillard, Albo and many other people but very wary around Kevin “climate change is our biggest moral challenge” Rudd.

I also keep clear of conga lines, something to do with Mark Latham…

Very happy to note when Labor matches actions with words. Action I am looking forward to happen in my lifetime, includes a ban on coal mining, the poor souls detained in our concentration, I mean, detention camps brought to Australia to be cared for and housed for as long as they require, no more funding for private schools, or big business and more.

I have already written about these issues to a diversity of politicians.

Now they have to act.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithAugust 28, 2016 at 4:01 pm

townsvilleblog re: August 22, 2016 at 9:30 am,

did you ever get an answer to your pertinent and simple question, “One last question Trish/Biggy? Are there any democratic socialists left in the ALP or are they all now social democrats?”
Jennifer Meyer-SmithAugust 28, 2016 at 4:05 pm

diannaart,

it will be interesting to see what effort Labor and its stalwarts make to significantly increase Newstart for genuinely vulnerable people on Welfare.

Kudos to Trish for taking up the baton in another article, but I’d be interested to know what Biggy thinks about that.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithAugust 28, 2016 at 4:25 pm

I agree with Helvi @ 11.40 am today.
cornlegendAugust 28, 2016 at 4:51 pm

Diannaart,
“Very happy to note when Labor matches actions with words. Action I am looking forward to happen in my lifetime, includes a ban on coal mining, the poor souls detained in our concentration, I mean, detention camps brought to Australia to be cared for and housed for as long as they require, no more funding for private schools, or big business and more.”
An excellent starting point for your gaggle of Indies to get onto.
Labor and its member will formulate policy to meet the needs of the majorit of Australians, not the demands of some

Jennifer, Labor doesn’t need to work with non existant Greens in NT, and the Independents will find their way around
Jennifer Meyer-SmithAugust 28, 2016 at 5:03 pm

cornlegend,

despite the obvious that Labor won a landslide in NT yesterday, you’re wrong to dismiss the possibility of a Labor/Greens partnership.

It lost Labor the last Federal election and it looks bad to potential voters everywhere else.

Religious violence

Can you afford to travel to work?

A Ghost in the Machine

Faulty Assurances: The Judicial Torture of Assange Continues

Spiderwoman finally leaving town

New research explores why young women in Australia…

Bondi and mental health under attack?

Suspending the Rule of Tolerable Violence: Israel’s Attack…

Will you Lean on me or are you an indi-bloody-vidual?

Like this:

Related Articles

255 comments

Leave a Reply

The Harman Undertaking

New Zealand is under siege by the Atlas Network

Share this:

Like this:

Related Articles

255 comments

Leave a Reply