# Neutral Political Discussion



## dutchie (4 March 2013)

Could we please get rid of the NODDIES behind politicians being interviewed!!!


----------



## dutchie (4 March 2013)

Politics is 99% BS

Julia is concerned about the western suburbs.
Tony is concerned about the western suburbs.
What BS


----------



## chiff (4 March 2013)

Would politicians be best described at leaders ,manipulators or followers?
Are politicians more interested in political power and self preservation rather than  the future of Australia?
My own narrow version of an intelligent person is someone that can change the way that I am thinking.
For me there are none of these people with leadership positions at present.And,indeed,they do not appear that often.


----------



## Calliope (4 March 2013)

There is no such thing as a neutral political discussion.:shake:


----------



## pixel (4 March 2013)

Calliope said:


> There is no such thing as a neutral political discussion.:shake:



from Collins' list of synonyms


> *neutral*: disinterested, dispassionate, even-handed, impartial, indifferent, nonaligned, nonbelligerent, noncombatant, noncommittal, nonpartisan, sitting on the fence, unaligned, unbiased, uncommitted, undecided, uninvolved, unprejudiced



The first 3 contributions to this thread prove you wrong. They are definitely impartial, nonaligned, and unbiased.
Just the right place for someone who finds the shenanigans of all our "Honourable" members disgusting, regardless of party lines. The bulk of them are morally corrupt, intellectually incompetent, and more interested in their personal ambitions and status than in the welfare and long-term future of the "common wealth" of Australians.
Election campaigns are run by marketing experts that wouldn't get away with the same spin in a commercial environment because they'd be sued for false advertising; but in Politics they get away with it because the standards are even lower than a used car salesman's.


----------



## Calliope (4 March 2013)

pixel said:


> from Collins' list of synonyms
> 
> The first 3 contributions to this thread prove you wrong. They are definitely impartial, nonaligned, and unbiased.




Que? Rubbishing politicians and politics is hardly neutral or impartial, nonaligned, and unbiased.

They are not impartial to politicians...just the opposite.

They are aligned against politicians.

They are biased against politicians.

I am not saying that I disagree with the sentiments expressed, but you can no more change the way politicians think and act than you can change the ways of used-car salesmen.

*But our political system is dependent on people taking sides*. We are stuck with our form of democracy, in the absence of something better.



> Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally””either directly or through elected representatives””in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.



(Wikipedia)


----------



## dutchie (4 March 2013)

Maybe your right Calliope. Maybe it's a badly named thread.

But I do agree with pixel.

I am just trying to create a thread where posters can put political comments that are not one eyed (as there are plenty of those already).

Surely a request to get rid of NODDIES by all parties is neutral.

There is certainly no need to argue about whether you can make neutral comments about politics or not. That’s just arguing for the sake of arguing. But I defend your right to do so!


----------



## Aussiejeff (4 March 2013)

dutchie said:


> Maybe your right Calliope. Maybe it's a badly named thread.
> 
> But I do agree with pixel.
> 
> ...




Ok, here's my neutral request - BAN ALL POLITICAL ADVERTISING!

Unfortunately, I understand pigs cannot fly un-aided....


----------



## pixel (4 March 2013)

Aussiejeff said:


> Ok, here's my neutral request - BAN ALL POLITICAL ADVERTISING!
> 
> Unfortunately, I understand pigs cannot fly un-aided....




+1 to that

...and a few more requests:

Rather than making voting compulsory for all, make it (a) voluntary, and (b) subject to an IC test.
Ban all Lawyers and career politicians from standing for election. We want leaders that care about the people more than their job security.
Make it compulsory that for every new law, administrative rule, request form, and support staff requisition *at least* one other law, administrative rule, request form, and support staff position must be repealed, withdrawn, relinquished.


... to be amended

PS: "IC test" would work similarly to an IQ test, except that it tests the would-be voter's "I Care" knowledge of relevant community issues. While it won't totally eliminate morons from voting for a candidate because she has red hair or he wears tight shorts, it ought to increase the likelihood of some real issues to be considered when a candidate gets the nod.


----------



## basilio (4 March 2013)

I think a neutral political discussion thread would try to focus on discussing good policy ideas, good governance and suggestions for the direction we would like to see the country take.

Probably one the more astute comments I saw recently was from Malcolm Turnball lamenting the lies that politicians now told (and got away with) and the lack of focus on political ideas. 

It's just easier and simpler to kick heads these days.


----------



## Julia (4 March 2013)

Not sure that we need yet another political thread, but I'll give my thoughts fwiw.

We know that the electorate is really fed up with the behaviour of politicians, their self serving machinations which come well ahead of their giving priority to what's actually best for the majority of Australians.

That we have such excessive levels of middle class welfare, whilst those genuinely in need are still struggling, testifies to their addiction to vote buying.

I wonder if the time is right for the leader of a party to be very candid with the people about a whole new approach?  Joe Hockey made some attempt at this several months ago when he declared the age of entitlement was over.

Would most of us be prepared to accept the loss of some current benefits in the belief that we could see some moral and ethical governance return to the country?

Would fewer tax breaks for individuals be acceptable if we could be confident the funds saved were actually going toward addressing genuine disadvantage or to increasing productivity?

I might be on quite the wrong track, but would like to see some real integrity in government, and don't believe it should be a forlorn and unrealistic hope.


----------



## bellenuit (4 March 2013)

pixel said:


> +1 to that
> 
> ...and a few more requests:
> 
> ...




Specifically for tax law, I would suggest two or more be removed for each addition. There should be no reason why the average person should need an accountant to help do their tax and ensure that one gets everything one is entitled to.


----------



## Calliope (4 March 2013)

Aussiejeff said:


> Ok, here's my neutral request - BAN ALL POLITICAL ADVERTISING!
> 
> Unfortunately, I understand pigs cannot fly un-aided....




Before the flying pigs land I suggest we have neutral discussion threads on;

Racism

Religion 

The environment

Climate change

Whaling

NBN

etc.

No more nasty debates. Just discussion groups.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 March 2013)

Calliope said:


> Before the flying pigs land I suggest we have neutral discussion threads on;
> 
> Racism
> 
> ...




+1

gg


----------



## pixel (4 March 2013)

Calliope said:


> Before the flying pigs land I suggest we have neutral discussion threads on;
> Racism
> Religion
> The environment
> ...




Sheesh - feel free to open those discussion groups if you feel a need. 
Should be quite simple and will probably also attract some participation. 
But let's leave this one to non-partisan *political *topics. Quite a few members have "got it" and replied in the spirit that Dutchie intended.


----------



## chops_a_must (4 March 2013)

Julia said:


> Not sure that we need yet another political thread, but I'll give my thoughts fwiw.
> 
> We know that the electorate is really fed up with the behaviour of politicians, their self serving machinations which come well ahead of their giving priority to what's actually best for the majority of Australians.
> 
> ...




Which raises interesting points.

If educated people know deep down that these things need to change, have we got a crisis in leadership? In critical thinking amongst the community? Or something else?


----------



## Calliope (4 March 2013)

pixel said:


> .
> But let's leave this one to non-partisan *political *topics. Quite a few members have "got it" and replied in the spirit that Dutchie intended.




If a political utopia populated with nice guys is your aspiration, and apparently it is, then go for it. I wish you well in your endeavors. I will watch with interest. 

As Dr Pangloss said;

 "All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds".


----------



## pixel (4 March 2013)

Julia said:


> We know that the electorate is really fed up with the behaviour of politicians



Do we really know that, Julia?
I get the impression that a large section of "the electorate" couldn't care less how politicians behave, as long as their welfare cheque arrives on time and they can continue to twitter about the "important" things in life - like "Will Kim Kardashian's next marriage last longer?" or "Is it OK to fart on a plane?"



> That we have such excessive levels of middle class welfare, whilst those genuinely in need are still struggling, testifies to their addiction to vote buying.




that, too, depends on whom you ask. Those middle-class recipients of child support will feel quite entitled to "the government" helping with their private school fees. Equally, parents, who discovered they're Catholics, will be all in favour for more Catholic schools being built - with government subsidies of course - but strongly oppose any money wasted on Islamic schools.



> I wonder if the time is right for the leader of a party to be very candid with the people about a whole new approach?  Joe Hockey made some attempt at this several months ago when he declared the age of entitlement was over.
> 
> Would most of us be prepared to accept the loss of some current benefits in the belief that we could see some moral and ethical governance return to the country?
> 
> ...




Those are good and valid points - but the question remains, how large a percentage of the general electorate would support them? Decades of political leaders setting bad examples and buying votes every few years have created a wide-spread sense of "entitlement" that only very few will be prepared to give up, even if they intellectually agree that "something ought to be done" to reign the waste back in.

A friend recently suggested all politicians be considered employees of their electorate with salaries matching the AWE average in their constituency; their pensions should also match the age pension.

Just imagine the consequences...


----------



## Calliope (4 March 2013)

pixel said:


> Those are good and valid points - but the question remains, how large a percentage of the general electorate would support them? Decades of political leaders setting bad examples and buying votes every few years have created a wide-spread sense of "entitlement" that only very few will be prepared to give up, even if they intellectually agree that "something ought to be done" to reign (sic) the waste back in.




Fortunately the posters on this thread have no sense of "entitlement". This sets us apart from the common "gimme" herd. If only they would follow our example.


----------



## Julia (4 March 2013)

chops_a_must said:


> Which raises interesting points.
> 
> If educated people know deep down that these things need to change, have we got a crisis in leadership? In critical thinking amongst the community? Or something else?



Thank you for recognising where I was going with the thought.  Definitely a crisis in leadership imo.
Critical thinking amongst the community?  Undoubtedly, as pixel refers to below.



pixel said:


> Do we really know that, Julia?
> I get the impression that a large section of "the electorate" couldn't care less how politicians behave, as long as their welfare cheque arrives on time and they can continue to twitter about the "important" things in life - like "Will Kim Kardashian's next marriage last longer?" or "Is it OK to fart on a plane?"



That's a realistic question, pixel.  Yes, people are happily accepting of bribery, even when it doesn't in fact bribe them to vote for whomever is putting out.  But over the last few years, I'm anecdotally, and across a wide range of media, getting the impression that there is a general realisation that we cannot go on this way.
It's perhaps born of a greater reporting and understanding of the compounding problems in the US and Europe which has gradually allowed the realisation that all is far from well.

To me at least part of the distaste for the current government arises from loss of trust and a belief that Labor has acted with a clear lack of integrity.  Even the fact that there is little confidence in Tony Abbott seems not to be enough to deter the average voter from dumping Labor.
The balance of confidence, however, is probably so slight as to allow this to quickly change if Mr Abbott or his key shadow ministers put their collective feet in it during the next few months.



> Those are good and valid points - but the question remains, how large a percentage of the general electorate would support them? Decades of political leaders setting bad examples and buying votes every few years have created a wide-spread sense of "entitlement" that only very few will be prepared to give up, even if they intellectually agree that "something ought to be done" to reign the waste back in.



 You might be quite right.  I suppose only an election platform from the Coalition with a focus on removing all the waste will tell.


----------



## Country Lad (9 March 2013)

Some of the odds being offered.




> ….the best odds available for a Coalition win being $1.16 with Luxbet.   Allowing a little for the bookmakers margin, these odds suggest the probability of a Coalition victory is around 82 per cent.
> 
> The flood of money on the Coalition means that the Labor Party has blown out to the point where $6.50 is available at tab.com.au. In a two horse race, these are very long odds and at face value, suggest the chances of a Labor win are around 15 per cent
> 
> ...




http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ent=233734&utm_campaign=kgb&modapt=commentary

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## sydboy007 (9 March 2013)

Politicians not pandering to our own self importance.  Don't see it happening.

Just look at the howling when it was suggested that a household on $150K a year is quite well off.  I'm not sure how many people you need to be in front of before you consider yourself "well off" but if beating over 75% of the population doesn't put you "up there" then I'm not sure what does.

I'd love to force the Govt to bring out a top 20 annual report.

The top 20 tax breaks eg super / negative gearing / corporate welfare

The top 20 Government spending programs

Then show how much each of these is as a % of tax.  Should be a huge wake up call for the community.

I'd love a debate about debt and to stop demonising debt that is used to improve the productive infrastructure of this country.  AFAIC debt is the fairest way of making all tax payers share the costs over the useful economic life of an asset, unless you have the ability to apply a user pays toll which is designed to only pay the debt off over the life of the assets.  Forget PPPs.  Have Govt ownership of infrastructure, include the private sector if needed to get efficiencies in the building and running, but no more 20%+ ROI when 6% would probably do it.  We'd all have better infrastructure and pay a sh*t load less for it!

I think half the problem is the majority of people out there have no idea how expensive a lot of the welfare programs are.  They forget that if these programs were cut that taxes could be lower.  It's like the Government has been gently giving us shots of heroine and now the vast majority of the punters are addicts and any attempt to target the payments at those who genuinely need them is whipped up by the shock jocks and media.  Throw in an opposition (I'm talking Federal and State) who see an opportunity to turn the community against the Government, and well, it's practically impossible to make major spending and structural changes without bipartisan support.

Probably the best thing that could occur would be a Government funded political commentary monitoring service.  It would FACT CHECK all comments made by politicians and publicly shame those who are making FACTUALLY incorrect statements.  Might work best by giving the politician 24 hours to formally correct their mistake, then publicly shaming them if they wont fess up.


----------



## Julia (9 March 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Probably the best thing that could occur would be a Government funded political commentary monitoring service.  It would FACT CHECK all comments made by politicians and publicly shame those who are making FACTUALLY incorrect statements.  Might work best by giving the politician 24 hours to formally correct their mistake, then publicly shaming them if they wont fess up.



Great idea.  Won't happen, however.  Neither side would want their lies exposed.


----------



## Country Lad (20 March 2013)

Miss Hale said:


> Gillards line about a fiesty women versus a policy free man was pathetic.  Why is she bringing gender into the debate again?  I thought she was against that?  Taking out whether it's a man or a woman, why is fiesty preferrable to policy free anyway?   She has no idea....




For those not familiar with the working of politics (which has absolutely nothing to do with governing) question time has nothing to do with asking questions and receiving answers - that went out of fashion many decades ago.

Question time has 2 purposes, the first is for a member to say something which the media will run with, hopefully to their advantage.  There are risks in that of course.

The second, and main reason, is to rally the troops.  The leaders of both side of the house need to continually demonstrate to their troops that they can dish it put better than anybody else.  This has always been the case.  When Howard had a comfortable majority in both houses, the language was more temperate.  When he was behind in the polls and his leadership was starting to be questioned, it became more strident to demonstrate that he was the best at handing it out, mainly to show that he was a strong leader.

The Gillard government has been behind in the polls for the entire period since the election. Abbott and crew were aggressive in QT from day 1 to get the media attention and rightly or wrongly continually used bullets such Carbon Tax for example and Gillard lying about it before the election.

As the polls got worse, the more abusive the government side became with Gillard doing her best to convince her caucus she was the best performer in the house.  As we have the run-up to the election Gillard will become more strident in an attempt to shore up her leadership.  I expect that Abbott will become more and more tempered in his words and leave the rough stuff to the headbutters.  He doesn't need to shore up his position.

So you need to see question time for what it is - senior members, Ministers and in particular the PM showing their own side they are in good hands and the more abusive the language the better to prove that.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## Julia (20 March 2013)

Well, it doesn't appear that such a strategy is working too well for the government at present, does it!

Imo the electorate is well and truly sick of strident abuse in parliament.

Might be good for the politicians to remember that it's the electorate which ultimately determines their fate, not their political colleagues.


----------



## white_goodman (20 March 2013)

oh look a political thread.. wheres IFocus i need to be illuminated


----------



## awg (20 March 2013)

does idle speculation about a politician fall within the remit of this thread?:

that Richard Torbay fella, resigned from everything just like that!

and they mentioned an Eddie Obeid link ??

So supposing you are a crook, what enticement would one employ to have ensnared a public politician, especially a married one, that you wished to cultivate & trap for favor?

I know one I would use, cant remember who it was that allegedly arranged those girls for Ian Mcdonald, when he was drunk ?

now I am certainly not saying that is what happened, just what I would do if I was crooked and wicked and bought up in that way of doing business.


----------



## explod (20 March 2013)

Good thread.

Interesting news item yesterday when our Deputy of the Reserve Bank indicated they may have to do something about the value of the Aussie dollar to stimulate business.

Do I miss something here.  In my view anything that Governments decide or our own little piggy bank do are going to make absolutely no difference to our economic situation on the world stage.

Politics my friends, get over it, all they have really done in the last 30 years is to privatize and sell off our most precious assets.  Water, power, phones to name just a few.  All they have left now is to sell us.


----------



## white_goodman (21 March 2013)

explod said:


> Good thread.
> 
> Interesting news item yesterday when our Deputy of the Reserve Bank indicated they may have to do something about the value of the Aussie dollar to stimulate business.
> 
> ...




would they have been better off buying everything? I wonder how 'us' would have felt then


----------



## tinhat (21 March 2013)

Gee that "add user to ignore list" feature is handy isn't it?

Regarding compulsory voting. While there are advantages and disadvantages to both compulsory and voluntary voting I believe the advantages of compulsory voting win out. But in any case there is generally only be one outcome of an election - the election of a politician (unless of course you are in Italy where you get to vote for ex-pr0n stars). But that probably is a political discussion because to me at the heart of it is the degree to which one holds individual libertarianism to be above a duty to the community and the need to accommodate shared values for the social good.

One thing that I found quite interesting is that when countries like Hungary and Estonia escaped the shackles of the iron curtain and regained democracy, they turned to literary men as their presidents at a time when their county's needed to create a independent identity and national confidence amongst the people.

Well it's 2:57 in the morning and I can't sleep despite sipping on cheap cask wine. Might have to visit the muscatel barrel. What more nonsense can I say?. nothing much...


----------



## dutchie (27 March 2013)

from
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/


the Entitled Australian:


    ‘The Australian public ... seem to expect that the full suite of welfare services will extend to them across the globe no matter where they go or how they behave,’’ the report says, citing a couple who wanted frequent flyer points while being evacuated from Cairo on a government-chartered rescue flight.


Is Australia/the world becoming too welfare dependent ? Are our citizens expecting too much for nothing and do they have a bad sense of entitlement?

It appears so.


----------



## dutchie (27 March 2013)

dutchie said:


> Could we please get rid of the NODDIES behind politicians being interviewed!!!




Just saw two noddies behind Abbott talking about super.

At one stage one noddy was moving his head vertically and at same time the other noddy was moving his head horizontally.

Looked ridiculous.

They don't know how stupid they look.

Is the need by politicians, to have someone standing behind them nodding in agreement, a basic flaw in the psyche/confidence?

Imagine if all public speakers were to do this - how funny would that be!


----------



## Knobby22 (27 March 2013)

dutchie said:


> Just saw two noddies behind Abbott talking about super.
> 
> At one stage one noddy was moving his head vertically and at same time the other noddy was moving his head horizontally.
> 
> ...




Someone should suggest they do a takeoff in Micallef's program. Mad as Hell.


----------



## Julia (27 March 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> Someone should suggest they do a takeoff in Micallef's program. Mad as Hell.



Agree.  They'd do a great take off of it.
Another terrific program (apologies for the diversion of the thread) is "The Checkout" with some of the Chaser team.  Really, really good imo.


----------



## drsmith (30 March 2013)

That man Eddie Obeid certainly spread his tentacles far and wide.



> Several years back some farmers working in a cattle yard did a double-take when they spotted two men meeting on a lonely stretch of road 100 kilometres from Armidale. The driver of the metallic green Range Rover was powerful Labor figure Eddie Obeid. The person he was meeting was Mr Torbay.




No wonder the Nationals dumped Richard Torbay like a sack of rotten spuds. 

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/the-secret-life-of-richard-torbay-20130329-2gz4a.html


----------



## Miss Hale (30 March 2013)

dutchie said:


> Just saw two noddies behind Abbott talking about super.
> 
> At one stage one noddy was moving his head vertically and at same time the other noddy was moving his head horizontally.
> 
> ...




The funniest noddies I saw recently were the two women behind Rudd when he announced he was _*not *_ challenging for the leadership.  Instead of nodding they were very carefully keeping very straight faces. I reckon that, aside from Rudd, they were the only two in the room that weren't displaying a gobsmacked expression.  

I agree, they look silly and the pollies should get rid of them.


----------



## dutchie (2 April 2013)

The current political debacle will make a great movie (as suggested by Logique).

I am putting the following up for the lead roles:

Gillard - Cate Blanchard
Abbott - Russell Crowe

Any other suggestions?


----------



## drsmith (28 May 2013)

The budget's bleeding but that doesn't stop the major parties helping themselves to more taxpayer funds.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ampaigning-bonus/story-fn59niix-1226651730046


----------



## DB008 (28 June 2013)

These guys had an ad in the local a few days ago.

21st Century Party
http://21stcenturyaustralia.com.au/

(*Some of their policies sound ok, others don't)


----------



## Julia (28 June 2013)

Would you consider voting for any of these minor parties, Danny?


----------



## DB008 (29 June 2013)

Julia said:


> Would you consider voting for any of these minor parties, Danny?




Yes.

I (think) have stated this on the first page of this thread (or another similar thread).

Either Q Society or 21st Century party will get my vote. I lean towards the right anyways and it looks like they will get in come the next election.


----------



## Julia (29 June 2013)

Not consider it a wasted vote?  Will it matter to whom they direct preferences?


----------



## Ferret (29 June 2013)

I'm likely to vote for an independent or a minor party too.  

I don't consider it a wasted vote, rather I hope I am sending a message to the main parties that what they are offering is not appealing.


----------



## DB008 (29 June 2013)

Don't know where to put this?

Here or in the 'Brilliant YT Vids' thread....enjoy!

This sums up Canberra


----------



## sydboy007 (29 June 2013)

Like others in this thread I'm bitterly disappointed and disillusioned with the major parties these days.

About the only positive i can take from positives in this country is at least so far we still have 2 main parties fighting over the centre.  I hate to think how far the country would fall should we get into the disgustingly divisive politics you see in the USA where each party seems to fight over the loony left or the bible bashing Gov'ment has not right to tax me far right.

Sigh, where's the politician that tells it without spin, that's not afraid to talk to the people, make the odd mistake because they interact with us outside carefully scripted events, and can actually bring the majority along with them on the positive vision they have for the country.

No one seems to have it.  It just feels these days it's all about what vested interest you will pander to, what voting block you'll splash cash on, what commission you will ignore advice from because it either doesn't fit with your blinkered view or it's deemed too hard and may offend too many voters.

I'll take my hat off to the first politician in power who hears an idea from someone else, admits it's a good idea, and then implements the policy.  Working in IT we have a saying - the 12 of us in the team makes 1 good tech.  It's just about impossible for any one person to have all the knowledge and experience, just as it's impossible for one political party to have all the best ideas on how to keep this country rich and prosperous and alive with the hope every parent has for their children that they will live a better life than what they had.

Conversely, I'll take my hat off to an opposition that can bring itself to admit a Govt policy is good and not fight it just for spite.  If our politicians behaved like they do in primary school, parents would be shocked.  We revile the way politicians behave, yet seem to condone it.  Thee never seems to be much punishment by voters on poor behaviour.  Maybe it stems from the cheering you hear during a rubble at an Origin match, maybe we still let the old reptilian part of our brains enjoy the fight more than the journey?

I see parliament like the head quarters for company Australia.  The Government may be the chairman of the board, but the opposition should be like the legal department that goes through what the company is doing and picks up anythign that can get you into trouble, but largely works with the chairman to get things done.


----------



## Julia (29 June 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'll take my hat off to the first politician in power who hears an idea from someone else, admits it's a good idea, and then implements the policy.



More than three quarters of the legislation passed during the term of this minority government has been passed with the assent of the opposition.
Don't make the mistake of assuming they disagree with everything from the entirely valid and stand out areas where they do absolutely disagree and are entirely within their rights to say so, labour the point even.



> Conversely, I'll take my hat off to an opposition that can bring itself to admit a Govt policy is good and not fight it just for spite.



As above.

That said, I don't think there would be too many Australians who are not disgusted by the recent parliamentary behaviour.  That the government is setting the tone with their in-fighting would be difficult to dispute.
How they can expect the electorate to believe they can bring about unity in the general population when they themselves are so bitterly divided is beyond any reasonable person.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 June 2013)

Julia said:


> More than three quarters of the legislation passed during the term of this minority government has been passed with the assent of the opposition.
> Don't make the mistake of assuming they disagree with everything from the entirely valid and stand out areas where they do absolutely disagree and are entirely within their rights to say so, labour the point even.
> 
> 
> ...




Very true, but then the Liberals and Nationals are barely a unified force either.  The hope of getting their flabby butts on the treasury benches keeps it in check, but you only have to see the reaction to gay marriage or abortion in their ranks to know just how divided they are.

As for legislation passign with their assent, they might not have blocked the Govt, but they still harped on about a lot of it.

Look at the last budget.  The Liberals pretty much complained about all the spending cuts, yet passed all of them and pretty much did not commit to reinstating any of the spending.  It just seems petty and churlish.  Either you support the spending cuts, enough said, or you don't and either block it, or since you think you'll be in power 6 months later, commit to reinstating those Govt programs.


----------



## So_Cynical (30 June 2013)

Julia said:


> How they can expect the electorate to believe they can bring about unity in the general population when they themselves are so bitterly divided is beyond any reasonable person.




The big difference is that Julia is Gone...the other contender is no more, Labor will be going into the election without Julia and the bulk of her front bench team, Swannie etc...its a different picture, one a lot closer to the Kevin 07 presentation.


----------



## Julia (30 June 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> The big difference is that Julia is Gone...the other contender is no more, Labor will be going into the election without Julia and the bulk of her front bench team, Swannie etc...its a different picture, one a lot closer to the Kevin 07 presentation.



That's all true.  The downside for them will be the number of inexperienced new ministers.


----------



## Calliope (30 June 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Very true, but then the Liberals and Nationals are barely a unified force either.  The hope of getting their flabby butts on the treasury benches keeps it in check, *but you only have to see the reaction to gay marriage or abortion in their ranks to know just how divided they are.*




I thought this was neutral political discussion. You raise two minor issues that only affect vocal minorities.


----------



## dutchie (10 July 2013)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...europe-for-crean/story-fn59niix-1226676805285

Cook's tour of Europe for Simon Crean

    by: Cameron Stewart
    From: The Australian
    July 10, 2013 12:00AM


OUTGOING Labor veteran and Rudd supporter Simon Crean and his wife have taken a taxpayer-funded parliamentary trip to Europe just months before he leaves his job.

It is understood the study trip could include Italian cooking lessons for the couple in Rome as well as a sojourn on the canals of Venice.

Department of Foreign Affairs sources have told The Australian that instructions were recently sent to Australia's embassy in Rome to look into organising cooking classes for Mr Crean and his wife, Carole.

The former Labor leader is believed to be in the Swiss city of Geneva on a visit that will also take him to Rome, the fashion capital of Milan and the tourist mecca of Venice - all paid for by his parliamentary entitlements for overseas study travel.

Just days after backing Kevin Rudd in the leadership ballot over Julia Gillard last month, the former minister announced he would retire from politics in the coming election, ending a 23-year parliamentary career.

Sources said Mr Crean had a full schedule and a detailed itinerary for his European study tour, but Mr Crean's office declined to provide further details last night.

A spokesman for Mr Crean said only that the study trip was "being undertaken in accordance with the senators and members' entitlements".

Mr Crean was unavailable to respond before deadline to The Australian's questions about why such a taxpayer-funded study trip was justified when a federal election is due sometime in the next three months, severing his connection with politics.

Unless the Prime Minister decides to set an election after Ms Gillard's nominated September 14, parliament will not be recalled before the poll.

Politicians must apply for, and have their study trip approved, before they can take them. It is unclear when Mr Crean's European trip was approved.

Mr Crean, 64, decided to retire from politics at the coming election after he was defeated by Anthony Albanese in a ballot for deputy leader during the Labor leadership showdown late last month. He then turned down an offer from Mr Rudd for a cabinet position.

In March, Mr Crean was sacked as minister for the arts and regional Australia by Ms Gillard after he came out publicly in support of Mr Rudd as leader during an abortive attempt to persuade the then backbencher to challenge for the party leadership.

The Remuneration Tribunal last year announced the gradual abolition of the entitlement for parliamentarians to take overseas study trips at taxpayer expense. MPs no longer accrue an entitlement for overseas study travel, worth about $23,000, but MPs who have an entitlement will be able to access it.

The perk is being axed this year because of concerns that politicians are exploiting the generous travel allowance for their own enjoyment

In last week's press conference to announce his forthcoming retirement, Mr Crean said the past three years in politics had been the hardest of his 23 years in parliament. He said to his wife: "To you, Caz - you know these are hard days but we will have a good time together, I'm sure."

Since his decision to retire Mr Crean has been lauded by both sides of politics for his service to the country, which saw him serve as a cabinet minister in the Hawke, Keating, Rudd and Gillard governments. His late father, Frank, was a Whitlam minister and a state and federal MP for 33 years.






What benefit to Australian taxpayers do these very expensive trips have? (In this case cooking classes in Italy for example).

I stress that this sort of rort is routinely undertaken by all side's of politics. So I am not just picking on Labor.

I'm sick and tired of all political rort's and retirement entitlements (cars, secretaries, golden passes etc etc).

No other job gets these sort of perk's - why politicians?

I say:   Ban the perks!    Ban the perks!


----------



## MrBurns (10 July 2013)

dutchie said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...europe-for-crean/story-fn59niix-1226676805285
> 
> Cook's tour of Europe for Simon Crean
> 
> !




Disgraceful


----------



## Some Dude (11 July 2013)

An analysis about Australia and politics.



> In February of this year we asked a representative sample of 1,377 Australians to consider various issues regarding Australian politics and their role in making democracy work. Our findings should give all democrats pause for thought.
> 
> Australian Survey of Political Engagement Findings, 2013. Mark Evans, Gerry Stoker and Jamal Nasir.
> Australians feel they are observers rather than participants in formal politics. Nine in ten of those interviewed regard themselves as without influence over the federal government and seven in ten feel the same about other levels of government. There is widespread evidence of negative attitudes towards politics and politicians.


----------



## Country Lad (12 August 2013)

My interest in the election is demonstrated by the fact I didn't watch the debate, couldn't care less who "won" and don't have any interest in the election campaign as it is all spin and BS.

The mostly biased and predictable comments by a few in the so called discussions here are no different to what is being dished out by the candidates - partisan party politics.  As in other matters, I do my own research and don't waste time on such orchestrated nonsense as the campaign or the debate.  

It would be interesting to see how many voters actually watched the debate, and I would not be surprised if most would be glued on party supporters whose minds are closed anyway. 

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## Knobby22 (12 August 2013)

I'm with you Country Lad. Didn't want to waste 60 minutes of my life watching a so called "debate".

I'm sure its only the rusted on voters who bothered.


----------



## Ves (12 August 2013)

Country Lad said:


> My interest in the election is demonstrated by the fact I didn't watch the debate, couldn't care less who "won" and don't have any interest in the election campaign as it is all spin and BS.
> 
> The mostly biased and predictable comments by a few in the so called discussions here are no different to what is being dished out by the candidates - partisan party politics.  As in other matters, I do my own research and don't waste time on such orchestrated nonsense as the campaign or the debate.
> 
> It would be interesting to see how many voters actually watched the debate, and I would not be surprised if most would be glued on party supporters whose minds are closed anyway.



Thanks CL  -  I'm in pretty much the same boat as you and agree with most of what you have said.

Lots of the political discussions on forums and in the media remind me of crowds barracking "one-eyed" for their football teams.  Lots of fact presenting, but only when it conforms to a previously held bias.


----------



## dutchie (12 August 2013)

The worms during the debate are nonsense.

How would the worm go if it only showed General Chat contributors. Abbott would win easily.

The whole "debate" thing is a lot of nonsense too. It's just a platform for the leader's to regurgitate what they have been saying in the past.

Until we know all the policies *and* their costing's there can be no "debate".

And we will have to wait until the last minute before we get those from either party.


----------



## Julia (12 August 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> I'm with you Country Lad. Didn't want to waste 60 minutes of my life watching a so called "debate".
> 
> I'm sure its only the rusted on voters who bothered.



Do you mean only voters who are, as you put it, rusted on to a party, regardless of policy or personality?


----------



## Knobby22 (12 August 2013)

Yes, people who always vote a certain way without really being interested in policy. It becomes like barracking for a football side. Country Lad expressed it well.

I love a good debate discussing details of policy and how issues should be handled. A real debate of ideas.
Wish we could have one.


----------



## sydboy007 (12 August 2013)

from macrobusiness today commenting on an AFR article over the weekend

_…the tax system is badly broken. It can’t generate enough revenue to deliver long-term structural surpluses that underpin a successful society. While there are good opportunities for targeted spending cuts that don’t damage the economy’s productive base or the basic social safety net, solid demographic figures suggest this is unlikely to be enough to restore a viable surplus.

In 1970, the ratio of Australians of working age able to support services and subsidies to those 65 or older was 7 to 5. Today, the ratio is 5 to 1. By 2050, it will drop to 2.7 to 1, placing an unconscionable burden on the workforce. Simply boosting labour market productivity can’t offset the big increase in the cost of services and subsidies for older people.

Perversely, the present arrangements will let a lot more people spend as long in retirement as they did in the workforce. Yet, thanks to former treasurer Peter Costello, the existing tax system will allow more people to retire at 60 and pay no income tax for another 30 or more years. Many will be better off financially than those slogging away in a workforce that is far smaller proportionally than it is now, let alone in 1970.

…growth will run into stiff headwinds as more baby boomers retire. Neither Labor nor the Coalition shows any inclination to tackle this looming fiscal tsunami. Both are preoccupied with patching up the existing budget structure and defending components that make it harder to achieve a surplus…_

A glance at Australia’s long-term demographic data and projections from the United Nations shows that the proportion of workers to retirees is set to plummet over coming decades as the large Baby Boomer cohort shifts into retirement (see below chart).

The implications for Australian government finances are immense. Not only will governments have a much smaller pool of workers with whom to collect taxes from, making it much more difficult for the Government to raise the required amount of tax revenue. But they will also have to contend with rising health and aged-care expenditures, significantly increasing overall Budget outlays.

So far our political "leaders" have their heads in the sand (or is that up their A$$es?) that they will leave any adjustment till the last minute, which will cost us dearly.

How tax free super is viable with the halving of workers per retiree over the next few decades is beyond me


----------



## orr (12 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> from macrobusiness today commenting on an AFR article over the weekend
> 
> _…the tax system is badly broken. It can’t generate enough revenue to deliver long-term structural surpluses that underpin a successful society.
> So far our political "leaders" have their heads in the sand (or is that up their A$$es?) that they will leave any adjustment till the last minute, which will cost us dearly.
> ...



_

To begin with Economists, who will never have the task of being elected, would adjust the the the GST, and let bracket creep on income tax ride.
That to one side; Jeff Kennet's 'Keynesian' Epiphany, voiced today, if it gets any traction, which when melded with Abbott 'Mr Super Infrastructure Man', may give rise to an expanded tax base... Give me a Melbourne/Brisbane rail freight link, powered by Aussie natural gas powered  loco's.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/borrow-to-build-rail-network-kennett-20130811-2rq88.html_


----------



## Julia (12 August 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> Yes, people who always vote a certain way without really being interested in policy. It becomes like barracking for a football side. Country Lad expressed it well.



Did he?  He said:


> The mostly biased and predictable comments by a few in the so called discussions here are no different to what is being dished out by the candidates - partisan party politics. As in other matters, I do my own research and don't waste time on such orchestrated nonsense as the campaign or the debate.



" So called discussions"    "No different to (sic) what is being dished out by the candidates ".
"I would not be surprised if most would be glued on party supporters whose minds are closed anyway".

Such judgement.  So if you don't want to engage in any political discussion, why not (a) avoid reading the thread, and (b) refrain from supercilious condemnation of those who do?

I do not agree that all of us who are politically engaged and who happen to enjoy participating in the discussion are ipso facto stupid, unable to think for ourselves, do our own research, and make up our own minds.

There are plenty of threads on this forum in which I have minimal interest, occasionally read and think 'oh goodness, what nonsense', but I don't feel obliged to condemn those who are obviously enjoying their participation therein.



> I love a good debate discussing details of policy and how issues should be handled. A real debate of ideas.
> Wish we could have one.



Well, how about, instead of being critical, making a substantive contribution to such a debate to which others would be inspired to respond equally thoughtfully?  Good debate doesn't happen in a vacuum.
So much easier to sit on the sidelines and deliver pejorative, superior remarks.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 August 2013)

Well in answer to your "superior" comments. 
How come all I have seen from the debate is people talking about the behaviour of the candidates and who performed better, no comment about policy. 

I'm sorry, it has descended into barracking. And the only people watching it are those that are barracking. 

Just read them, there is nothing else. I have better things to do than watch them and hope for mistakes from one side.

With regard to the debate, I was talking a debate between the leaders, not this website.


----------



## Julia (12 August 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> With regard to the debate, I was talking a debate between the leaders, not this website.



Thank you for explaining that.  I know you to usually be fair minded.

I think, however, it was fairly clear that what I was referring to was the criticism of those participating in this thread, viz.


> The mostly biased and predictable comments by a few in the so called discussions here are no different to what is being dished out by the candidates - partisan party politics.
> 
> It would be interesting to see how many voters actually watched the debate, and I would not be surprised if most would be glued on party supporters whose minds are closed anyway.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> Well in answer to your "superior" comments.
> How come all I have seen from the debate is people talking about the behaviour of the candidates and who performed better, no comment about policy.
> 
> I'm sorry, it has descended into barracking. And the only people watching it are those that are barracking.
> ...




Currently, there hasn't been much in the way of policy from either side, therefore all one can comment on is the performance of the candidates.

Also much has been stated over the past 4 - 5 years on Abbotts lack of presentation skills. The debate(if you could call it that) was one of the first times Abbott and Rudd have made joint presentations.

Why wouldn't it be worthy of peoples observations, many over the last couple of years have made derogatory comments on Abbotts delivery, you and I included.

So why shouldn't people critique it.


----------



## Country Lad (12 August 2013)

It doesn't take much for you to get on your high hose Julia.



Julia said:


> Did he?  He said:
> 
> " So called discussions"    "No different to (sic) what is being dished out by the candidates ".
> "I would not be surprised if most would be glued on party supporters whose minds are closed anyway".




That is being dishonest Julia, you are purposely taking this out of context.  The second line of that quote had nothing to do with the first line - you are twisting what I said because that second line was clearly in relation to the debate seeing it was in the same sentence as "how many voters actually watched the debate" - nothing to do with this forum.

That is precisely my point, and you give a great example - partisan misleading comments and much misrepresentation of what is actually said leading to abuse such as the rest of your post.

I rest my case.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## Julia (13 August 2013)

This is from your original post:


Country Lad said:


> My interest in the election is demonstrated by the fact I didn't watch the debate, couldn't care less who "won" and don't have any interest in the election campaign as it is all spin and BS.
> 
> *The mostly biased and predictable comments by a few in the so called discussions here *are no different to what is being dished out by the candidates - partisan party politics.



Clear supercilious and patronising assessment of those of us regularly participating in this discussion.
It would seem so easy to just avoid the thread if it so offends you.



> It would be interesting to see how many voters actually watched the debate, and I would not be surprised if most would be glued on party supporters whose minds are closed anyway.



Again a judgement.  I watched most of the debate, mostly for the reasons described by sptrawler above, not because I'm not able to separately decide on whom to vote for.  As did many people I know, none of whom are incapable of objectivity, and none of whom are 'rusted on' to either party.
FWIW I've actually voted Labor about as often as I've voted for the Coalition.





Country Lad said:


> That is being dishonest Julia, you are purposely taking this out of context. The second line of that quote had nothing to do with the first line - you are twisting what I said because that second line was clearly in relation to the debate seeing it was in the same sentence as "how many voters actually watched the debate" - nothing to do with this forum.



As above, I was responding to two of your 'assessments' of your fellow ASF members.
I have nothing more to say on this.


----------



## Ves (13 August 2013)

Julia said:


> Clear supercilious and patronising assessment *of those of us regularly participating in this discussion*.






			
				CountryLad said:
			
		

> The mostly biased and predictable comments *by a few* in the so called discussions here are no different to what is being dished out by the candidates - partisan party politics.




I am baffled as to how you can read a statement that specifically says _by a few_ and intepret it as meaning _those of us regularly participating_.  The most basic of statements seem to be lost on you when it suits your agenda of crying foul on a view you do not agree with.  

If it was a one-off incident it would probably be let slip - but Julia it is a continuous occurence with you.   Your posts seem to regularly attract conflict stemming from an overtly defensive attitude - "how dare you criticise me."   I know you freely like to blame others for this happening, whether publically or via snarky private messages for offending or attacking you.  But have you considered that part of the problem may be caused in your need to _read into other people's posts a little too much?_   Not everything said on these forums is about you, so there is no need to make out it is to justify your need to be the perennial victim.

The best piece of advice is your own:



Julia said:


> It would seem so easy to just avoid the thread if it so offends you.


----------



## Julia (13 August 2013)

Thank you for your opinion, Ves.  That's a fair point about 'a few'.   You are correct that I misinterpreted that.

I'm always happy to apologise if I've been unreasonable and I accept that I probably over-reacted to CL's post. So herewith such apology to CL .


----------



## Country Lad (13 August 2013)

Julia said:


> So herewith such apology to CL .




Thank you Julia, accepted.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## dutchie (15 August 2013)

I think that it will be important for the next government, whether Labor or Coalition, to have a clear majority in both houses.

Australia is facing another difficult time ahead with it's finances and the slowing down of the resources boom.

The ruling government will need to be able to run the country without kowtowing to any minor party or independents.

So for this election it will be important, imho, for people to either vote for labor or the coalition.


----------



## MrBurns (15 August 2013)

dutchie said:


> I think that it will be important for the next government, whether Labor or Coalition, to have a clear majority in both houses.
> 
> Australia is facing another difficult time ahead with it's finances and the slowing down of the resources boom.
> 
> ...




Yes I think it's time for the Greens to go away and take with them all the Independents who have done nothing for anyone but themselves.


----------



## sydboy007 (16 August 2013)

<sarcasm alert>

possibly we should have all Federal members of parliament help to build the refugee proof fence spanning along the top of the country.  Should be a good work for the dole scheme.  Maybe assign current refugees waiting for their status to be verified to work with each member.  I certainly have a fair idea of who's going to be the harder workers.

I'm sure the exercise will do them good, especially the over weigh pollies, and I'd certainly like to see them doing some work rather than having tantrums in the media over insignificant issues (note I'm not saying immigration isn't an important issue, just that so far I've yet yo see any indication that our potential leaders have any idea about the problems rolling in, especially due to demographics.)


----------



## Calliope (16 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'm sure the exercise will do them good, especially the over weigh pollies, and I'd certainly like to see them doing some work rather than having tantrums in the media over insignificant issues




I agree. Insignificant issues like gay marriage and and political correctness get far too much attention.


----------



## sydboy007 (16 August 2013)

Calliope said:


> I agree. Insignificant issues like gay marriage and and political correctness get far too much attention.




Throw in ideas for spending billions to develop the north when infrastructure in the capital cities is growing under some of the highest population growth.  Cutting travel times in Sydney by 10 minutes saves billions in time but our illustrious leaders have their grand schemes to tame the north.


----------



## Calliope (16 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Throw in ideas for spending billions to develop the north when infrastructure in the capital cities is growing under some of the highest population growth.  Cutting travel times in Sydney by 10 minutes saves billions in time but our illustrious leaders have their grand schemes to tame the north.




Tough border protection and developing the North are just hollow vote catching scams. Both will be ditched after the election regardless of who wins, because neither is achievable.


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2013)

Calliope said:


> Tough border protection and developing the North are just hollow vote catching scams. Both will be ditched after the election regardless of who wins, because neither is achievable.



I could comment on border protection but it wouldn't be neutral.


----------



## sydboy007 (17 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> I could comment on border protection but it wouldn't be neutral.




I think our Dear Leaders watched a bit too much Croc Dundee in their more youthful years.

That's not a general <2 star>

THIS is a GENERAL <3 stars>

ps it's a jump from a rear admiral to a vice admiral.

I'm a bit disappointed not to see a 4 star general (Admiral) assigned his duties, and there's a 5 star Admiral of the fleet who could also chip in 

How I long for a recognition of fiscal imbalance and ways to deal with it, innovative infrastructure funding, enhancement of the CSIRO in agriculture and new breeds of food crops and funding for studies to determine if any of the fears about GM crops have a basis in fact.

A report on where 75% of Govt revenue is sourced and the top 10-15 spending programs, or tax forgone, so the punters can start to gain a small understanding of where the money comes from and where it goes.  Then we might start to have some adult like debate about how to change the tax system.  

I wont hold my breath.  Now I must tend my flying pigs.


----------



## noco (18 August 2013)

Many moons ago I posted my opinion on political candidates who, in the case of men with a Clarke Gable or a Pierce Brosnan apperance, would appeal more to women and would most likely receive more votes than a candidate with less sex appeal irrespect of their political beliefs.

Perhaps this is the reason Malcolm Turnbull is more popular than Tony Abbott. It does not matter whether you are a Rhode Scholar with an economics degree as in the case of Tony Abbott or in Labors case with David Bradbury who is professor in Economics. Bradbury is up against a female who has sex appeal and he may well lose his seat irrespective of his academic ability.

Many people are easily swayed into making a purchase whether it is a house, a car or some minor article if the sales person they are dealing with are beautiful people.

Jessica Irvine explains why beautiful people get paid more.




http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...id-more-than-you/story-e6freon6-1226698982762


----------



## chiff (18 August 2013)

Perhaps more people are swayed by articulate people able to present a cogent intelligent plausible case.But then again perhaps not.
As is said-I used to be indecisive but now I am not quite sure.


----------



## noco (18 August 2013)

chiff said:


> Perhaps more people are swayed by articulate people able to present a cogent intelligent plausible case.But then again perhaps not.
> As is said-I used to be indecisive but now I am not quite sure.




I do believe the majority of voters who have the intelligence to define the difference will vote on the policies of a party and how they have performed in the past.

There is also a minority who will vote for a candidate just on their personl appearance of a photo. If they look good, they will attract some votes and that is a fact.


----------



## sydboy007 (18 August 2013)

chiff said:


> Perhaps more people are swayed by articulate people able to present a cogent intelligent plausible case.But then again perhaps not.
> As is said-I used to be indecisive but now I am not quite sure.




The level of cynicism out there against politicians is so high I do wonder if anyone listens much these days.

Even when a politician starts to say something of import, half the time we're wondering if it's a core or non core promise.

Maybe we need our Dear Leader(s) to provide a list of things they will achieve in their term in office.  Should they feel to achieve all of them, they will step down.  Should help to sharpen their thinking and resolve.

I'd also like to hear nothing about what they plan to do if it wont start within the term of office they are elected for.  Not much point telling me about some grand plan you will do, but ONLY if you can vote for me twice.

Between thinking if the ALP can do half of what they say, and the Libs / Nats who sports bet wont give odds on for finding a bigger budget deficit over the forward estimates, really what does any of us really think will happen over the next 3 years?  What's the point of policies when most of us don't have much faith it will be implemented?  We've already seen Tony and Joe step back from their claims of a surplus in their first term (which is probably a good thing for the economy) but will the economic outcome be much different to Labor?


----------



## chiff (18 August 2013)

Yes about policies.We were once told that you vote for a party on policies.But policies can be changed or disregarded overnight.Instead (thanks to Wayne's articulation) perhaps we should vote on ideology or long-term commitment.These commitments can be demonstrated by past actions or performance.Commitments to equality,education,health etc. This equality should apply,for example, to  health and education,and with, if needs be a bias toward those that are disadvantaged or deprived.


----------



## Calliope (27 August 2013)

Those who enjoy neutral political discussions might like to take this quiz.

http://australia.isidewith.com/political-quiz

I come out as a completely dyed-in-the-wool conservative.


----------



## Knobby22 (27 August 2013)

Good poll.
I come out pretty much equal on all parties. it needs more questions though.

Parties you side with...



70% Liberals  on foreign policy, social, and immigration issues 


66% Labor on economic, foreign policy, and immigration issues 


60% Greens on environmental and economic issues


----------



## Ves (27 August 2013)

Calliope said:


> Those who enjoy neutral political discussions might like to take this quiz.
> 
> http://australia.isidewith.com/political-quiz
> 
> I come out as a completely dyed-in-the-wool conservative.




I side with Liberals on most political issues.


Parties you side with...



63%
Liberals  
Liberals 

on environmental and immigration issues 


60%
Greens  
Greens 

on domestic policy and social issues 


21%
Labour
Labour

on social issues


I'm not sure what any of that achieves as I don't usually do these things.


----------



## waza1960 (27 August 2013)

83% Liberal (and proud of it lol)


----------



## springhill (27 August 2013)

Lib - 93% economic, environmental, foreign policy, immigration & social issues
Lab - 21% immigration
Green - 7% nothing


----------



## Country Lad (28 August 2013)

This article called a Guide to Australian politics is definitely political neutral.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## sydboy007 (29 August 2013)

a reasonably balanced atricle on Labors policies for the SME constituency

http://tinyurl.com/ndz3cgj

Lets hope whoever wins the election does actually follow through on their claims to cut down on the administrative burdens for this sector.  I remember the hassles of it all when I was part owner of a Thai takeaway store around 10 years ago.


----------

