Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.


Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Barters81, Apr 26, 2016.

  1. So I'm going to start up a thread on politics for a few reasons, but mainly as it's pretty important and I'm sure most have a view.

    Personally I've always leaned to the right in politics, at least that's what I've been told and my voting habits rightly or wrongly have usually, but not always included the Liberal party.

    I'd like to think that I can make up my mind based on the arguments presented before me, giving each side a fair go at each election. But understand old prejudices do have an impact on these things as well, as much as I may not like to admit it. Seems like for something as complicated as this, giving me two choices isn't fair.

    These days I've no idea which side of the fence I sit on. To be honest it doesn't feel like either of the major parties really care for anything other then ensuring their collective survival. Everyone is out for themselves, which to be fair is probably just a product of the world we live in.

    As a few questions I often ponder:

    - Is the current political system we use working? 2 parties? Upper and Lower House?
    - Is there a better way?
    - Could it ever be changed? If so how?

    Anyway.....apologies if politics is too much of a taboo topic, or if people can't discuss this stuff like adults further down.......

    • Like Like x 1
  2. I think there should be some sort of heavy fine system in place (to affect each minister personally, as well as the party as a whole) every time the elected government backflips on an election promise (that they clearly had no intention of keeping).

    Keep the bastards (somewhat) honest...
    • Agree Agree x 5
  3. Round them all up, then, slowly, one at a time, burn them at the stake.

    (Except Julie Bishop!)
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  4. The apathy of the general public is as much to blame as the current lot of politicians. It would take a lot of the general public to vote for alternative parties for them to wake up.

    Personally, can't relate to the lefties, but the conservatives lost me by doing the same crap that rudd/gillard did.

    Now, to find a decent alternative.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. Well to start with we have too many levels of government, all with their snouts in the trough and their hands in our pockets. We need to get rid of one of them; probably State government, and then have Councils administering local affairs, funded by local rates and some locally-relevant taxes, and Federal Government administering everything else, funded by income tax and other levies. There's many holes in the idea, I'll allow, but right at the moment a stupid amount of the nation's income is being spent just on government itself.....
    • Agree Agree x 9
  6. Julie Bishop made her name by defending the asbestos miners against compensation claims. She's probably fireproof.
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. As much as we all know it's probably a bad thing for the world at large, I can see why Trump is getting the support he is in the US.

    He says outrageous things, stupid things often.

    But I reckon his voters would rather take a chance with him just because he is different, and isn't part of the 'establishment' (even though he is a billionaire). Clinton wreaks of 'the system'. Bernie could be good, maybe. Nobody wants to go round and round the same old tree with the children's children of the same family getting richer and richer.

    Locally, take Turnbull's view on negatively gearing. Why should property be treated differently to any other investment? Why aren't any losses on that property not carried forward to offset against future profits? Look I've got a mortgage etc and if property prices drop I'll be hit like most. But I really don't care as I think it needs to be fixed for the long term. That's being said from someone who in a few years could potentially have a few negatively geared houses under the Liberal scheme.

    Honestly I think the negatively gearing thing is a major issue for a lot of people. While many have done very well out of it, ask yourself the question, and be honest....."why?" Why have you done so well out of negatively gearing. I'm not saying you're any less of a person for exploiting the laws, I'm asking you to think about whether the government should have specific policies making investment on property significantly different to everything else? Have a scheme which is by far the most generous in the world? Have any sort of system that encourages speculating on one of life's basic requirements....shelter?

    I don't know, I'm finding it harder and harder to vote for Liberal. Voting for Labor is just as hard. Voting in a manner that gives us a minority government also doesn't sound like a great idea given recent times.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  8. yeah Quicksand for her
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. Aye.

    What we really need for Oz is a Benevolent Dictator.

    Now, I'm too busy to take it on, as I'd rather ride my bikes, but I think I could talk my wife into taking on the job.
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Agreed, :LOL:, I'd like the job too, but I'd much rather be riding.....
  11. Excellent post. My personal leaning is towards the left, although I am by no means religious about it. Apart from that (very small and inconsequential) difference, I completely agree with you and could have typed out that post m'self...

    ... Cheese! You don't want much. If people start to discuss this like adults we're going to need a water cannon...
    • Like Like x 1
  12. #12 kneedragon, Apr 27, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2016
    What have you got planned for her? Honey and bull ants? I don't know that I'd pay to watch that, but if there was space near the front for a deck chair...

    "What we really need for Oz is a Benevolent Dictator."

    Yes, yes, yes, that's what every country needs. The problem is where do you find one and how do you select him (or her) and how to you get rid of them when they stop being benevolent?

    And secondly, when you find a benevolent dictator, there's an extremely good chance that will set the cat amongst the international pigeons. Look at Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. The U$ f*cking HATED him, and went to some trouble to bring him down. Apart from the 1% of the country you'd call rich people, pretty much everybody else loved him. He did exactly what he had promised to do, and fed the poor and housed them and clothed them, gave them medical care... He did nationalise the local assets of a few big multi-nationals, and the big companies and the U$ government absolutely had kittens about it. He also didn't exactly suck up to any major communist power. He was cordial towards Russia and China and so on, but didn't promise to follow them to hell and back. He did not make himself or his country real popular with anybody, except his own citizens. Whether he was good for Venezuela or not, in the mid to long term, is a good question. Jury is out on that one. But he sure as hell was the exact image of a benevolent dictator.

    Churchill said some pointed and very clever things on this topic about a century ago. He was defending and talking up democracy, and some heckler got a word in so he came back (words to the effect of) "Yes, correct. Democracy is broken. It has fundamental flaws that cannot be fixed. It is in fact, the second worst form of government ever attempted. It is exceeded in its awfulness, only by every other form of government we have ever tried."
  13. Currently if you vote Liberal Federally, your Prime Minister says that Labours plan for negative gearing will affect housing prices, global warming, cause the sky to fall & affect mums and dads the most.
    The Liberal Prime Minister believes that a plumber on a $100,000K a year isn't a wealthy person, and that this is the type of average earnings the liberal policy will help.
    When shown data that the top 10% of wage earners get over 50% of the benefits from negative gearing he doesn't believe it, but cannot quote any sources to back up his claim.
    So a vote for Liberal will continue to make the rich richer.

    On the other hand

    If you decide to vote labour federally your Prime Minister elect has a thing for unions and not always to the advantage for the worker.
    Unions forcing companies to pay union fees regardless of wether or not said persons actually want to join the union or renege on deals made an in some cases bypass ministers to deal directly with a labour premier in a deal that would screw over CFA volunteers to give full time MFB staff more.
    So a vote for labour is a vote for someone else deciding on your rights to either A join a union or B to have open and honest communications from that union.

    Lastly you can vote independent and watch that vote be wasted as that independent then tries to screw over the Governemnt in power at the time to get the best deal possible for themselves regardless of wether or not the policy in question is worthy.

    Trying to figure out who will do the least amount of damage is the best one can do now days.
    • Agree Agree x 6
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Keating could be an obnoxious pr1ck, but geeze I miss him... The thing I was looking for was where he dribbled his fingers over his lip in parliament - "Aw, didums! Bub-bub-bub- bub..."

  15. But the majority of people I talk to think this way too. If the majority of people in this country have little to no faith/trust in the system then why do we accept it?

    Can political systems even change without major military intervention?
  16. I liked Keating as a Prime Minister too. I was too young to vote during his time, but looking back on it I think the Prime Minister should have a bit of arrogance to him/her.

    Just wait for the Aussie version of Trump to fly in the window. Could have been Palmer, except the guy comes across as a complete moron 99% of the time.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. #17 kneedragon, Apr 27, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2016
    You are tap dancing on the edge of a very large and yawning abys there...

    First, the sort of people who want to bring major change, tend to come in unwashed large groups and be carrying pick-handles and pitchforks and burning torches...

    Britain has had a complete revision of its method of government, but it has mostly come in small steps. And loud people in America talk up a bill of rights, and other documents, terms in the constitution. Britain sort of has a constitution and sort of doesn't. Much of the way America works comes from the written agreement of the founding fathers, but the UK had kings, and then a long and complex and sometimes bloody process where the nobles took over much of the power of the king, and them came to a compromise with the people (their representatives, parliament, house of commons) and the way the whole thing works is not exactly codified, it's all precedent. It has gradually evolved into what it is over the course of about 900 years, and there isn't exactly a manual you can read, or get kids to learn and recite like the Oath of Allegiance.

    I mention Britain because, a) I can spell it, b) our own constitution and system was created by them and based on what they had, and c) most of us are passingly familiar with what the Westminster System of Law and Government is and (loosely) how it works.

    The last significant update to Britain's system came in the late 1800s. It was towards the end of Queen Victoria's reign, and there was a strong undertone of revolution in the air. The gap between rich and poor was big, and very obvious. While most people lived in the country, worked on farms, that just sort of simmered, but with the industrial revolution places like London and Coventry and Leeds became the major centres of population, and suddenly people started to realise that as a group, they had almost no power, but they could take it... Women were fighting for the vote. In principle, working men had had the vote for hundreds of years, but mostly that was a small gesture. Most didn't vote. But the balance of power at the time was between the Tories and the Wigs, who (very loosely) correspond to our Liberal and National (nee Country) parties. With the arrival of trade unions came the Labour Party, and suddenly something changed.

    (I may start a fresh box, my p*ssy litter is getting a bit ripe...)
  18. "If you are not a socialist at 25 you have no heart ... if you are still one at 35 you have no brain"......
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. Ah, thank you. Now I'm not the only one quoting Winston.
  20. How about something like what the Swiss have in a 'Direct Democracy'? Or there abouts...

    Take a look at this example list of referendums held there in 2014. All seem like stuff I'd like to have a say in.

    Swiss referendums, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Swiss referendums, 2015 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In this day and age, it shouldn't take millions and millions of dollars to hold a referendum, not if voting wasn't compulsory. Why do people still have to go to the voting booth physically? I mean really? It's not like I couldn't walk up to the voting booth, say my neighbours name and address and vote as him (well, the last election I guess you had to have your ID which is logical).

    In Australia it's hard to see any major changes to the way things are as being realistic. People are too engrained in their entitlement/exploitation of the system (I put them together as while different in many ways, are the same for the purpose of this argument) to contemplate a change that may disadvantage their current position. Even if they'll be better off for the change in the long run. When the people running the country have the most to lose, well......

    EDIT: Just saw FractalzFractalz comment........great quote. :)