Jooolia's Reign

I assume you don't believe the reverse is true though? (ie increasing welfare would solve welfare dependency)

Sounds like you are talking about a 'staged' welfare. I almost think you might agree with work for the dole schemes, or a least learn for the dole schemes?

I'm ambivalent about those schemes. It doesn't address the issue I raised. Work for the dole is still a relationship between an individual and the amorphous, uncaring beast that is the Australian taxpayer. Why should an individual give a fuck if they take $250 a week from the government?

The answer is in other kinds of welfare: programs to remove drug / alcohol / parenting problems; back to work programs; etc. I don't reject the idea of having some stick in there with the carrot, but genuine understanding of the these social situations and real activity that would help them get out of this cycle is required first and foremost.

I agree that community engagement is the key. My work for the dole would be 'work for the community'. Any hours on the 'work for the community scheme' would be matched by money spent on training for the individual.

Yeah, local community work would be good. A mate of mine in Katoomba did work for the dole by spiking trash on the M4. He felt like he was on a chain gang.

Something where the workers could get great satisfaction and positive feedback for their work. This would be different for different people - parks, community centres, community clubs, fundraising etc.

And of course those working for welfare should be paid more than those that can work but don't.

Why do working class people vote conservative? There have been a few attempts at dealing with this - mostly American, like this one. I think it's a good read for those thinking about how to get the left to reengage with, er, "ordindary Australians."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/05/why-working-class-people-vote-conservative

This sort of explains an issue I have with some of the left. They believe in 'equality of outcome'. I believe in 'equality of opportunity'. It is up to the individual what they do with that opportunity.

And you don't take anything else of that paragraph, Scotty?

I assume you are referring to the last two lines?

Spot on.

Now, who could seriously vote for this guy? Read this article and tell me that it's Julia (not Howard or Rudd or Abbott) that is the biggest liar. There is not a single word of truth in anything Abbott says here.

EDIT: In case my criticism is not clear to anyone on this thread: why is Rinehart interested in buying media? And why is Abbott so keen to support her? The Leveson Inquiry into Murdoch influence in British politics will supply the answers.

Abbott's continued negativity is going to slowly, but surely, bite him on the arse. If only he'd provide us with some sort of vision of an Australia we could imagine rather than criticising all and sundry. Tony Windsor made a good point a few weeks ago: we should stop listening to what Abbott's going to do in the next government and get on with doing a good job with this one. I agree with him. As O'Farrell recently put it, "I have to deal with the parliament the people gave me", when negotiating with those crazy Shooters, and so it is in Canberra. We have a hung parliament, but we must have effective government, whichever side it is.

To be honest Gillard and her cadre of parachuted ACTU cronies don't overly impress me but the thought of the Mad Monk holding the levers of power quite horrifies me. Ideologues frighten me, from either end of the political spectrum. Abbott's decision to deny his side a conscious vote on gay marriage is a portent of his government's view on moral matters. If the Liberals could put their efforts into assuaging the middle ground of the Australian electorate they'd shit in the next election, but I doubt if Abbott can rein in his penchant for negative head-kicking and his bent for conservative morality. It was enlightening to read in Lionel Bowen's obituary he was adamant terminations should be claimable under the original Medicare legislation when he was Attorney-General during the Whitlam era. This was from a staunch and loyal Catholic, not an ideologue. Tony, I hope you read it, and took note.

Not a single word of truth, Scarfman?

So you don't agree with any of this?

Not sure how much you are keeping up with federal politics, but the Libs have released a few big policies over the last couple of weeks.

Have you been taking note?

Always, Scotty, and that was a cheap shot. Coming from a very politically-attuned family (both parents heavily involved in the old Australia Party and father a federal candidate) and a former junior member of two parties myself I take a keen interest in politics. Your reply somewhat proves my point: major policy announcements can't be heard over Abbott's blaring whining and constant carping on anything/everything the federal government does. I've come to the stage where I don't particularly care who forms government as long as they're competent. Abbott won't change his spots if/when he gets into The Lodge.

Fair enough.

I agree with it, sure, but Tony doesn't. To get the truth, replace all the text with: "Gina's politics are slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan, I'm helping her like buggery so that she'll help me. It's like Rupert has been replaceds with a newer, dumber, less demanding model. Everything Lord Monckton told us to do is working out beautifully."

Well I guess you'd know what Tony believes or does not believe.

(and yes of course his motivation is the support of Reinhart - I think everyone realises that)

It doesn't mean he doesn't believe in what he is saying though.

You are in the minority if you don't believe the mad monk is ''flexible"
I see the mad monk, I hear core promises I believe bullshitter.

He is a politician, of course he is flexible.

Is he more flexible than Julia 'twister champion' Gillard though?