Julia's Reign

[Scotty]

I am happy to pay the pollies more and supported gillards recent raising is salaries, but it should be balanced out with a reduction of two things:

1. Available perks - they need to spend more of their own money to be more connected to the results of some of their decisions

2. Pensions - they are ridiculous. Why should pollies be able to earn pensions at a younger age that everyone else, and why are they so huge?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

We tend to like good orators and I think GW Bush would have killed Howard or Keating had he ran against them at any point prior to everyone realising he was an idiot.

Orator? Orator? Is that sarcastic?

 

[Karl]

Is the big pension supposed to be compensation for the low pay they accept(ed) and their public service? Maybe historically there were greater restriction on Post Political Life business ventures due to conflicts? Just wondering.

 

[Schadenfreude]

I'd be interested to see the poling results for independents in Australia verses that of America. I think the compulsory voting system encourages those without any real affiliation to either party to vote somewhere in the middle for minor parties who have little to no say in politics, the fact that neither the ALP or LIB party hold the balance of power without bargaining with independents demonstrates this. You can't tell me that anyone right now wants independents having the balance of power in parliament, it doesn't bode well for passing any legislation or creating anything constructive and as you will see in our current political shambles, it just causes parties to get frustrated and question everything around them. At least with a system that doesn't force people to vote those that don't care don't waste their votes and time.

We tend to like good orators and I think GW Bush would have killed Howard or Keating had he ran against them at any point prior to everyone realising he was an idiot.

I rate Gillard and Abbott as the worst two potential prime minister candidate options we've had for a while and picking one is just as painful as picking the other. (Actually I take that back, Palin v McCain would be potentially worse).

Compulsory voting stops the parties running to the extreme right or left to "energise their base".

I want the independents having the balance of power. Why would you vote for a junior Labor backbencher who will never get to do anything for his electorate? Vote for an independent and you can make your vote count.

What you're seeing with the independents is public debate, rather than deals with mining companies and unions behind closed doors... what's wrong with that?

 

[Rob42]

I want the independents having the balance of power. Why would you vote for a junior Labor backbencher who will never get to do anything for his electorate? Vote for an independent and you can make your vote count.

What you're seeing with the independents is public debate, rather than deals with mining companies and unions behind closed doors... what's wrong with that?

But the way the parties should work is that each policy issue can be delegated to a minister or team who will understand it in detail, and produce an outcome that the whole party can then support. Sure, your junior backbencher may not be on the news every night, but he/she should be working to develop policy within the party. As it stands, the independents individually have to be across every policy area - today immigration, tomorrow the budget, Friday education, and so on, and so on. It's unrealistic to believe they can be experts in all these areas, on top of the critical pork-barrelling for their own electorates. So what we end up with is crippled legislation that has to take into account each independent's special interests.

Not to say that the parties are working the way they should, but perhaps if you vote for one of the big parties, it could be better for the country rather than just your electorate.

 

[Schadenfreude]

What happens with the major parties is if you live in a marginal seat, you get pandered to. That's why there's all the "stop the boats" rhetoric.

If you happen to live in a safe seat, no-one gives a shit about you unless you are willing to spend political money, or are in a union.

 

[Scotty]

But the way the parties should work is that each policy issue can be delegated to a minister or team who will understand it in detail, and produce an outcome that the whole party can then support. Sure, your junior backbencher may not be on the news every night, but he/she should be working to develop policy within the party. As it stands, the independents individually have to be across every policy area - today immigration, tomorrow the budget, Friday education, and so on, and so on. It's unrealistic to believe they can be experts in all these areas, on top of the critical pork-barrelling for their own electorates. So what we end up with is crippled legislation that has to take into account each independent's special interests.

Not to say that the parties are working the way they should, but perhaps if you vote for one of the big parties, it could be better for the country rather than just your electorate.

Hard for ministers in this government to understand their portfolios in detail - there must have been on average one or two reshuffles each year. Surely this is a very inefficient way to run things?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

which is why the Sir Humphreys run everything - and of course its their life's work to think government knows best and thus to make it bigger & bigger........there was some footage of Rudds political adviser racing around the corridors this week.
Why do we pay for him to have a political adviser - we should only pay for a foreign affairs adviser (who, I accept, would see very little if any of his advice acted upon).
Too many frigging hangers on - its worse than the Tahs!

 

[light]

What you're seeing with the independents is public debate, rather than deals with mining companies and unions behind closed doors... what's wrong with that?

No, instead we see the labor party brokering deals with independents behind close doors while the media goes on a wild goose chase over some other 'more important' labor scandal.

- The week of the Thomson affair, labor passed through Plain Cigarette packaging legislation

The Carbon Tax was a shambles and took weeks to pass through government with Labor winning 74 to 72 in a vote which the independents held the balance of power. Interestingly enough, the ALP went particularly 'green' that week. Let's not even go into Asylum seekers.

 

[suckerforred]

Just a comment about comparing the US President with the Aust PM - I thought I read somewhere that the US president's salary is somewhere between 100 - 200 K (US of course) per annum. How much did you say our PM gets paid????!!!!!!!

Maybe I should go into politics. I would run on a platform of Rugby for the masses. Any supporters?

 

[Rob42]

Just a comment about comparing the US President with the Aust PM - I thought I read somewhere that the US president's salary is somewhere between 100 - 200 K (US of course) per annum. How much did you say our PM gets paid????!!!!!!!

Maybe I should go into politics. I would run on a platform of Rugby for the masses. Any supporters?

No US president goes into it for the money - you need to be pretty wealthy to actually get there in the first place...

 

[Karl]

President Clinton signed legislation that increased the presidential salary to $400,000, effective January 2001. The Constitution prohibits pay raises for sitting presidents. This presidential pay raise was the first since 1969, when the president's salary was raised from $100,000 to $200,000. Adjusted for inflation, $200,000 in 1969 would be worth $930,232 today. On top of the salary and expense accounts, both the U.S. president and vice president are given free housing with plenty of amenities. The White House has 132 rooms, 32 bathrooms, a movie theater, bowling alley, billiards room, tennis court, jogging track and putting greens. Bush also has use of Camp David, the presidential retreat.

Dunno if this is right

 

[light]

No US president goes into it for the money - you need to be pretty wealthy to actually get there in the first place...

Agreed, just to be a serious candidate requires millions of $$'s. Romney is a great example of this, his initial campaign to this point has cost in excess of 17million and that was just to get his name out as a potential republican candidate.. A lot of money for the average bloke trying to satisfy his 'ego'.

 

[Bowside]

.
We tend to like good orators and I think GW Bush would have killed Howard or Keating had he ran against them at any point prior to everyone realising he was an idiot.

Keating v bush in question time would be a slaughter. When is came to debating keating was a class above.

He gave some pretty decent speeches as well. The redfern address being the most famous.

I think we have the best voting system in the world. And I think educating the population is far more worthwhile than only having the educated vote. It has other benefits for the country as well.

I also think freedom is a relative thing. Other western countries may have more 'freedom' than we have, but I dont think that is always a good thing. I'm damn glad we dont have the 'freedom' to readily purchase automatic weapons or the 'freedom' to pay unreasonable amounts of money for health insurance.

 

[suckerforred]

Dunno if this is right

There you go. They have had a pay rise.

 

[suckerforred]

I also think freedom is a relative thing. Other western countries may have more 'freedom' than we have, but I dont think that is always a good thing. I'm damn glad we dont have the 'freedom' to readily purchase automatic weapons or the 'freedom' to pay unreasonable amounts of money for health insurance.

Don't wory Bowside we are getting there.....

 

[light]

I think we have the best voting system in the world. And I think educating the population is far more worthwhile than only having the educated vote. It has other benefits for the country as well.

.

Yep I totally agree, but are we doing a good job at educating the masses? I don't think so. I've sat down with numerous political lecturers at university and it is blindingly obvious that the public just don't know what they are voting for. Not that any of us involved in this debate fit into this category as the discussion is at quite a high level. I'm not saying we should change our voting system I just think those who are leading need to find a better way to communicate their parties ideas and policies. The beauty of democracy is that my vote as a political student who follows daily political life and analyses the political philosophy behind parties and individuals is equal to the single dad down the road in Inala who doesn't care who runs the country and is only interested in voting for the party which lowers the price of private health care.

The general public see a face, affiliate it with a party and vote based on the three second speech they heard the week before. We can't force people to be interested in politics as it is each individuals choice but why should everyone vote if they have no interest or knowledge in what is going on behind closed doors.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Because you're not as special as you think you are light.

The gentleman you refer to from Inala - let's call him Mr Numbnuts - needs the same amount of representation as you do. We don't want our government forgetting about Mr Numbnuts, or deciding they don't need to fix his roads, or educate his kids, or police the streets.

Government should be representative, of everyone, even Mr Numbnuts, and even if Mr Numbnuts doesn't want it to.

And we all benefit from society looking after everyone, equally.

 

[Rob42]

Those close to politics might get frustrated at the lack of interest shown by the general public, but honestly, why would they? The two major parties are so close in their policy positions now. We have a Liberal party that believes in universal welfare from cradle to grave, and a Labor party that believes in free trade and privatisation. Perhaps the common punter is smarter than you think.

 

[light]

Because you're not as special as you think you are light.

The gentleman you refer to from Inala - let's call him Mr Numbnuts - needs the same amount of representation as you do. We don't want our government forgetting about Mr Numbnuts, or deciding they don't need to fix his roads, or educate his kids, or police the streets.

Government should be representative, of everyone, even Mr Numbnuts, and even if Mr Numbnuts doesn't want it to.

And we all benefit from society looking after everyone, equally.

Missed my point. He deserves to be represented but if he chooses, why should he have to vote if he doesn't want to?