Discussion in 'Politics' started by Scarfman, Jul 21, 2012.
Isn't that what labor is supposed to be.
I agree though. I want to vote for a party that is progressive without being too backward economically like the greens are. I want to see smart policy and a willingness to actually implement the reforms that the expert reviews recommend.
This party use to be labor. But now Labor is a just a center-right party who are a bit more willing to spend money than the libs.
I don't think there is enough room between the LNP and ALP. When people generally think of a "centrist" party, they think of a party that adopts their favorite policies from either party, but that is never going to be a reality.
What I am trying to say is that political parties are supposed to have some kind of base ideology/blueprint, and go from there. I'm not sure what radical new ideology would draw conclusions "centre" of the two major parties. It would be something identical to what the major parties already subscribe to.
What I'd like to see is a new political party that values evidence more than any ideology. A political party that sets out a number of goals for society and the country, then lets the facts dictate what the policies end up being. When new facts arise, they are factored in. I'd rather see a party with this attitude running the country, rather than a party which will stick to it's guns even in the face of overwhelming evidence. That can be quite dangerous. (ie: when the way out of a serious issue is one that goes against "social conservatism" or "economic progressiveness". generally the best policies that a government introduce are ones where they go against their ideology/base idea's)
I don't like the idea that politics is a matter of opinion and the fairest outcome for society is one where the majority opinion is implemented. (our laws don't reflect this attitude, so I would hope in the future we move further away from it)
What we need is an extreme Tea-Party like thing to bleed of the religious whackjob and racist vote, pushing the LNP to the left.
Which may just mean the LNP will veer wildly to the right, leaving some space in the middle.
Nice post Bru.
Basically you want a party that someone like Turnbull leads. Policy based on what is the best for the country rather than what is popular or will save their own skin.
I reckon I'd vote for any party that Turnbull leads. He's one of the few politicians who I want to listen to, and if he were allowed to speak his mind I believe it'd be in the interests of the country.
I agree Moses. So when do we launch the Australian GAGR party?
Sent using Tapatalk
When Malcolm agrees to lead and fund it.
Another new party would be good, but I think at least three new parties and getting rid of some old ones would be better. Currently both the main two parties (and these days most probably the Greens can be included as well) have become too professional, machine like and self serving. They exist for he sole purpose of being in power and not necessarily doing anything useful with that power. Their main concern is with the machinations of politics, power, spin and control. They have become too insular, self important and distant from the people they are there to represent. In fact, the parties have become organisations in which they seem to treat those outside politics with contempt. Qaccording to their mentality the voters are idiotic, servile, useful fools that are to be manipulated for the politicians own purposes.
I am not sure what should be done, but I am pretty it isn't democracy with extreme partisanship is prevelant. When we elect our local members they should be aware and take into consideration of the people who elected them, not the party to which they belong.
And though no one really wants to see anyone disenfranchised, our society is one in which the demand or desire to go for the mass, mediocore and easy solution is probably too prevelant for its own good. Whether we are too selfish, too short sighted or too easily bought off by power or money, our current political system is almost too self indulgently compromised for ot to be sutably effective.
Not that is is any worse than corrupt single party states like China, but it is almost like that the Western style democratic process has devolved rather than evolved through time.
No it's not correct. The Conservative Party of Canada has a majority in the 41st Canadian Parliament, with 164 seats out of 307 in the House of Commons.
Economically, the current ALP is to the RIGHT of the Coalition. Seriously, they are more interested in market discipline and the free market than the Coalition. They've got a lower tax take than Howard ever had, they have sought to means test a whole range of things.
Socially, I'm not sure where the ALP sit, it seems to depend on their latest workshopped poll results, they're spineless. at least I know where the coalition sit (though I can't say I think much of their positions).
I would prefer to see a socially liberal but economically conservative, small government focused party.
A ban on political donations over $10,000, whether from unions, business or whoever.
A ban on government advertising. If its the right decision it will sell itself.
It would be nice to see a real political conversation on what a government should be spending money on (and what not)
Also a party that accepts that government debt is essentially delayed taxation.
Sounds good to me, where do I vote?
I like this post.
I'm most concerned about the short-sightedness of our election cycles and the lack of long term thinking in our politicians. How about we push election cycles out to 6 years from 4 and have a two term limit for Head of State similar to USA.
The labor party invests in all our infrastructure (which is great) but their delivery is woeful i.e. pink bats, schools, NBN etc. Lucky they're only going to be in power for such a short time before the mining boom collapses and Australia gets pissed up the fiscal wall like Europe & UK.
The LNP spends years cleaning up the ALPs fiscal mess and cleans out half of those useless bureaucrats but they're average at best on long term thinking outside of conservative fiscal policy. I like Australia's rain forests & national parks without shooters or big dams. I wonder what would be happening if Malcolm Turnball hadn't lost that pre-selection battle against Abbott by one vote years back.probably some forward thinking politics.
True that man. Touche.
I've come to the opinion that Democracy fails when it gets too big. I used to think 20 million wasn't too big and on all evidence it probably essentially isn't, but part of me wonders if states were to all become member states of an Australian Union which is only responsible for Defence and hand back control of taxation and health to the states, would we be better off?
Democracy is so much more flexible when smaller.
The lower Eastern States would never go for it of course, WA and Qld prop up the other states with the GST carve up imbalance, but it was just a thought.
I suspect its not that we're too big, it's just that we'e allowed socialist policies to get out of control over the last 30/40 years e.g. a lack of understanding about delivering welfare, infrastructure etc catch up on successive labour governments. If we didn't have this sweeping mining boom man we'd be fucked. Ask an Irishman.
Mann look at electrical network charges (not electricity the actual network), State government SES insurance levies, employers now have to pay double time and a half to casuals on Sunday's, Carbon Tax (although I don't disagree completely in principle) etc. You are kidding yourself mate. Go and start a business then you will understand.
Separate names with a comma.