Latham Quits

[RCOH]

Mark Latham has resigned from his position as leader of the Federal Opposition (alp), citing health reasons after his 2nd bout or pancreatitis.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Latham-quits-health-blamed/2005/01/18/1105810890022.html


According to a just aired ABC interview, Beazley & Rudd are the two main contenders for the leadership role.

In my mind Beazley seems like he has had his day, & Rudd seems a bit,ummm, wet but i could be proved wrong.

Do you think it is really health related or do think he has just run out of puff/lost motivation after losing october Federal Election?:confused:

[johnny]

I believe that health had a lot to do with his resignation. If it was because of the loss, it would've happened well before now, plus he was sick before the election campaign got rolling.

Believe it or not, Beazely is still a good choice. He has a lrge amount of backing and a very good relationship with the Yanks. Also, the only thing that stopped him from winning four years ago was Sept.11, before that happened, Howard was dead in the water......and let's not forget how Howard capitalised on our new found xenophobia with the Tampa crisis!

Rudd's not too bad, but I think he has to do a bit more time yet.

Beazely will get it, for god's sake, don't give it to Swan, Howard will eat him up!

They're all a bunch of lying cockheads anyway, they all deserve eachother!

[tu plang]

Rudd's not too bad? :eek: eek

can u say arrogant?

im not one to get into any side of politics but boy oh boy, rudd would not go down well with working class australia imo.

[Cave Dweller]

Dam it!

I liked Latham and his "fuck you attitude", better then Howards "i'll lick your arse hole" attitude.

Hmmm...... Beazley would seem the logical step, although i do like Rudd, good public speaker from what i have seen and usually answers the question rather then doing that little political dance / avoid the question thing.

Why can't it be Howard that comes down with something, like a heart atack maybe :D

[johnny]

Downer: got arrogance and pomposity??!!

He's lasted long enough, so I reckon Rudd could do it. But unfortunately he doesn't have the Charisma. I say unfortunately, for the fact that charisma shouldn't even comne into it. Which is also another reason why Julia Gillard isn't in the running (RCOH you sexist bastard :p ). I think Tanya Plibersek could get a crack at the title in a few years as well.

Either way, Latham had to go. T recover from a loss like that would take a miracle and the back stabbing hasn't stopped since.

Fuck party politics...., because it's fucking YOU!

[RCOH]

I personally think Julia Gillard would make a good leader, but there is no way australia's 'working class' (hahahahahahaha) party is going to elect *looks left, looks right* 'A WOMAN".

Tanya Plibersek hasn't got the profile, 1/2 of australia probably don't even know who she is.

Going with Beazley (again) seems like a step backwards IMO. He tried, failed, tried, failed again & now he is going to try again. What does this say about the party? That they have to rely on couldn't be's rather than find a new, suitable replacement?

L'il Johnny's chances of becoming australia's longest serving PM just got a whole heap better, though:mad:

[scblack]

Fuck party politics...., because it's fucking YOU!

Yeah but Johnny, whats the alternative?

[RCOH]

Yeah but Johnny, whats the alternative?

anarchy, or nihilism :) mmmm....don't care arrrgghh

[McBain]

I personally think Julia Gillard would make a good leader, but there is no way australia's 'working class' (hahahahahahaha) party is going to elect *looks left, looks right* 'A WOMAN". Let alone one with no kids, no partner - very easy to spin so the 'family values' types reject her completely. "Vote for a man hating dyke? No chance!"

Sad really.

[notobe]

anarchy, or nihilism :) mmmm....don't care arrrgghh

Communism?

[johnny]

Yeah but Johnny, whats the alternative?

Representative democracy.

Just as our constitution states.

[scblack]

Representative democracy.

Just as our constitution states.

Ah, I see what getting at now. But I have posted this on something else before - if you don't have a party system, then what you have is a room full of representatives each with their own agenda. No-one especially cares about the others, or their policies.

Then you have a great big shit fight, and nothing really gets achieved. Thats my idea of what would happen with that type of system (if it could be genuinely achieved at all).

Kinda like having many more independents getting voted in. They become as irrelevant as the Democrat Party ;) . Seriously, they all oppose the majority party (generally), and kinda get f***-all done.

[parallax]

Going with Beazley (again) seems like a step backwards IMO. He tried, failed, tried, failed again & now he is going to try again. What does this say about the party?
That they believe in third time lucky? ;)

It has been said before, and I'll say it again:
Vote 1 Default.

[naz]

go chris nows ur chance :P

[johnny]

Ah, I see what getting at now. But I have posted this on something else before - if you don't have a party system, then what you have is a room full of representatives each with their own agenda. No-one especially cares about the others, or their policies.

Then you have a great big shit fight, and nothing really gets achieved. Thats my idea of what would happen with that type of system (if it could be genuinely achieved at all).

Kinda like having many more independents getting voted in. They become as irrelevant as the Democrat Party ;) . Seriously, they all oppose the majority party (generally), and kinda get f***-all done.

This is a completely baseless assumption. What have you got to go off that makes you think that?

Each with their own agenda? How would the representative for middle of nowhere WA differ from the minister for Mexico (Melbourne) on China-Aust. relations? How would they differ on the Iraq war? How would they differ on uni funding levels and many other national issues that are much bigger and don't directly affect the localities agenda? I would've thought state politics would be much more vulnerable to your analysis.

I have an idea. Have the country run by specialists. The health system is run by a cabinet of top doctors/hospital directors voted in by their colegues. The education dept. is a group of top principals voted in by their collegues etc. (of course you'd have to look very closely at this system when dealing with cabinet of Media, Trade etc. but it is absolutely possible if we make it possible) and to keep the country democratic, each cabinet puts forward 5 solutions to a legislative problem and the country votes on it as a collective plebisite, just as we did for the republic issue. This way we (the poeple) are still left in the drivers seat, but are getting EXPERT ADVICE/OPINION/OPTIONS instead of political spin and salesmanship.

It's obviously very loose, but the whole idea is instead of a bunch of lawyers running the show like we have now, you have industry specialists giving us our options to decide upon. There are many different kinds of political systems (democratic and others) that run very smoothely, what we have is not necessarily the best option! It's gotten to a point where our representatives are more loyal to the party than to their electorates (Peter Rieth, Helen Coonan, Bill Hefernan, are a few perfect examples of their party refusing to discipline them in light of absolutely ridiculous behaviour as not to damage party image. Well what about loyalty to the tax payer??) I'm sure Labor is just as guilty too.

Just check out question time in parlaiment, what a disgrace! Everyone trying to ridicule and shout each other down, simply because we have an ADVERSARIAL system. This ensures personal attacks, spin doctoring and slanderous comments, when they are supposed to be running the country!!! We need cohesion, not school yard heckling and one upmanship.

Don't be afraid to think outside the square. If the revolutionaries in France a few hundred years ago hadn't, we'd still be living under the monarchistic, fuedal status quo.

Westminsterism has worn itself out. Time for pragmatism and progress.

[road warrior]

I think I should run for labor leader. I would kick ass at being a political dude. Lying, cheating, starting wars....I'm good at all those things. Saving forests??? Forget that, there would be so much paperwork to fill out in order to cover up my atrocities that we would be left with nothing but sand and kangaroos.

[bighitter184]

Peter Garret for Prime Minister!

[Adi]

Yeah but Johnny, whats the alternative?

The alternative is to destroy the earth. (http://www.geocities.com/samdhughes/misc/destroy.html)

And isn't canada just another suburb of the USA like Victoria is just another suburb of Tasmania?


I don't know what the world's problems are.... but I bet they are fucking hard to pronounce.

[johnny]

I think I should run for labor leader. I would kick ass at being a political dude. Lying, cheating, starting wars....I'm good at all those things. Saving forests??? Forget that, there would be so much paperwork to fill out in order to cover up my atrocities that we would be left with nothing but sand and kangaroos.

You can have my vote, if you keep me supplied with plastic explosive. I'd like to do abstract sculptures with bridges and buildings :D

[marklar]

I propose a political system I like to call Apathism. This is where people who have high-falutin' "ideas" about how the country should be run, who we should defend ourselves from and who should be our friends, how our tax dollars are spent etc. is given a tire iron and dumped into an abandoned open-cut mine with all these other people who care deeply about something and they can all bludgeon each other to death to sort out who's "right". meanwhile the rest of us can get on with our mundane, boring lives without worrying that anyone's going to do anything "because they believe in it" because, dammnit, that's how wars start. If no-one gave a crap, we'd all be better off. Sure, some things might not run so smoothly, but hell, if there's no one to blame for the trains running late, what can you do but accept it, adapt and get on with life, rather than protesting or fantasising about assassinating the Transport Minister, which, ultimately, will only give you an ulcer anyway. Like those people with bumper stickers saying "I shoot and I vote" we should have ones that say "I don't care and that's all". There'd be a LOT more money left over without those pesky elections all the time...

[johnny]

Hmmm..., apathetic totalitarianism eh?

I think it could work, as long as I don't get to you first with my tyre lever!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[marklar]

nonononono, please, my wheel nuts are tight enough as it is: I didn't mean that someone should rule and we don't question them, i meant noone should rule. We've got a rather pleasantly quasi-functioning bureaucracy, complete with health system, education and three kinds of football. If you eliminated the houses of reps and others, those "government organs" wouldn't spontaneously vanish, they'd just remain unchanged and degenerate into inefficiency and croneyism at exactly the same rate they do now, only with no-one brow beating anyone else about "necessary shake ups of the system". I would never advocate totalitarianism of any kind. it would be the silently suffering people who really don't give a shit who would push all the "opinionateds" into the mines...

oh, i would like to add that if someone else were to make a stand somehow incorporating "Death to Fashion!!!", i wouldn't care, but in a supportive way ;)

[looseunit]

Any guesses what causes pancreatitis, it is either gal stones or exess drinking. See we have not heard of Mark Lathem having any problems with gal stones I am guessing he has a drinking problem.

[S.]

Don't be afraid to think outside the square.

Especially when you're trying to think of what clichè to use to tell someone to think for themselves. ;)

[Ryan]

Especially when you're trying to think of what clichè to use to tell someone to think for themselves. ;)

Bahahaha, post of the week! Except now of course someones going to double-quote it in their signatures. Fuck.

[scblack]

Quoting Johnny: This is a completely baseless assumption.

Why do you think that my opinion is completely baseless? You're not the only person with an opinion on the effectiveness of the current political system in Australia.

What have you got to go off that makes you think that?

Each with their own agenda? How would the representative for middle of nowhere WA differ from the minister for Mexico (Melbourne) on China-Aust. relations? How would they differ on the Iraq war? How would they differ on uni funding levels and many other national issues that are much bigger and don't directly affect the localities agenda? I would've thought state politics would be much more vulnerable to your analysis.
Lets consider some economic policies. How do you think a rural minister from Nth Qld, will get to agree with a industrial minister for Adelaide (whereever the Mitsubishi plant is), on say, the level of tariffs that should remain in the car industry? They would never really come to agreement, I think.
And stuff like Iraq war, uni funding - how do we know they would ever agree, as you seem to feel they would? Just because you feel something is a National issue, why is that going to change a minister's behaviour? Are they all of a sudden going to think - well, this is a National issue, so for this one, I'll have to ignore my constituents needs? No, in the real world that would not happen, in my opinion. They would be more likely to deal with each other, and water down certain issues, so as to achieve their local needs. Unless the attitudes of people in general changed, they will still keep their own agendas at the forefront of their decision making, knowing that they want to keep their seats.

As for decisions on stuff like China-Aust relations, I have no idea, Finance & Investment is where I deal for a living. My understanding (and I may be wrong) is that for more "delicate" matters such as this, things are presently run closer to your idea of specialists, with support at a high level from analysts and others to ensure results that are not controversial in some way.

I have an idea. Have the country run by specialists. The health system is run by a cabinet of top doctors/hospital directors voted in by their colegues. The education dept. is a group of top principals voted in by their collegues etc. (of course you'd have to look very closely at this system when dealing with cabinet of Media, Trade etc. but it is absolutely possible if we make it possible) and to keep the country democratic, each cabinet puts forward 5 solutions to a legislative problem and the country votes on it as a collective plebisite, just as we did for the republic issue. This way we (the poeple) are still left in the drivers seat, but are getting EXPERT ADVICE/OPINION/OPTIONS instead of political spin and salesmanship.
I don't know how this would work in practice. Here in Sydney we have a rail system thats simply rooted, and hospitals that are regularly killing people. And how would we pay people in these roles? A good surgeon has an income of - lets say $500,000, and he's offered $150,000 to run the hospital system. Whats he going to say? Thanks, but no thanks. And many of these guys take three months a year holiday time, they are not likely to accept less than that. So it eventually would end up with someone who's not the best, and I could see it being run in a similar manner to what things are done now, with professional administrators filling these posts.

And do you want a vote on these matters, such as on the Republic issue? My point here is - who gets to put down the questions? If you wanted a certain result, questions can be put in such a manner, as to deter many people, as we saw from little johnny for the republic question.

It's obviously very loose, but the whole idea is instead of a bunch of lawyers running the show like we have now, you have industry specialists giving us our options to decide upon. There are many different kinds of political systems (democratic and others) that run very smoothely, what we have is not necessarily the best option! It's gotten to a point where our representatives are more loyal to the party than to their electorates (Peter Rieth, Helen Coonan, Bill Hefernan, are a few perfect examples of their party refusing to discipline them in light of absolutely ridiculous behaviour as not to damage party image. Well what about loyalty to the tax payer??) I'm sure Labor is just as guilty too.
Chris, people voted for the PARTY, in the most part, not the individual, so I would think that the vast majority of people expect the ministers to toe the party line. Almost everyone I know, simply decides which party they're voting for, grab that party's vote sheet on the way in to the polls, and fill out the vote, as the literature shows them.

Just check out question time in parlaiment, what a disgrace! Everyone trying to ridicule and shout each other down, simply because we have an ADVERSARIAL system. This ensures personal attacks, spin doctoring and slanderous comments, when they are supposed to be running the country!!! We need cohesion, not school yard heckling and one upmanship.

Don't be afraid to think outside the square. If the revolutionaries in France a few hundred years ago hadn't, we'd still be living under the monarchistic, fuedal status quo.

Westminsterism has worn itself out. Time for pragmatism and progress.
You presently disagree with some policies, actions, (and maybe the election result) but I don't see our country having serious problems at present, which might require revolutionary change.

****EDIT - I have watered down this post quite a bit, Johnny I apologise****

[Cave Dweller]

......but I don't see our country having serious problems at present, which might require revolutionary change.

Don't worry, give it time. When people start to realise you can't eat or drink money or oil the answer will become clear.

[toodles]

I have an idea. Have the country run by specialists.

We tried that in QLD for a little while. Didn't work too well, what with the self-serving nature of the regulatory authorities....

I'd vote for the apathy thing but I can't be stuffed.

[Dhfactory]

I'm glad that latham stepped down.

Labour won't win power on my watch.

-Sean

[timmo]

I'm glad that latham stepped down.

Labour won't win power on my watch.

-Sean

The way they are going they won't win power on anyone's watch. Even (especially?) Labor voters are getting sick of all this backstabbing, infighting, factionalism and self-serving crap.

Until they act as a party, and put up a united front behind a single leader, they'll get SFA on election day.

Personally, I reckon Latham's departure on medical grounds was an easy way out for him without having to wait for the party to boot him (as they were almost certain to do). I believe he's sick, but if he knew he had the party's support I think the decision to go may not have been as easy to make.

Just my opinion...

[S.]

Don't worry, give it time. When people start to realise you can't eat or drink money or oil the answer will become clear.

Which is why you burn the oil in your car to get to the supermarket, and trade in your money for some food...

[Cave Dweller]

Which is why you burn the oil in your car to get to the supermarket, and trade in your money for some food...

I don't own a car, and i ride my bike to work. I also have some "One Less Car" stickers on my bike that you love so much :) I also voted for the greens, i like to buy non genetically modified foods, i try to care about the environment and i fucking hate money and materialstic people that care more about their shares and house prices then anything else in the world, they really piss me off and are the whole reason this country and the world in general is going to the shit.

[S.]

I don't own a car, and i ride my bike to work. I also have some "One Less Car" stickers on my bike that you love so much :) I also voted for the greens, i like to buy non genetically modified foods, i try to care about the environment and i fucking hate money and materialstic people that care more about their shares and house prices then anything else in the world, they really piss me off and are the whole reason this country and the world in general is going to the shit.

So why don't you go and live on a farm, grow your own food, never have to worry about money?

And nobody is the "whole reason this country and the world in general is going to the shit". That's the biggest load of crap I've heard in a long time. "Everyone but me and people who agree with me is at fault". Good thing we have you, Captain Planet! ;)

P.S. I notice you own an extremely expensive mountain bike. You could have donated that money to World Vision or something and kept somebody alive, but noooo you're just too materialistic. ;)

[Cave Dweller]

So why don't you go and live on a farm, grow your own food, never have to worry about money?

And nobody is the "whole reason this country and the world in general is going to the shit". That's the biggest load of crap I've heard in a long time. "Everyone but me and people who agree with me is at fault". Good thing we have you, Captain Planet! ;)

P.S. I notice you own an extremely expensive mountain bike. You could have donated that money to World Vision or something and kept somebody alive, but noooo you're just too materialistic. ;)

Toche'

But i own that bike becasue i have broken everything (frames, forks, rims, cranks, you name it, i've busted it) and this is what i have to ride. If i could get away with a $20 huffy then i would ride it and donate the rest, unfortuantly, thats not realistic. Do you think i like the weight of monster T's, no, i use them becasue i have broken other forks and thats what i need.

In regards to the world, well, at least i am doing SOMETHING about it, rather then sticking my head up my arse and pretending everything is ok, it's not.

And please don't lecture me about spweing crap either socket, you are THE master of it :D

[S.]

Toche'

But i own that bike becasue i have broken everything (frames, forks, rims, cranks, you name it, i've busted it) and this is what i have to ride. If i could get away with a $20 huffy then i would ride it and donate the rest, unfortuantly, thats not realistic. Do you think i like the weight of monster T's, no, i use them becasue i have broken other forks and thats what i need.

In regards to the world, well, at least i am doing SOMETHING about it, rather then sticking my head up my arse and pretending everything is ok, it's not.

And please don't lecture me about spweing crap either socket, you are THE master of it :D

It's still selfish and materialistic to own a bike that costs so much money when you could have spent that money saving lives. That's not what you "have to ride". It's what you choose to ride - you do it purely for fun. You seem to be in denial about that. Not that I actually CARE, just pointing out your hypocrisy. You are still materialistic (as if a bike half the price wouldn't have done the job anyway), and you still (in my opinion) care about money (which is why you live in the city, with a job, instead of growing your own food yadda yadda). You just criticise people who are MORE materialistic and care MORE about money (as we all do at times). What I'm trying to say here is that none of us, you and me included, can credibly criticise people for caring about money or being materialistic. Everyone is to some extent.

I don't think anyone is pretending everything is ok (especially me - I think sometimes people seem to read stuff which I don't mean into my words), a lot of people realise that we're going down the shitter, but just don't care (especially me). Yes you're doing something about it, you're talking down to people (see next line).

And I know I'm the master of spewing crap, but I don't mind being a hypocrite, especially if I think something needs to be said (and yes, I am aware of the irony in me expecting you to not be a hypocrite whilst not minding being one myself) :)

[Cave Dweller]

It's still selfish and materialistic to own a bike that costs so much money when you could have spent that money saving lives. That's not what you "have to ride". It's what you choose to ride - you do it purely for fun. You seem to be in denial about that. Not that I actually CARE, just pointing out your hypocrisy. You are still materialistic (as if a bike half the price wouldn't have done the job anyway), and you still (in my opinion) care about money (which is why you live in the city, with a job, instead of growing your own food yadda yadda). You just criticise people who are MORE materialistic and care MORE about money (as we all do at times). What I'm trying to say here is that none of us, you and me included, can credibly criticise people for caring about money or being materialistic. Everyone is to some extent.

I don't think anyone is pretending everything is ok (especially me - I think sometimes people seem to read stuff which I don't mean into my words), a lot of people realise that we're going down the shitter, but just don't care (especially me). Yes you're doing something about it, you're talking down to people (see next line).

And I know I'm the master of spewing crap, but I don't mind being a hypocrite, especially if I think something needs to be said (and yes, I am aware of the irony in me expecting you to not be a hypocrite whilst not minding being one myself) :)

For the record steve i live in suburbia and im doing a PhD because i hated working in project management (my last job) where i would have to contanstly screw sub-contracters for $100,000 or more. My wage has dropped to lees then 1/3 of what it used to be but i am alot happier now that my job has nothing to do with money, screwing people and generally wrecking the environment.

Yes, i do think i am LESS materialistic then other people and i try to care MORE about the environment but agreed everyone is materialistic to a certain degree just as some care more about the world we live in then others. My problem is most people lean too heavily on the money side, and like i said in original post, by the time they realsie that material possesion are not everything it will be too late.

As for the farm thing, mate, if i could afford to buy a hugley overpriced hunk of land (which i can't thanks to the lib's over heating the market) and become self suppoting i would, it is a dream of mine to have a fully sustainable energy effecient house one day.

-Matt

[S.]

For the record steve i live in suburbia and im doing a PhD because i hated working in project management (my last job) where i would have to contanstly screw sub-contracters for $100,000 or more. My wage has dropped to lees then 1/3 of what it used to be but i am alot happier now that my job has nothing to do with money, screwing people and generally wrecking the environment.

Yes, i do think i am LESS materialistic then other people and i try to care MORE about the environment but agreed everyone is materialistic to a certain degree just as some care more about the world we live in then others. My problem is most people lean too heavily on the money side, and like i said in original post, by the time they realsie that material possesion are not everything it will be too late.

As for the farm thing, mate, if i could afford to buy a hugley overpriced hunk of land (which i can't thanks to the lib's over heating the market) and become self suppoting i would, it is a dream of mine to have a fully sustainable energy effecient house one day.

-Matt

Fair enough, I'll leave it at that.

[johnny]

[QUOTE=scblack]Quoting Johnny: This is a completely baseless assumption.

Why do you think that my opinion is completely baseless? You're not the only person with an opinion on the effectiveness of the current political system in Australia. It's not your opinion that I think is lacking here, it's how you've formed it. But don't worry it's exactly how I've formed my own. I'm just a little more optomistic that's all.

I say that you're assumption is baseless because you are saying that no one would agree. How do you know that? Well no one does because as far as I can find out it's never been tried. Therefore your opinion is based on an assumption that has nothing to refer to. But that also means, neither does mine, and that's fine, because we really are basing them on something, as thin as it may be.

You're basing your assumption on the self serving and egocentric nature of man. Which all in all is a pretty undeniable thing. But I too see a nature in man that is decent, social and above all, practicle/expedient. This is what I think can be used if placed properly to people.

It has been done over and over again in history and coninues to happen now. A few examples are: Ghandi releasing the people from British imperialism, Hitler rallying a nation to believe in themselves, Mao telling a nation it can remake itself into whatever it wanted. There have been countless cults of personality: Marx, Lenin, Mandela, Guvuera, LAwrence of Arabia etc. There have been many movements that have changed history: The french revolution, the Bolshevik, the cultural revolution, the rose revolution in the former Yougoslavia, the orange revolution we have just witnessed in the Ukraine.

Some revolutions, iconaclasims (sp) movements, people and cults may have been disasterous or at the barrel of a gun, others were peaceful and a "great leap forward". The reason and the outcome are not the issue. The point is that we are NOT set in stone, this is society, not nature, we can choose to be what we are, nothing has to stay the same.

I believe, in my short experiences and education, that when groupings of people work together for mutual benefit, ie: teamwork, the rewards may not be greater, but they are far more ensured. Many instances are evident: sporting teams must cooperate to achieve their goal, the defence forces must become one symbiotic relationship to have even a fighting chance, finance companies need departments to communicate and develop together and as you've said it yourself, governmental reps need to work in parties to get things done.

Well being that we're all living on the same piece of dirt under one government and legal culture, and being that we all want a better life for ourselves, it seems we're all on the same team. Simplistic, but true. Now I'm far from a socialist, it's way too utopian and unrealistic. But much has been achieved through mass cooperation/coordination. During the Great Leap forward in the 50's the Chinese rural peasants went from underachieving peasants that often went hungry, to healthy well fed and motivated millions. Granted that things turned to shit, but the reasons are plainly evident. The eyes of the politburo were bigger than the farmers fields, expert opinion was ignored and the revolution was born on war, violence and fear setting an under tone for the era that has yet to pass.

The point we can gain from this is what benefits and losses were made and why. The gains in modernisation and life standard were truly exceptional and not worth dumping because the whole plan didn't work. It's like throwing the baby out with the bath water! What Mao and his cadres were able to do was convince the masses that it was in their best interests to work together, and essentially that was true. It wasn't the collectivisation of effort that failed, it was the leadership, with better leadership, more advances may have been made.

I'm ignoring the communistic aspects of socialism for I don't think society needs to be as socially engineered to achieve an improvement and private ownership and financial independence is indespensible. It's the collectivisation of will, goals and effort which was successful out of communism, not it's economic ideology. I think it's to our own detriment if we do not utilise this resource that has been displayed so many times throughout history.

Martin Luther King speeches aren't necessary and I think personality cults are quite dangerous in this day and age. But it's hard to deny that when groups work together, far more can be achieved. This has been the basis of my assumption that if two political parties can successfully (and that's arguable) run a country, then cooperation between the two wouldn't be a big step.

What have you got to go off that makes you think that?

Each with their own agenda? How would the representative for middle of nowhere WA differ from the minister for Mexico (Melbourne) on China-Aust. relations? How would they differ on the Iraq war? How would they differ on uni funding levels and many other national issues that are much bigger and don't directly affect the localities agenda? I would've thought state politics would be much more vulnerable to your analysis.
Lets consider some economic policies. How do you think a rural minister from Nth Qld, will get to agree with a industrial minister for Adelaide (whereever the Mitsubishi plant is), on say, the level of tariffs that should remain in the car industry? They would never really come to agreement, I think.
And stuff like Iraq war, uni funding - how do we know they would ever agree, as you seem to feel they would? Just because you feel something is a National issue, why is that going to change a minister's behaviour? Are they all of a sudden going to think - well, this is a National issue, so for this one, I'll have to ignore my constituents needs? No, in the real world that would not happen, in my opinion. They would be more likely to deal with each other, and water down certain issues, so as to achieve their local needs. Unless the attitudes of people in general changed, they will still keep their own agendas at the forefront of their decision making, knowing that they want to keep their seats.

And that's what I'm aiming at. I don't think it even needs a sales pitch. Self interest when aiming for a collective goal is antithetic to success. Any organisational advisor/psychologist will tell you that, along with anyone who's ever coached a team whether they be footballers or global hotel sales teams.

But one point I have to make, my thinking that the war in Iraq is a national issue along with uni funding, is simply because it is a national issue. More so the Iraq and other foriegn matters, because they are the domain of the federal government and are an issue of national concern that hardly affects one place more than the other (setting aside the issues of army bases and ADI sites etc.).

As for the issue of economy, I have very little education on these matters, but surely we are competent enough to ensure that each electorate can support each other instead of working in competition? On a national level, which is where (I think) the largest slice of overall taxes go, in a welfare state you have to support any under developed region. So it's in your interest to ensure that the whole machine is working as not to carry a piece of dead wood. I don't know how it works, but I believe there are solutions if the goal benefits all.

As for decisions on stuff like China-Aust relations, I have no idea, Finance & Investment is where I deal for a living. My understanding (and I may be wrong) is that for more "delicate" matters such as this, things are presently run closer to your idea of specialists, with support at a high level from analysts and others to ensure results that are not controversial in some way.

[johnny]

I have an idea. Have the country run by specialists. The health system is run by a cabinet of top doctors/hospital directors voted in by their colegues. The education dept. is a group of top principals voted in by their collegues etc. (of course you'd have to look very closely at this system when dealing with cabinet of Media, Trade etc. but it is absolutely possible if we make it possible) and to keep the country democratic, each cabinet puts forward 5 solutions to a legislative problem and the country votes on it as a collective plebisite, just as we did for the republic issue. This way we (the poeple) are still left in the drivers seat, but are getting EXPERT ADVICE/OPINION/OPTIONS instead of political spin and salesmanship.
I don't know how this would work in practice. Here in Sydney we have a rail system thats simply rooted, and hospitals that are regularly killing people. And how would we pay people in these roles? A good surgeon has an income of - lets say $500,000, and he's offered $150,000 to run the hospital system. Whats he going to say? Thanks, but no thanks. And many of these guys take three months a year holiday time, they are not likely to accept less than that. So it eventually would end up with someone who's not the best, and I could see it being run in a similar manner to what things are done now, with professional administrators filling these posts.

That's fine. I never said it would be one doctor filling the post and that it would take up all their working time, it would be a collective of doctors and administrators, and I also see a pretty large collective. You've also picked one of the highest paid proffessions as your example. I think whilst there would be many self serving doctors would prefer the status quo, there would also be many who'd like a chance to make the world a better place, Dr Hollows being a fine example. Not all doctors are selfish you know ;) Once again, I don't have a detailed blue print or plan. It's more that I see problems with the existing model.

And do you want a vote on these matters, such as on the Republic issue? My point here is - who gets to put down the questions? If you wanted a certain result, questions can be put in such a manner, as to deter many people, as we saw from little johnny for the republic question.

Yep, that's why it's a collective, not a group of interested parties. Say Sydney has 300 schools, the cabinet would be of say 30 principles/administrators etc. It's pretty hard to keep secrets with that amount of people, the two current parties are proof of that. More people involved in the formation/responsibility of the policy, more public debate is sure to be had. We don't vote on every little thing our elected members do now, we'd hardly have a clue on the majority of stuff that gets passed through parlaiment. I would assume that in implementing this form of administration (and that's what it is, pure administration) would lead to a lessoning of finer issues bieng publically decided over time.

It's obviously very loose, but the whole idea is instead of a bunch of lawyers running the show like we have now, you have industry specialists giving us our options to decide upon. There are many different kinds of political systems (democratic and others) that run very smoothely, what we have is not necessarily the best option! It's gotten to a point where our representatives are more loyal to the party than to their electorates (Peter Rieth, Helen Coonan, Bill Hefernan, are a few perfect examples of their party refusing to discipline them in light of absolutely ridiculous behaviour as not to damage party image. Well what about loyalty to the tax payer??) I'm sure Labor is just as guilty too.
Chris, people voted for the PARTY, in the most part, not the individual, so I would think that the vast majority of people expect the ministers to toe the party line. Almost everyone I know, simply decides which party they're voting for, grab that party's vote sheet on the way in to the polls, and fill out the vote, as the literature shows them.

Yep, and most people wouldn't have a fucking clue of what their voting for, it's mostly a bloody advertising love mark these days. I think the Libs won the last election a lot because it's policy announcements were more emotive pitches than the Labors announced plans. Not saying anyones right or wrong here, just that it's easier to agree with a vibe than a convoluted policy.

I would also assume that most of the people who vote for any one party, don't agree with all their policies. I voted Green, but I don't agree with their refugee policy. A system of administration gives you the chance to vote for policy rather than personality.

Just check out question time in parlaiment, what a disgrace! Everyone trying to ridicule and shout each other down, simply because we have an ADVERSARIAL system. This ensures personal attacks, spin doctoring and slanderous comments, when they are supposed to be running the country!!! We need cohesion, not school yard heckling and one upmanship.

Don't be afraid to think outside the square. If the revolutionaries in France a few hundred years ago hadn't, we'd still be living under the monarchistic, fuedal status quo.

Westminsterism has worn itself out. Time for pragmatism and progress.
You presently disagree with some policies, actions, (and maybe the election result) but I don't see our country having serious problems at present, which might require revolutionary change.

****EDIT - I have watered down this post quite a bit, Johnny I apologise****[/QUOTE]

"Don't change what aint broken" is an unappropriate cliche. It's a system of governence, not a lawnmower. Mugabe's system works very well for him, so why fix it? Propeller planes fly perfectly well, why fix them into jet planes? Knives work well, why make the food processor, pacemakers work, why genetically engineer endogenous cells to mimick muscle rhythms avoiding invasive coronary surgury?

It's not fixing a broken system, it's working for a better future. Progress baby ;) I think it's near time to make the next step. Time to stop undercutting ourselves by saying "it'll never work, we're all to greedy and self centred to make things better". Time to start thinking "of course it's possible, it's been done so many times before, all we have to do is put in the effort".

I believe we're capable of doing it, after all it's just looking out for your own best interests and we've been doing that pretty well so far! :D

I have nothing resembling a working plan, just a belief that cooperation is better than competition when everyone wants the same thing. If many knowledgeable heads got together and went over the idea for a few years, it could be put together into a workable structure somewhat resembling the basic idea of expert decision makers and voting on policy rather than people.


I told you this post would come.............eventually :p