Gillard should go!

[bulldogproud2]

Watched the Gillard speech tonight. Absolute gold.

When does Turnbull get the gig?

Abbott will be gone before March next year. Turnbull is already distancing himself from Abbott with a number of comments and is positioning himself for a leadership challenge early next year.

Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

Bwahahahaha!

Sorry couldn't help but laugh at that last comment. Labor, now more than ever, is the party all about wealth distribution and helping people who do not wish to help themselves.

Australia, the country of the handout...

.. and why should a party not be interested in assisting those who are struggling in the community??? Is this not what government is for, to a large degree??
Whilst it is fine for you and others like you to only be interested in yourself, it is not the way to run a country. When you are down in the gutter needing assistance, should we just come along and kick you, or should we give you some support? Surely you would appreciate support?
Having spent many hours each year volunteering with Saint Vincent de Paul, you will find that the vast majority of people who are struggling are not doing so because they want to, but because they have issues beyond their immediate control. Almost everyone in society would love to be better off if they could be.
Maybe you should get out there and do some voluntary assistance for those who are struggling and see the real picture?? Just because you are well off and in an ivory tower does not mean that the rest of society is.
Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

Bulldog...thats the political post of the year!!



No, it most definitely is not. It is to try to make Australia a much better place, improve things for ALL people.
Probably the difference between a number of Liberal and Labor voters - Liberals are self-interested; Labor is interested in the welfare of ALL people.
Cheers

.....is that you Wayne Swan on SAFooty??

Well, when you look at the philisophical beliefs of each party, the point I made above is a pretty basic one.

The Liberal Party believes in free-market, free-enterprise capitalism, with minimal government involvement. This is a system that believes totally in self-interest being the guiding force behind advancement. Little support is provided for those who do not command sufficient resources.

The Labor Party, whilst supporting large elements of free-enterprise, believes that the government has a larger role to play in making up for imperfections of the free-market system and ensuring that all people, regardless of their personal resources, are given at least an adequate standard of living.
Cheers

[Cambridge Clarrie]

Two fair posts Bulldog.

Don't completely agree with them but accept your points to a degree.

[bulldogproud2]

Two fair posts Bulldog.

Don't completely agree with them but accept your points to a degree.

Thanks, CC.
I have found that I have done a complete 180 since my youth. In my late teens and early twenties, I was a member of the Young Liberals and even being groomed for the State seat of Hanson. In those days, I believed that the free-enterprise system would create the most wealth for the country and that would benefit all through the 'trickle-down approach'.
Later, when I became involved with charity work and also changed to being a teacher, I realised the 'trickle-down' approach does not really work. I saw that wealth did not trickle-down very far and that it really only resulted in the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer... at least that is how I have perceived things, based on my observations in society.

Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

I love hearing right-wingers getting all sanctimonious over Slippery Pete, how many times in a row did the Libs pre-select the dodgy prick?
By all means Labor own the bloke now and deserve everything that comes of it after knifing Wilkie to get him across but with the confected carry on by Lib defenders/apologists you remind everyone that up until 5 minutes ago he was good enough for you lot for 20 years.

I've pointed out before that the Liberal Party itself does not preselect candidates.
Preselection is done at electorate level by the members in that electorate, and only by them.
So the Party can finish up with an endorsed candidate it would rather not have.

It has its problems but it is democratic.
To get rid of such a candidate they would have to persuade the local members not to endorse him next time.

I gather that in the ALP the union power brokers and the other "faceless men" (and women) can dictate the candidate to to the electorate.
Does any one know what the others - the minor parties - do?

Yes, but the candidate is preselected by the LIBERAL PARTY MEMBERS in that electorate. No-one but LIBERAL PARTY MEMBERS preselect them. Shot yourself in the foot there, Psyber old mate, sorry.
Additionally, whilst Peter Slipper has been a member of the LIBERAL PARTY, he has NEVER been a member of the LABOR PARTY. Interesting to hear Tony Abbott state tonight that he wants Peter Slipper to rejoin the fold and vote with the Liberal Party. Abbott will do ANYTHING to get elected.
Cheers

The difference is just a bit too subtle for you bulldog

No, not too subtle actually, Jimmy. Whilst it may not have been the Full Liberal Party who preselected Peter Slipper, it was members of the Liberal Party and only members of the Liberal Party who preselected him. There was no one outside the party who was involved in his preselection.
Cheers

[Psyber]

Well, when you look at the philisophical beliefs of each party, the point I made above is a pretty basic one.

The Liberal Party believes in free-market, free-enterprise capitalism, with minimal government involvement. This is a system that believes totally in self-interest being the guiding force behind advancement. Little support is provided for those who do not command sufficient resources.

The Labor Party, whilst supporting large elements of free-enterprise, believes that the government has a larger role to play in making up for imperfections of the free-market system and ensuring that all people, regardless of their personal resources, are given at least an adequate standard of living.
Cheers

I'm not sure I'd agree with your description of the Liberal Party.
There are those in the party of that view, but there are also those like me who believe in supporting and assisting the genuinely disadvantaged - just not the minority who are sponging.

I was a working class kid, who went to University assisted by a scholarship system introduced by a Menzies Liberal government for that very purpose.
(My parents would have struggled to fund my education without that, and knowing that I had also applied to do Pharmacy on a "Cadetship" with one of the major health funds that ran its own Pharmacies at the time - I'd have had to work for them for 5 years after graduation.)

As for the ALP: for example, I'm not in favour of the federal ALP's approach to supporting mothers. The drop in income is too sudden, and there appears to be little attention to supporting transition into part-time work, or plans to make any allowance if accessible work is genuinely not available. I would espouse the same position if the Libs were proposing this and to sitting MPs. I'm inclined to see the ALP as dominantly a power group of self-interested career politicians and unionist executives paying lip service to social justice.

When I decided in 1996 that both major parties were lurching towards authoritarianism and self-interest, I joined the Libs because I felt there at least my voice would be heard, because electoral decisions are made at the local level not by a removed party machine, and so my views could not be totally ignored by a remote controlling body.

It does work to some extent - I've been able to disagree with and debate such issues with sitting MPs openly and they listen and reply politely.
My open views on social fairness have not stopped me being elected to the executive of a branch in Mayo.

[Psyber]

The difference is just a bit too subtle for you bulldog

No, not too subtle actually, Jimmy. Whilst it may not have been the Full Liberal Party who preselected Peter Slipper, it was members of the Liberal Party and only members of the Liberal Party who preselected him. There was no one outside the party who was involved in his preselection.
Cheers

What you don't seem to get is that in the Libs the PARTY does not and cannot choose the candidate.
This is unlike the ALP where an independent central party machine dictates pre-selection, and is solely responsible for the choice.

Yes local MEMBERS in the electorate do select the candidate and do sometimes make (and repeat) poor selections.
That is one of the risks of democracy - some creep who is popular enough with 51% of party members in the electorate can win office.

The PARTY as a whole can't be held responsible for those misjudgements because it has no power to over-rule the locals.
The only thing the PARTY can do is try to get someone else in that electorate to nominate a good alternative candidate next time around, and hope that alternative can get enough support from the local membership to win.

[bulldogproud2]

True, Psyber.
However, the PARTY had twenty years to nominate another candidate but seems to have done nothing, being quite satisfied with Peter Slipper.

Nothing can change the fact though that it was LIBERAL PARTY members who preselected Peter Slipper each time.


Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

Well, when you look at the philisophical beliefs of each party, the point I made above is a pretty basic one.

The Liberal Party believes in free-market, free-enterprise capitalism, with minimal government involvement. This is a system that believes totally in self-interest being the guiding force behind advancement. Little support is provided for those who do not command sufficient resources.

The Labor Party, whilst supporting large elements of free-enterprise, believes that the government has a larger role to play in making up for imperfections of the free-market system and ensuring that all people, regardless of their personal resources, are given at least an adequate standard of living.
Cheers

I'm not sure I'd agree with your description of the Liberal Party.
There are those in the party of that view, but there are also those like me who believe in supporting and assisting the genuinely disadvantaged - just not the minority who are sponging.

I was a working class kid, who went to University assisted by a scholarship system introduced by a Menzies Liberal government for that very purpose.
(My parents would have struggled to fund my education without that, and knowing that I had also applied to do Pharmacy on a "Cadetship" with one of the major health funds that ran its own Pharmacies at the time - I'd have had to work for them for 5 years after graduation.)

As for the ALP: for example, I'm not in favour of the federal ALP's approach to supporting mothers. The drop in income is too sudden, and there appears to be little attention to supporting transition into part-time work, or plans to make any allowance if accessible work is genuinely not available. I would espouse the same position if the Libs were proposing this and to sitting MPs. I'm inclined to see the ALP as dominantly a power group of self-interested career politicians and unionist executives paying lip service to social justice.

When I decided in 1996 that both major parties were lurching towards authoritarianism and self-interest, I joined the Libs because I felt there at least my voice would be heard, because electoral decisions are made at the local level not by a removed party machine, and so my views could not be totally ignored by a remote controlling body.

It does work to some extent - I've been able to disagree with and debate such issues with sitting MPs openly and they listen and reply politely.
My open views on social fairness have not stopped me being elected to the executive of a branch in Mayo.

That is great to hear, Psyber, and I have a feeling that you and I are not all that distanced in terms of our value systems then, despite supporting different parties.
I agree that I was very saddened with the legislation re Supporting Mothers. I have also been very saddened by the stance of both major parties re asylum seekers. It appear that I am in the minority in my views on them though nowadays.
I also believe that both parties have lost some of their 'idealism' and have a number of politicians in either party who appear move motivated by self-interest than the needs of the community. I do see myself closely aligned with the 'traditional values' of the Labor Party though.

Cheers

[Psyber]

That is great to hear, Psyber, and I have a feeling that you and I are not all that distanced in terms of our value systems then, despite supporting different parties.
I agree that I was very saddened with the legislation re Supporting Mothers. I have also been very saddened by the stance of both major parties re asylum seekers. It appear that I am in the minority in my views on them though nowadays.
I also believe that both parties have lost some of their 'idealism' and have a number of politicians in either party who appear move motivated by self-interest than the needs of the community. I do see myself closely aligned with the 'traditional values' of the Labor Party though.

Cheers

I've had a few acquaintances over the years who have been active workers for the ALP - including the two former state ALP Ministers I went to high school with and still meet regularly.
Generally, we have not disagreed about basic principles of social justice and fairness, just about method of achieving the desired end.
I tend to favour carrots over sticks on the principle of the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."
That's the small "l" liberal democrat coming out in me...

[southee]

Good political discussion guys. (Bulldog & Psyber)

Some very interesting stories on your backgrounds. Thanks for sharing them.

[Psyber]

True, Psyber.
However, the PARTY had twenty years to nominate another candidate but seems to have done nothing, being quite satisfied with Peter Slipper.
Nothing can change the fact though that it was LIBERAL PARTY members who preselected Peter Slipper each time.
Cheers

The core issue is that the Liberal Party did start the process of trying to get rid of him once they woke up to him.
For a long time his behaviour was either not known or the stories were not believed at electorate level.

The party's problem was the slow democratic process of convincing local members that the rumours were true and to vote against him next time pre-selection came up.
It had reached the point where he knew he was likely to be dumped by the local Liberal Party electorate members at the next pre-selection if he didn't resign first.

So he was amenable when the ALP made him an offer in full knowledge of his behaviour and why the Libs were about to dump him.
Which party's behaviour is therefore more reprehensible?

[gossipgirl]

True, Psyber.
However, the PARTY had twenty years to nominate another candidate but seems to have done nothing, being quite satisfied with Peter Slipper.
Nothing can change the fact though that it was LIBERAL PARTY members who preselected Peter Slipper each time.
Cheers

The core issue is that the Liberal Party did start the process of trying to get rid of him once they woke up to him.
For a long time his behaviour was either not known or the stories were not believed at electorate level.

The party's problem was the slow democratic process of convincing local members that the rumours were true and to vote against him next time pre-selection came up.
It had reached the point where he knew he was likely to be dumped by the local Liberal Party electorate members at the next pre-selection if he didn't resign first.

So he was amenable when the ALP made him an offer in full knowledge of his behaviour and why the Libs were about to dump him.
Which party's behaviour is therefore more reprehensible?

Thats easy 20 years vs less than 20 years so Libs win in a landslide. Good Point

[bulldogproud2]

Yes, and at least he was never a member of the Labor Party.
Agreed that the Labor Party did not act well in this case either though.
Perhaps the most reprehensible act was Tony Abbott asking Peter Slipper for his vote now he is no longer speaker.. considering what he had said about his vote previously.

Cheers

[once_were_warriors]

Bwahahahaha!

Sorry couldn't help but laugh at that last comment. Labor, now more than ever, is the party all about wealth distribution and helping people who do not wish to help themselves.

Australia, the country of the handout...

You are paranoid.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Bwahahahaha!

Sorry couldn't help but laugh at that last comment. Labor, now more than ever, is the party all about wealth distribution and helping people who do not wish to help themselves.

Australia, the country of the handout...

.. and why should a party not be interested in assisting those who are struggling in the community???

With your poster boys closing half of Glenside so that Rann dick can open a film studio to pay off his arts loving wifey for banging a bar maid, while my 86yo Dad is stuck in the Geriatric ward of the RAH being treated for severe depression & anxiety for 3 weeks while we desperately wait for a Psychiatric bed.
Is that your idea of the '' struggling in the community '' ?
Or just those eternally feeding off the gravy train?

[mick]

The Labor Party has lost its working class roots and is now dominated (dare I say) by latte sipping members of the chattering classes who live in trendy suburbs. This process began in the days of Dunstan and Whitlam. Unfortunately people like your father don't matter to these people.

[GWW]

Sorry to hear about your dad's predicament, Sheik.

I've personally lost faith in any political party in Govt being able to manage the Health portfolio properly in any jurisdiction in this country.

Needs a radical overhaul I would think. Admittedly I don't have the solution myself.

[Psyber]

With your poster boys closing half of Glenside so that Rann dick can open a film studio to pay off his arts loving wifey for banging a bar maid, while my 86yo Dad is stuck in the Geriatric ward of the RAH being treated for severe depression & anxiety for 3 weeks while we desperately wait for a Psychiatric bed.
Is that your idea of the '' struggling in the community '' ?
Or just those eternally feeding off the gravy train?

The College of Psychiatrists in SA has been arguing with the Rann inspired bureaucracy since these decisions about Psychiatric beds were announced.
Recently the governement has decided to cut the numbers further again, despite those representations and the statistics supplied.
The non-progress has been constantly reported back through the AMA.

The government is trotting out the same old story they used when closing beds years ago - that the money will be diverted into home support services.
It never happens - the money always disappears into general revenue.

I worked in Geriatric Medicine for about 12 months in the mid 1970s but that was an idyllic time compared to now.
There were enough beds at Hillcrest, and we used to be able to place stabilised people in need of long term care in locations like the Tanunda Lutheran Rest Home in those days, too, in return for doing regular trips up there to check they were still stable and manageable in that situation.

Unfortunately, even a change of government won't help, with the state $11 billion in debt and the total climbing daily.
It is going to be years before the finances are under control and the process can be reversed.