The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > How our political system fails us > Comments

How our political system fails us : Comments

By Peter McMahon, published 24/3/2009

Politics is replete with careerists who lack education, training, and political character to deal with substantial issues.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Go ahead, Mac, but I must say as a historian, I have only hope left, not a great deal of faith.....?
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 28 March 2009 5:13:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's not forget that we're supporting billions of farm animals (that we're going to eat), and billions of domestic animals, when we can't even feed our human population.

This is economically (extra costs for feeding high-demand animals); environmentally (pollution, land and water degradation, ecological inefficiency); and ethically (third world hunger/western obesity, animal abuses associated with intensive farming) unsound and unacceptable.
Posted by tubley, Saturday, 28 March 2009 11:48:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred, sorry mate, but just because I personally can't design an all-encompassing, efficient, equitable system to solve the worlds ills doesn't bother me in the least, nor do I have even an inkling of where to start. To my mind that doesn't invalidate my objections to, or thoughts on, the proposals of others. If we don't look for the flaws in planning, or the dangers implicit in a given power-structure, then we will deserve whatever we're saddled with.
The UN, and it's progenitor the League, have hardly lived up to our dreams, and have wasted enormous resources that could have been more wisely expended. Yes, they have achieved some great things, but at what cost? Look you to the Balkan wars, or the African ones, or Asian, they seem more concerned with following bureaucratic niceties than getting involved and saving lives. I accept you have to start somewhere, and I'm proud we tried, but that doesn't mean we should stick with a failed model. It's time to move on, agreed, but we need a new system, not a re-conditioned old jalopy that has largely made a mockery of the ideals of it's founders.
Posted by Maximillion, Sunday, 29 March 2009 12:50:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Our political system has not worked for the eleven and a half years of the Liberal Government because the Liberal Prime Minister was a lawyer, and the Parliament of the Commonwealth was irrelevant; When Abraham Gilbert Saffron died in 2006, if his son is to be believed, than he took the secrets of his bribery of the Liberal Party with him. While he was alive he was effectively the King.

He reported that Abe was paying Norm Allen and Rob Askin $5,000 a week each in the 1960’s when wages was about $30 a week. This was an enormous amount of money and Abe wanted value. He got it when the Liberals abolished the grass roots political meetings held until them in the Supreme Court with twelve electors present and a Justice, and gave all power to a Barrister. They say the difference between a good lawyer and a brilliant lawyer, is this. A good lawyer knows the law, a brilliant lawyer knows the Judge.

Since 1970, we have had the best legal system money can buy for the criminals. We also have had the weakest bunch of scoundrels in the central government of the Commonwealth that money can buy, and when PK set out to reform the system between 1993 and 1995, the criminal element spent enormous amounts of money to defeat him.

If KR is a strong leader, he must assert the authority of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has permitted gross insubordination by the courts, judges and people of every state and must clamp down. He must assert the superiority of the Commonwealth assured by the Constitution. He cannot do that while the grass roots political meetings that used to sort out intergovernmental disputes are run by lawyers without electors to keep the proceedings honest.

Our political system is out of whack, because S 64 of the Judiciary Act 1903 which was inserted to make the Governments and the people equal, has been subverted because the Governments now appoint all Judges and Magistrates. None have granted a jury trial since 1970 in any important case
Posted by Peter the Believer, Sunday, 29 March 2009 5:18:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We voted in a "Yes Minister" Govt , don't despair you get a chance to correct that in a year and a half , be sure to hide away the fare to the Booth or you will have to walk .
Posted by ShazBaz001, Sunday, 29 March 2009 3:45:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are not talking about a global government, Maxmillian but a place where all nations can have representatives.

And in the case of Gobal Warming et al, also scientists, as mentioned about certain Democrats, but whom didn't have political expertese.

Might suggest that the reformed League as the new UN was sometimes called, had the capacity to include every organisation we have discussed, including both science and monetary divisions.

Why throw out the present UN, when a multilateral group of our premier governments, could reorganise the UN pretty well by ballot.

We must say again for the dozenth time, that the problem with both the League and the UN was single big powers calling the tune, as GW Bush did more recently with the UN, treating it as if he had more power than it.

Which in all truth in a decent law-abiding democracy he did not have.

Here's hoping once again, from BB.
Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 29 March 2009 5:30:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy