We are after all, a parliamentary democracy, and the leader leads by permission of the party, rather than as sometimes claimed, the electorate.

The electors can only ever elect one single member, after which all else is down to internal management!

Rather than tolerate another Bonaparte at their head, making really bad judgment calls as Captain, he/she should be told to behave more statesmanlike; less like a elected dictator, and pull the head in.

And if we the people have to make our wishes plainer by many more single term parliaments, then that's is what will need to occur.

What we can no longer tolerate are ideologues mendaciously/disingenuously arguing their way into powerful positions, then having got there, applying already thoroughly disgraced ideology that simply exacerbates problems.

There are things we can and should do to improve our economic prospects and trade our way out of the current raft of difficulties; but for the current ideologues at the helm, for whom they seem to be verboten!

Personalities at the helm may be part of the current problem, but are hugely overshadowed by some really dumb policies/management paradigms.

We need some long term vision back at the helm, and a viable plan to turn the ship of state around, preferably before she founders on the economic rocks waiting just ahead!?

It beggars belief we have yet to try are thirty year self terminating bonds, (good debt)to finance income earning infrastructure; which if done on a large enough scale, will turn things around, as will GOVERNMENT investment in vastly cheaper energy outcomes!

Or the introduction long overdue tax reform, that ends all avoidance and finally puts the national interest first! We have a revenue problem, not a spending problem!

And we need to permanently remove the usual medley of unproductive parasites, bleeding the system white!? Tax is garnered for the national need, not millionaires.

Welfare has to be returned solely to the needy, not the greedy! And that's also how you get medicare under control!

The age of entitlement is well and truly over!
Rhrosty.

I think we will have Dysfunctional government until they engage the people more. Setting an agenda with only a small group as interest inst going to work any more for either side.
How about we have a 20-30-40 year plan agreed to bipartisan and engaging the people and both parties stay within these guideline, they can handle the day today stuff as long as it conforms with the overall plan. I think 24 million people all working towards the same goal we might even have a chance of achieving something.

It seems that Labor/Greens have trained and employed enough journalist and public servants sucking on the public purse to create panic in the electorate whenever a Government wants to stop wasting billions of dollars in tax payer money. The self intertest of unions, public servants and overpaid abc journalist c ertainly seem to be winning out at the moment. Shorten can just sit their like a goose. The sad part is that when we end up like Greece with 50% youth unemployment the brainwashed fools will be dumb enough to ask why.

"Abbott has simply affirmed what he always was. He is an avid monarchist, to the point of parody – witness his granting of an Australian version of a knighthood to Prince Philip. He is provincially stingy and mean-spirited in his concept of welfare – his obsession with seeking a co-payment from patients visiting their general practitioner being a case in point. He is insufferably obsequious when it comes to the US-Australian alliance, which doubles up as an Anglophone wet dream in search of a purpose, usually a military one."

Binoy, I couldn't agree more. And that is before one even looks at his foreign policy gaffes: "shirt fronting" Mr Putin (but then he didn't); the government's support at all costs for the appalling mob in Tel Aviv; the blatant lies and misinformation about Ukraine; concealing from the public the fact and terms of the secret 8 August 2014 agreement; negotiating the TPP agreement without telling us that it is quite possibly the worst possible deal for Australians; and many many more examples.

Ah ha James. Perhaps Tony's problem is that people take the paranoid left like you too seriously? Tony's been more successful than most PMs on foreign policy. Strong relations with most of our Asian neighbours. Doesn't lecture them like KRudd did, a couple of free trade agreements, and stopped the boats.

You might complain about the TPP, but that is just because you don't like free trade, or the idea that governments ought to be subject to the law. Except on all those treaties you do agree with, when you will demand that the Australian Government acceded to "international law". Which is just custom, and not law at all.

Graham Young, "Tony's been more successful than most PMs on foreign policy. Strong relations with most of our Asian neighbours. Doesn't lecture them like KRudd did, a couple of free trade agreements, and stopped the boats."

Andrew Robb wanted to join the Asian Development Bank like New Zealand. John Kerry at the last G20 pressured Abbott not to join, as this would have broken the private cartel of Central Banks monopoly of counterfeiting our currencies as debt. Abbott like a little US puppet did not let us join the Asian Development Bank. Abbott is gutless in my view because he will not stand up to the Western Central Bankers.

Graham you can no longer simplify all economic and political activity as being left or right and classify James O'Neill as some worthless lefty. It is about being fair and you cannot see the forest for the trees just like Tony Abbott.

I'm often criticised for relentlessly panning Abbott on this forum. runner calls it Abbottphobia.

Notwithstanding that time after time Abbott and the PMO have seemingly choreographed shambles, I thought perhaps I'm so partisan that I was overdoing it.

However, recent events, culminating in a spill motion less than halfway through Abbott's tenure as Prime Minister - unthinkable when he was swept to office in September, 2013 - seem to support my view.

Abbott's odd "captain's calls", his embarrassingly vacuous countenance in the Prime Ministerial role, his discomfort in the presence of other leaders and dignitaries, his ridiculous and repetitive sloganeering (now with the addition of "consultative and collegial"), his mendacious style of leadership...all these things led to the recent spill motion.

He's an A1 sledger and the adversarial role in Opposition is where he shone. Those qualities, however, have not translated into good leadership.

Less than 24 hours after pledging to begin "good government", Abbott's team are already embroiled in yet another debacle, playing semantics on the SA submarine tender, Senators and Ministers making fools of themselves attempting to play with words so as to obscure the latest round of what was and wasn't offered by Abbott when he was making pre-spill motion overtures.

Smacks of the same old ineptitude that has plagued this govt since the budget was delivered last year.

Some may ask why the Asian Development Bank is important to us. We have no money for infrastructure because of our Govt debt of $600 billion and this has increased with a 20% depreciation in our $ in relation to the USA $.

Currently we rely on inflating the property and share market to get money into the productive economy. Only 8% of QE money (ie money printing) finds its way into the real economy. Most of this money inflates the gambling derivative market which is 10 times the GDP of the planet.

This is why we need The Asian Development Bank which Abbott has shunned to keep our masters in the USA and Britain happy. Knighthoods are the mindset of Abbott and not developing Australia which will create real jobs and keep a lid on our already over inflated house prices.

Abbott sees the only solution is to reduce wages here to the level of the USA so foreign capital will come here. Well the USA has 50 million on food stamps with real unemployment of 24% and their economy continues to slide. Wages in the USA are half that of Aust.

Abbott has a religious,simplistic scorched earth philosophy to economics. He thinks that if he punishes the economy like he punishes his body on his bicycle,things will get better. Tony is trying to shrink to greatness.

Some people will never accept the democratic decision of the people to tip the Rudd government out in Canberra.

The squealing has been particularly shrill from the hordes of bureaucrats, academics and professionals who fell into cozy and very lucrative jobs and consultancies as a result of the Whitlam government setting up the victim and multicultural (also victims, apparently) industries.

The inherited and growing deficit - growing because the Senate has blocked savings initiatives - demands action to prevent our children and grandchildren being shouldered with debt that will break their hearts and limit their choices.

Several government reports have identified that young couples are not having the children they want and planned for because they simply cannot afford them as a result of high cost of living, of which high taxes and user-pays (also taxes) are a major contributor. The 'One World Government' Greens and the 'Progressive' faction that has taken over Labor are unconcerned by the restrictions on fertility being forced on young Aussie couples. Both the Greens and Labor would prefer open door immigration policy and ramping up (it that is even possible!) of the 'endless diversity-we-are-forced-to-have'.

There is no 'Australian leadership disease' . That is yet another fabrication for sensationalist headlines to belittle leaders and disrupt. However there is a growth in spineless and selfish career politicians who focus on short term populism, while knowing that practically any service will deliver them the golden handshake of long retirement after politics, all paid for by the taxpayer.
tbc.

contd..

If the federal government does not take urgent, strong action to reduce government spending ALL parties should and will feel the wrath of young working Australians whose futures and choices have been forever restricted by the spendthrift ways of the leftist 'Progressives'. The way ahead is to tip governments out after a single term and before they manage to soil their nappies.

The electorate must also demand immediate change to the overgenerous parliamentary superannuation and entitlements that were only ever made so generous because it was argued that political representatives would come from successful business and leadership careers. -That they should be recompensed for the substantial losses such community minded leaders with a demonstrated record of successful achievements would endure, from sacrificing the highest earning years of their working lives (and when their children would have left the nest).

It was never envisaged that there would be young men and women career politicians who could take advantage of those entitlements, or one term premiers (eg Qld) who could retire on 75% of final salary plus other generous benefits.

Apart from that there is no way possible that young working Aussies are going to continue to shoulder the weight of the welfare system, increased as it was by 'Progressive' Whitlam and others. Young women workers (and their partners) for whom the biological clock is approaching midnight want the same rights and opportunities as their parents and grandparents to have the children they planned for. It is very cruel to force them to continue to put their shoulders to the wheel to buy infrastructure and 'Wonderful Centrelink' for hundreds of thousands of migrants every year who already have the children they wanted and will have more to support.

Arjay, your post is riddled with false assumptions. Look at the facts.

With the technical exception of the USA, no country's central bank is private.
We have no money for infrastructure because the government is unwilling to fund infrastructure.
Because we own the RBA we have unlimited credit. Even if our debt were six trillion dollars, we could fund infrastructure just as easily as if we had no debt at all.
The fall of the Aussie dollar agains the greenback didn't make any difference to our debt, because Australia's debt is in Australian dollars. It's been about twenty years since an Australian government last took out a foreign currency loan. And I think that was in yen!

Involvement with The Asian Development Bank may improve our standing in Asia, but domestically we don't need it.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

onthebeach, EVERYONE accepts the democratic decision of the people to tip the Rudd government out in Canberra. And many are regretting it!

Audstralia's debt will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to break the hearts and limit the choices of the next generations. The same can not truthfully be said of the government's cuts.

The lieberals need a few terms in opposition to relearn what "for the good of all Australians" means, what Bipartisanship means, and showing the proper respect for the office of Prime Minister and government.

They need to stop the sewer politics of "Juliar", the "debt and deficit" lies and the rest of their attack dog politics as so perfectly committed by rabbott.

They need to get rid of the tea partiers, the far right, free trade neocons that only believe in more for the rich and stomping on the poor.

They need to return to the party of Menzies and Fraser and repudiate the raygun/thatcher dogma of "small government", cut welfare and health and sell everything.

They need to stop with the leaners BS and their harsh treatment for the poorest and defenseless while sucking on cigars and rorting their entitlements to sell books, buy houses or go to weddings.

They need to be honest BEFORE the election and not lie about everything they said in their election pledges.

They need to listen!

Maybe then people will begin to regain confidence in our leaders and begin to support them, maybe even trust them. Which can only be better than the cynical, dare I say hateful, way we see them now.

I know already that it is pointless to ask you questions, Arjay, 'cos you say this stuff without actually engaging your brain at all. But I'll have another go, just to keep the world a'turning.

>>Some may ask why the Asian Development Bank is important to us. We have no money for infrastructure because of our Govt debt of $600 billion and this has increased with a 20% depreciation in our $ in relation to the USA $.<<

Do you mean this Asian Development Bank?

http://www.adb.org/

In which case:

"Australia has pulled ahead of the United States to become the second biggest aid donor to the Asian Development Bank. The move is part of Canberra's strategy of putting more money into multilateral agencies which have specialist expertise in areas such as infrastructure."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-20/an-australia-becomes-second-biggest-aid-donor-to-asian-developm/4898228

But I rather think you meant this one:

http://www.voanews.com/content/china-launches-new-asia-development-bank/2494903.html

Ok, so here's the question:

How will our membership of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank affect our country's investment in infrastructure, given there are already 21 countries signed up, and only $100 billion planned to be put into the kitty?

It's a bit of an unfair question, of course, because the Bank hasn't yet established its articles of agreement, nor has a single Yuan been deposited.

But given the importance you seem to place upon a) its existence and b) Australia's participation, I'm sure you have already worked out an answer.

(Actually, that last bit isn't true. I know from past experience that you haven't given it any more thought than blindly regurgitating a gobbet from an equally-uninformed conspiracy web site.)

Pericles and Aidan the usual suck ups and apologists to the current Western Banking system which was bailed out by us and continues to loot our economies.

No mention of "bail in" which was passed by our pollies at the last G20 meeting in Brisbane which gives the banks the power to convert our deposits into their shares when their derivative gambling collapses. Are you two saying that James Rickards in his book 'The Death of Money' is a fool and out right liar? Rickards who has worked both for the CIA and our Central Banks as an insider knows what really is happening.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYW5OGWfqJc

Rather than an Asian Development Bank we should have our own Govt Banks like China and Russia that can create debt free money for infrastructure. Who gave private Central Banks the right to create and own our money supply which represents our growth + inflation?

@Graham Y on Tuesday. The problem with people like you Graham is that you insist on seeing people in terms of "left" or otherwise. There was nothing in my post that reflected a "left" "right" or any other view. I think that my contributions to this forum are based on evidence. One can always disagree as to what policy options the evidence may lead us to. As someone once famously said, you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

Your view of the TPP is frightening in its ignorance. It has nothing to do with free trade. Those sections of the draft that have been leaked demonstrate that it is an agreement that exists primarily for the benefit of large American corporations, to the extent that they will be able to challenge law passed by our parliament, in a foreign jurisdiction such as Hong Kong, because our law affects their profits. With the greatest respect I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the facts before you venture forth with opinions such as those.

As for being paranoid? Take a half hour of your time and google Gladio, Operation Northwoods, and the US government report (leaked last year after 11 years) on the discovery of nuclear material residue in the World Trade Centres. Read Noam Chomsky while you are engaging in some research. Trust me, you will find evidence based arguments so much more satisfying, as much as that may enrage a large number of the people who inhabit the comments section of this site.

No, Arjay, I[m not an apologist for the system, but neither do I base my opinions of it on false claims.

I didn't mention "bail in" because I found your claims about its implications to be false. What banks can do when they go bust is determined by national governments, and the bail in provisions did not change that.

<<Are you two saying that James Rickards in his book 'The Death of Money' is a fool and out right liar? >>
No, probably just the former. But I've not read his book so I can't yet rule out the possibility that he's a liar too.

<<Rather than an Asian Development Bank we should have our own Govt Banks like China and Russia that can create debt free money for infrastructure.>>
WE DO! We just choose not to use them.

Admittedly it's technically not totally debt free because the money would end up as reserves deposited with the RBA, so technically we'd be in debt the way banks are in debt to account holders. But that's a sensible precaution to control inflation.

What will it take to convince you that (with one technical exception in America) there are no private central banks?

Aidan which banks in Australia are Govt owned and have the capacity to create debt free money for infrastructure ?

Rather than an Asian Development Bank we should have our own Govt Banks like China and Russia that can create debt free money for infrastructure.>>
Aidan ,"WE DO! We just choose not to use them."

Our RBA is controlled by the private Bank of International Settlements through APRA. John Howard gave away the last remnants of power over the RBA in his term. Our Govt now has almost no control of the money supply. Call that a sovereign country ?

When Prof Michael Hudson an economist from Canada came to Australia a few yrs ago he confronted the RBA on why they do not create credit for Australians and got no reply.

Suggest you have a look at Rickards' interview on Money Morning. He backs the Central bankers in seeing the IMF as being the source of a new global reserve currency. He does say we are in for the mother of all collapses and is not alone in this belief.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYW5OGWfqJc

Say what you will, Arjay. The fact remains that you don't have the vaguest understanding of finance, and continue to make silly mistakes (ADB instead of AIIB is just one of many). I notice that you didn't answer the question that would have proved me wrong on this, and instead went ahead with another classic Arjayism.

>>Rather than an Asian Development Bank we should have our own Govt Banks like China and Russia that can create debt free money for infrastructure.<<

What is the benefit, do you think, of creating "debt-free money"? In what way is it a superior process than, say, an infrastructure bond issue? Given that it is the taxpayer who is going to provide the actual cash involved how - in a democracy - would you present this to the voters?

http://fortune.com/2014/12/01/china-investment-losses-infrastructure/

Or perhaps, as seems likely from your posts here, you would prefer an authoritarian government, in which the people's voice is entirely absent?

And - except for the scale - how does the Chinese approach to funding infrastructure differ from Kevin's Building the Education Revolution stimulus package?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-05/china-said-to-accelerate-1-trillion-in-projects-to-spur-growth

Do yourself a big favour, and tear yourself away from those mind-sapping web sites, and rejoin the real world. It's actually quite interesting.

Arjay, The RBA is government owned and has the power to create money for infrastructure, though as I have explained, technically it is not debt free.

APRA regulates commercial banks, other financial institutions and insurance companies. It does not control the RBA, and nor is it controlled by the BIS.

John Howard gave the RBA power over interest rates, but the government has retained a substantial amount of power though it isn't currently exercising it.

I've got better things to do than watch silly youtube videos.

Aidan both APRA and the BIS are right into "Bail In" http://cecaust.com.au/releases/2013_06_05_Kill_BIS_F.html

Are you denying that "bail in laws" do not already exist ?

Arjay, there are no "bail-in laws". Each situation is evaluated and treated on its merits - there is no separate law attached to a bail-in.

Do yourself (and us, indirectly) a favour and acquaint yourself with the facts on what are bail-outs, and bail-ins.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/04/economist-explains-2

Then tell us why they are not a good idea, compared with alternative actions.

Why is "bail in" necessary at all,if our banks are sound? Why did the c Commonwealth Bank stop reporting its exposure to derivative gambling in 2012 if this exposure to derivatives is sound business activity ?

Why was "bail in" passed at the last G20 in Brisbane Australia and not mention of it on MSM?

For those who do not know ,"Bail in" is the conversion of your bank deposits into bank shares. As a depositor you are deemed by a bank to be an unsecured lender to that bank. Since 2005 Derivatives are the first obligation of banks to honour, next come shareholders and last are the depositors.http://www.corbettreport.com/bail-in-the-birth-of-the-new-financial-order/

Both Aidan and Pericles are masters of obfuscation and deception.

Arjay your problem is you're getting too your information from conspiracy sources that are making ridiculous claims. Your latest link wasn't so bad, but it's really just asking the questions rather than supplying the misinformation you are. I suggest you look at http://www.afr.com/p/business/sunday/push_ins_force_too_big_to_fail_bank_qSf8sGKzJaYuahgIwOCLIM to see what the real bail in plan involves, and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11220192/Mark-Carney-No-more-bank-bail-outs.html to see what's actually happening. It doesn't affect Australian banks (as these are not deemed too big to fail), it is proposed bondholders not account holders be liable (unlike the Cyprus bail in) and it won't be implemented until after the next G20 meeting.

And nowhere are shareholders less liable to lose their money than depositors or even bondholders.

Arjay, you really must stop leading with your chin, you know. Statements like this are actually proof that you don't know what you are talking about:

>>For those who do not know ,"Bail in" is the conversion of your bank deposits into bank shares<<

For those who actually want to know what a bail-in is, here are the actual facts:

"According to The Economist, the magazine that coined the term, a bail-in occurs when the borrower's creditors are forced to bear some of the burden by having a portion of their debt written off."

http://internationalinvest.about.com/od/glossary/a/What-Is-A-Bail-in-and-How-Does-It-Work.htm

But what puzzles me most Arjay, is why you think it is better that the taxpayer pays for the bail-out, rather than bondholders sharing the load? After all, if the bank goes bust, customers lose everything, don't they.

As to your other questions:

>>Why is "bail in" necessary at all,if our banks are sound?<<

It isn't. Only banks in crisis need help. Did you see Commbank's results this week?

>>Why did the c Commonwealth Bank stop reporting its exposure to derivative gambling in 2012 if this exposure to derivatives is sound business activity?<<

Mainly because their derivative action comes under the heading of risk-minimisation - hedging, mostly - that is a perfectly normal - and sound - bank activity. The alternative is taking risks with your money, for example assuming that the A$ will rise/fall, creating an expensive exposure if they get it wrong.

The problem, as always, is that you and Barnaby Joyce add both sides of the hedging together, and call that "derivative gambling", when the actual exposure is the net of the puts and calls.

I have explained this to you before, Arjay. One day you might take the trouble to work it out for yourself. If you do, and at the same time stop reading those Chicken Little web sites, you'll sleep easier at night, I guarantee it.