Beazley solid reliable and gutless? by implication howard is decent, honourable and honest! Howard has fooled the Australian people, by the way I was a liberal voter until core & non-core times. Howard is totally divisive, a complete and utter liar, which makes him absolutely deceitful. As well he looks after his family - stanley, looks after his friends - the last A/Day honours and political friends sent o/seas to plum jobs,and helps liberal party donors - the ethanol king etc. If that is not enough he spends our tax money on marginal gov. seats in the main. He is helped by his friend rupert backing him (perhaps his payment will come with the new media laws) and his obediently pathetic "journalists???" or should that be paid hacks. It seems that very few so-called reporters etc have the guts to investigate this government at all. So would Beazley be that bad as PM, at least he is part way honest and decent perhaps he was gutless on one matter - but?
Regards, numbat

The question is not whether Beazley has the guts to be PM, but whether he has the guts to be Opposition Leader. He has already walked away from the job once, and during his tenure he did not serve it up the Howard Government with sufficient energy or commitment to make a dent. The Howard hegemony is well entrenched not because of Howard's masterful statesmanship (what a joke), but because he is not being held to account for his dishonest rodent-like behaviour by our loyal Opposition. The ALP should move as fast as possible to a younger generation with the passion and fire to rattle Howard's cage, and leave Beazley to march off into history. He had his chance.

Ssssshhh.We like kim where he is.If John Howard can keep the economy and prosperity rolling along,lie to me some more John.I love it!

All politians have ot lie at some stage,since the electorate are either too naieve or disinterested to grasp the realities that confront them.

Now, where is the 'grace' in that RODENT' comment Grace ? :)

Here we go - when a (I suppose) labor supporter cannot accept criticism of their "leader" they deflect to criticising the competition.

Far more benefit can be gleaned from considering the multiple qualities of our elected Prime Minister than will be found scraping around the lining of the barrel to find one for the Labor party, in general, or their leader, in particular.

So without "grace" or favour - let us consider - there are 59 labor members sitting in the house of Reps to choose a leader from. As the recently departed Mark Latham (who fell on his own sword for the good of the nation) would have observed, "a regular conga-line of suckholes to choose from" and yet the best they can do is have a public slanging match and "recycle" the man they rejected 2 cycles ago

Col.. as a conservative (evangelical protestant "bible basher" :)
The ONLY man in the labor party I would EVER vote for would be Kim Beasly or Kevin Rudd. But I fail to understand why such 'nice' guys are in a party like that. Man, when u read of the various labor goings on, in Victoria.. unions, competing former university cliques and incredible ego driven machinations.. and I guess the Libs have their share of that also, and the greens are just plain 'off the landscape' of reality.. the Dems are 'in another world' and don't even move the meter from '0' on the relevance scale... some of the Christian groups are also in some dark time warp. One of them had as a major plank in their platform as though it was the all time issue of issues that "Queen Elizabeth is our sovereign" duh.... That leaves the as yet untested Family First or an Independant, or an informal vote. I'm willing to give Family First a go at the next State election in Vic, having had some interaction with the leader, he seems quite level headed and broader based than previous 'Christian' groups.

I will vote for 'principle' above 'expediency' any day.

There was movement at the Station..for the word has passed around..
that we had forgotten God, and gone on our own way
We joined the wild excesses, and Christ was nowhere found...
so Mark, and Kim, and Julia, all tried to have their day
And all the noted members, from electorates near and far
had gathered at the caucus .. to wring their hands overnight
the true believers love the wrangle, where a chance of glory are
And the unionist snuffs the battle, with delight.

Gee Fancy that the zealots would only vote for another Christian.

Perhaps you could bring back the inquisition if family first very get up. Australian politics is very simple most of us are disengaged form the issues and don't form opinions unless it directly effects you. Most peoples views are fixed (Boaz_david and co) and will vote for their party come what may. So what do the people in the middle do well when times are good the vote liberal and when times are bad they vote labour.

Poor people give money to charity more readily then rich people ask anyone who has ever door knocked. Arjay if your happy to have our polly’s lie to you then that’s your issue I don’t. The idea that’s ok to lie because they somehow know best is stupid. I like Kim but I think he makes a better number 2 then number one I think they should have picked Jenny or Julia. Given us the chance to vote for a women, but then again it wouldn’t have worked because we have to many people trapped in the fifties who think a women place is serving her man and looking after the family

FOR KENNY
"So what do the people in the middle do well when times are good the vote liberal and when times are bad they vote labour."

"we have to many people trapped in the fifties who think a women place is serving her man and looking after the family"

Kenny, its not the 50s we are in, and we are not 'trapped'. It's Gods Word we are in, and that expresses husband wife relationships in the most committed, caring and self sacrificial terms that u may do well to read it :) YES.. a woman is allocated a position under the care of a man "Wives, obey your husbands" but a man is also in a position of great responsibility "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself up for her". The filial structure of marraige conveyed by the bible is one of 'COMPLEMENTARY' cohabitation, not COMPETITIVE. i.e. there is WOMANS work and there is MENS work. wow.. shock horror. Did this mean that woman could not achieve positions of influence and respect ? duh.. read the letters of Paul and u'll find out.

I make no apology for the 'relative position' of male and female. I dont have to. You only need to 'observe' the natural world and examine tradional societies to see how 'it works'

If it were not for the current 'peace' regime we have (which is, it should be noted a result of the 2 worst wars known to man, where millions of MEN spilled their guts to decide the outcome) we would resolve ourselves in terms of the tribalism and communalism which can only survive with the 'male protector' pattern of social organization.

Perhaps your comments are based on some (misguided) view of 'social evolution' ? "we dont think like that now, we are historically and socially past all that".. what absolute undulterated garbage !!!! excuse my passion here.. but its only been what.. a generation or 2 since WWII. And my description of 'tribalism' etc is being played out as we speak in Dafur etc. OOOPs.. sorry.. I forgot .. "they are primitive undeducated savages" right ??.. WRONG.. Kenny.. you should go and live among some of these societies and while they may not have the 'formal certificate' you would easily recognize those who have the capability to achieve the highest a standards of education.

The world that you seem to suggest is there.. IS there. for sure.. in a few isolated coffee shops in lygon street where Journalists indulge each other in mutual intellectual masterbation about ideas they picked up along the way while socializing with small groups of similarly minded idealists in school or somewhere.. and think that 'ah..this is how the world is"

I am reminded (by the above) of the stupidity of the Jews just before the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. But I'll save that message for a different post when I have more time. But it would be enlightening to read Josephus on that period (do a search).

Now, 'what we should do' in terms of our vote, is vote on PRINCIPLE. But that will inevitably mean dissappointment, because polies are a slippery bunch. So, perhaps its better to vote for the KING of kings and LORD of lords :).. by ur life and behavior.. and heart condition. Thats what changed the Roman Empire.. and its the ONLY thing which will transform ours.

do I hear an 'amen' from any brother or sister ? :)
keep it up Kenny.. I always appreciate your comments which facilitate mine
BOAZ

Howard has a common touch, which Beazley lacks, and the results of the next election are probably forgone if the current leaders face off. However, for me, Rudd has many of the qualities which marked out Howard as future PM material, atleast fifteen years ago.

With reference to the term RODENT as applied to Prime Minister John Howard, Mungo Macallum explains in his book "Run Johnny Run" (Duffy and Snellgrove, Sydney 2004, p 1-2), as follows:

"Over his thirty years in parliament John Winston Howard has attracted many nicknames: many of them scatalogical, a number pertaining to bodily orifices, others involving the lower genera of the animal kingdom, some ironic and a few merely insulting. A couple of them have even reached the general public: Little Johnny became a disparaging soubriquet during the Hawke years, even when his supporters insisted that Howard was really above average in height, at least as tall as the next man, especially if the next man was Bob Hawke; but of course, those who used the nickname were not referring only to physical dimensions. Then there was Honest John, a name first bestowed in irony back in the 1970s after Howard as treasurer had reneged on the promise of tax cuts after what became known as the "fistful of dollars" election. During the long years in opposition he managed to parlay the insult into a positive; for a while people actually believed in his honesty. Interestingly, once he returned to government the name reverted to its original context. More recently, the Rodent, originally bestowed on Howard for his endless gnawing away at Andrew Peacock during the 1980s, has gained popularity, the more so when teamed with the adjective 'lying'. Behind the scenes there have been many others, some quite unsuitable for repetition within the family circles Howard claims to espouse."

And as Mike Seccombe reported in the SMH on Sept 2, 2004:

"Liberal Senator George Brandis does not deny routinely referring to the Prime Minister as "the rodent". He does, however, deny ever calling the Prime Minister "a lying rodent". He believes John Howard is a truthful rodent....According to a statutory declaration signed three days ago by a former senior official in the Queensland division of the party, Russell Galt, Brandis "unambiguously referred" to the PM as "a lying rodent", in relation to the children overboard affair at a meeting in May last year. That's pretty serious, given that the PM's integrity has been challenged over the matter, and that barrister Brandis has led the defence of Howard in the Senate inquiry into the issue. Galt swore that "while referring to . . . hearings of this committee, Senator Brandis made the following two remarks: "He is a lying rodent" and "we've got to go off and cover his arse again on this". Well, Brandis immediately responded with his own stat dec, denying having made any such statement, and swearing he believed the PM's account of the events to be "truthful and honest"....George Brandis does not much like John Howard, and, judging by the efforts of the Howard faction to undermine Brandis in the past, the feeling is reciprocated. Yet ironically the two men were forced into reciprocal endorsements of one another's integrity yesterday, as journalists asked gleefully loaded questions like: "Prime Minister, do you back George Brandis when he said he never called you a lying rodent?" Howard: "Well, George Brandis has, on oath, denied those allegations and George Brandis is to be believed." But remember, George Brandis calls Howard "the rodent".... He privately says a lot of people in the Government regularly refer to Howard in the same way. And it lives on among Costello supporters, although it's a fair bet it will be used more discreetly in future."

Hello. As author, I should have disclosed in the article that I am a member of the Liberal Party. I apologise for not having done so.

That said, the points I make in the article aren't really answered by a tirade against John Howard. Like any other politician (indeed like any of us) he is a flawed being, but he is undeniably successful. The questions remain: "Why do people regard him as a safe pair of hands when the reality of his record shows him up as a failure?" and "Why does Labor refuse to see that it has to move past the Hawke-Keating glory days?"

GRACE...thanx for the background. But a para or 2 from "you" would be nice sometimes.
BOAZ

Nick, my last post was not in the nature of a tirade against Howard. It was in response to an earlier post from BOAZ, if you care to check back on the thread.

Grace, I was actually referring to the first comment (the one submitted by numbat).

Nick, Personally I don’t think it is a very healthy time for Australian politics, or for the country. Whenever a political party remains in power for too long, it either becomes corrupt in some way, or the government indirectly stagnates society. Things just become caught in a rut.

Howard should not have won the last election, and this is a sign that there is little support for the opposition parties, and a sign that they are too weak.

In the case of the Labor party, it has systematically lost support from the traditional worker, unionist or employee. A review of the male / female voting patterns shows that the Labor party is systematically loosing the male vote. A party cannot win an election based on a certain section of the female vote alone. This is what has happened to the Democrats.

Overall, if there was a little box at the bottom of the ballot paper saying “none of the above”, it would receive the primary vote.

I'm constantly amazed how lefties like Grace, focus on the high moral ground as if it were the ultimate truth.You need to look at the total picture in the performance of any leader.Even Hitler did a lot of good for the German people.With an extra testicle he may not have developed an inferiority complex that pushed him over the edge.John Howard has brought us the longest period of growth in 30yrs.We should have had another recession in 2001.Against all the odds of recessions in the US and Europe we continued to prosper.This was no accident.It was good responsible Govt.Spending on social security has far out stripped anything Labor could have achieved in their wildest dreams.Without wealth there,is no money for charity or,social security,or time for lefties to rail against the very system that sustains them.You look at the long history of the performance of the Labor Party.Gough spent like a drunken sailor and Keating brought us to the brink of a"Banana Republic."

We in the business community are sick of the Labor Party using us as cannon fodder for their hair brained, weak kneed,lilly livered indulgences that appeal to our weaknesses,rather than our courage to achieve.

TIMKINS
That observation about losing the male vote is quite interesting.
I'd love to see some research as to 'why'.
I have my own theories, one of them being Labor tends to support 'feminist/leftist' views which tend to devalue males increasingly but it is more of a 'reaction' as I see it than an emotionaly neutral advance. I dont have any idea really, just a wild guess in response to something I was not aware of b4.
BOAZ

ARJAY
U better hide from Col Rouge my goodness.. u not only said a whole lot of TRUTH there, u said it so passionately that it was almost a good sermon :) but if u want a real good sermon u HAVE to watch Bishop TD Jakes on foxtel christian chanel around 3.00pm on Saturdays.
He's black.. and uses phrases like "If ur busted broke and disgusted....." etc.. he's red hot. (seems highly regarded also)

Labor has certainly lost its way... Kim is great, Rudd also, the rest.. not worth the effort of a fly swatter. And Grace.. high moral ground ? when she defends some of the things she does, I seriously question that, but I've yet to ask her directly about some things she seems to be espousing.
BOAZ

Arjay-
Your mentioning Hitler may not be far off the mark. Howard has aligned with the Bush government, but the Neo-Cons are monsters, and if the truth where to finally come out regards certain things, then they could put Hitler to shame. Iraq is now a heavily poisoned country. Which country is next, or where will they stop?

I think that if Howard or the Liberals keep aligning themselves with Bush (and indirectly aligning the whole of Australia with Bush also), then we could all pay the price. The US economy is on the verge of collapse, and Australia could go with it.

The Labor party has to stop pandering to the lefties, and get its act together, so as to give some type of opposition.

Boaz –
Occasionally, there are public opinion polls that show the % of male / female voters that vote for each party. I have seen some that show male voters at 50 % less than female voters for the Labor party. Who says gender doesn’t matter.

Timithy, We've had a very close alliance with the US since WWII. Whether it be Labor or Liberal, Democrat or Republican hasn't made much difference. Just look at our involvement in Korea, Vietnam etc,etc.

You say that the Neo-conservatives are monsters and if certain information was known they would be shown to be worse than Hitler. What information would that be?

You ask the question which country will be next after Iraq and where will it end? Can you tell us why there would be another country and what you see as the ultimate end?

The US economy is on the verge of collapse?!! Where's your evidence for that? By the way if the worlds largest economy did collapse the whole world would go down with it, not just us because of our alliance.

Cranky.
We now live in a more globalised world than what it has been in the past, and the situation with the Neo-Cons is quite complex. A good source of general news and information regards what the US is doing can be found in the daily blog at
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/

No one seems to know who writes this blog, but whoever it is seems to be highly accurate most of the time. The Neo-Cons are chasing world domination through the control of oil, but the question is whether or not this domination is for the good of democracy or for the good of the Neo-Cons. I think the latter at present, looking at the way the last US election was run and the way votes were counted. The move away from the US dollar by several countries in recent times is not a good sign, as it appears that the US is becoming more isolated.

In the local political landscape, we need an effective opposition. It is not much use having a government and an opposition when there is no opposition, so the Labor party will have to put together some stronger policies, particularly policies that will attract back the male voters it has lost over the years.

For BOAZ_David,
mmm I think your trouble is your sources getting all your info from your Pastor and bible makes it impossible for you to fully understand. I've read all the different versions of Josephus "history". You need to star reading form sectular and imformed sources.

Timithy, you say, "Occasionally, there are public opinion polls that show the % of male / female voters that vote for each party. I have seen some that show male voters at 50 % less than female voters for the Labor party."

This is an astonishing assertion. Stump up with your sources, Timithy, or I will be forced to conclude that you are deliberately spreading disinformation in line with your anti-women bias, so consistently demonstrated in other forums

Kenny....
what the heck are u on about ???? I hardly said anything about Josephus, and all I was alluding to is the fact that the various factions of the Jews were all fighting each other, while the Romans were outside the city. That is not disputed by any secular commentary that I know of, but let me guess.. ur thinking (for reasons only known to urself) that I'm obliquely referring to JESUS in Josephus ????? I'm fully aware of the debate there also. I dont need a pastor, I'm trained myself. Josephus is valuable not just to provide a few extra biblical proof texts about Jesus.. *whack* :)
BOAZ

Grace...
u haven't accused me of 'anti women' bias yet ? I thought I would qualify for that :) my remarks are usually 'construed' that way.

By the way, have u read the 'feminist' interpretation of the Abaham sacrificing Isaac story ?.. I found it hilarious.
BOAZ

Grace,
These opinion polls were in newspaper and were taken during the last election. I can no longer find the articles on the web (as I would have to go through an enormous number of possible hits ) but there is an article on pork-barrelling and gender at
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/23/1095651464174.html?from=storylhs

It could well be that Labor has forgotten about the male vote. Maybe the Liberals too and other parties because no major political party has policies for men (and by so doing it leaves out boys also)

I think you should get your facts straight about my attitudes regards women. I am not anti-female but highly anti-feminist. The latest “waves” of feminism has basically produced what has been termed “dependency divas”. This has even been identified by feminists. see
http://www.iwf.org/specialreports/specrpt_detail.asp?ArticleID=464

Through the media and general feminist propaganda, many women now believe that they are being victimised and oppressed, and governments have to give them money. Eventually they become dependant on these sources of money, and too dependant on government. They are not liberated at all, as they are now often dependant on government subsidies. That is where feminism has actually left many women, and it has not done women much good at all.

A look back through a forum on IVF (probably starting at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2957#1353 ) gives a ready example of what feminism has done to many women. It has taught women to use insinuation, dogma, mantra, etc, but not to solve problems. I was being called various things and a lot of insinuations were being made regards myself etc, etc, etc by a number of women) I then pointed out some of the problems involving IVF and adoption and asked them a number of times to provide possible solutions to these problems. After repeated attempts at this, no woman provided even one possible solution to even one problem involving IVF or adoption. Feminism has not taught women to solve problems.

So, feminism (despite all its assertions that it has liberated women) has not made women in general into problem solvers, and has actually made many women dependant on government. If feminists started to think in terms of being "humanists" they might be taken more seriously and get somewhere.

Of course there should be more governments that should be more humanistic also, but I don’t think feminists will make them that way, because there are no signs that feminists are at all democratic.

I you want any further information on feminism, fell free to ask.

I have made this offer to someone else, but they haven’t asked yet, although they have continued to make assertions regards myself, even though they do not know me. For all they know I may not be male, or even living in Australia.

Timkins
"Personally I don’t think it is a very healthy time for Australian politics, or for the country. Whenever a political party remains in power for too long, it either becomes corrupt in some way, or the government indirectly stagnates society. Things just become caught in a rut.

Howard should not have won the last election, and this is a sign that there is little support for the opposition parties, and a sign that they are too weak. "

I see little indication of corruption or stagnation or a rut with this government.

Who should or should not win an election is a matter of counting the vote

By counting the vote you will see the present government was returned with resounding confidence by the electorate, who emphasised that increased confidence by giving this government the senate.

So your claim of "Mr Howard should not have won" is childish and churlish (and I guess from the sour grapes - you did not vote for the coalition).

Maybe the blame for the lack of support for the opposition is because they are bereft of substance, divided among themselves and unable to find a buffoon with a course mouth and no interpersonal skills to lead them in the election (and still struggling with the recycled today).

Timithy, you say, "These opinion polls were in newspaper and were taken during the last election. I can no longer find the articles on the web...".

Well Timithy, I read the newspapers during the last election and I do not recall any polling showing an astonishing 50% gender difference in voting ALP. You cannot find your sources on the web because they do not exist. You are telling lies Timithy.

Hi Col,
I think you left out a bit. I also said that if there was an alternative for not voting for any of the main political parties, then I think this would have been the main choice for most people (or at least I tried to say this, but I could be just a "mere male" who is not supposed to critise feminism)

History continuously shows that the longer a party is in power, the more likely it is to become corrupt or less efficient over time. That party stagnates, and it indirectly stagnates the country as well. (The old communist party in Russia is a prime example.)

I think the author of the article even identifies Howard as being a prime-minister who should not really been in power at present, "if we had a better opposition".

Grace,
I've used a different search criteria in the search engine and found some more results (although there are 49,000 possible hits even with this criteria)

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/20/1090089159354.html

This shows the results from one poll where male support for Labor was falling quickly during the election. I can remember seeing other poll results where it was even lower.

Below is another article that shows how parties aim there policies at one gender

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Anne-Summers/Labor-brings-women-in-from-the-cold/2004/07/20/1090089156920.html

Unfortunately I think Labor has lost too much of the male vote now to get into power without redefining it's policies considerably.

I do not care for your accusations regards myself. I have previously mentioned another forum on IVF. There are important issues on IVF and adoption. If you would like to give possible solutions to the problems involving IVF and adoption in that forum then you are more than welcome, because I would like to hear of them (but please leave out name calling or insinuations regards myself)

Keep looking Timithy. In the meantime, I repeat, you are telling lies.

Hi Grace,
I have been telling the truth, but you are denying the examples of what I have posted.

Political policies "are" being based on gender. That is a fact, and I have posted two example articles highlighting this. Whether those policies appeal to men is another matter.

Because you seem so much in denial, perhaps you can find a poll that shows that men are strong supporters of the Labor party.

To Col Rouge;
Sorry Col,John Howard should have won the last election.The media dominated by the lefties had themselves and the Liberals convinced it would be a close election.It was unnecessary for John to bribe the electorate with social security handouts.The Tampa was also an unnecessary episode.I think John Howard needs to have more faith in himself.Why would the public want to change Captains when the "Good Ship Australia" has it's sails set and cruising well even in stormy weather?

I think people who make comments like "John Howard should have lost" and "the electorate got it wrong" are part of the problem for those who set themselves in opposition to John Howard. John Howard seems so ordinary. So much like those whom he governs. Those who oppose him too often seem desperate to be regarded as "hip".

People think to themselves "I've got a job. I can afford to live and keep the kids fed. I'm actually getting a little bit wealthy since the property market took off. Howard can't be all bad." Howard's opponents too often respond by saying things like, "He's taking us back to the 1950's." The subtext is "Things may be good, but they're just so unfashionable."

Most people would choose ugh boots and a warm meal to heroin chic any day.

Nick,
Just a quick something. Democracy is not a fixed, but is something that has to be continually improved upon or maintained. I have heard of a concept whereby the Senate can only be made up of independents, so that it forms a true house of review. In this way it does not matter so much if the populace gets an election wrong.

It may produce a slower system to get legislation passed, but it will possibly produce more useful or effective legislation.

^ 5 ===> Nick. well said

Timkins !!!
Thats not a bad idea, the senate was meant to have equal numbers from each state to protect the rights of those with smaller populations and less seats in the House of Reps.. the idea of parties competing for it makes it virtually irrelavant in terms of its purpose.

To Nick

I object to being taken back to the 50's, not because it is unfasionable, but because I was there as a child and I know how bad it really was back then for some of us - how demeaning it was to get a divorce, how rigid and hypocritical the behaviour codes were, how difficult for underpriviliged people to get an education.

Despite the economic follies of Whitlam, he introduced tolerance which has made life easier for many people. I would rather have tolerance that allows me to lead a rich and meaningful life than economic success that provides only more and better possessions.

Also, Hawke and Keating were good economic managers and introduced many of the economic reforms that underpin our economic success now.

Molly

Timkins -
your theory - "switching political parties is better than not switching" is a simplistic theory which suits those upset with the outcome of any election.
Had this been the early 1990's with Hawke/Keating about to win another term you would beat a different drum - the one where "stability is good".
Oh and comparison to USSR - complete rubbish - the malais of USSR was due, in main, to the presence of successive dictators (Lenin, Stalin to Breshnev) and the apparatus of the state for denying the freedoms we in Democracies take for granted (like voting in free and fair elections for competing manifestos and something a little closer to free market economics and absence of the centralised control of everything).

Please, don't bother dressing up your political bias with voodoo theories, I have heard them all and can knock them all down in a thrice.

Arjay –
I am not sure why you have made note of my comments with your “Sorry Col,John Howard should have won the last election.”

My view – a nation will always get the government it deserves – I guess, as a nation, we must be doing something right to be so well rewarded with elected our incumbents.
Certainly if I cast my vote again it would be for the coalition (as it has always been since I came to Australia).

Nick Ferrett “I think people who make comments like "John Howard should have lost" and "the electorate got it wrong" are part of the problem for those who set themselves in opposition to John Howard.

They are not part of any problem – they are insignificant and diminishing as each day goes by -
Sour grapes makes the whine (pun intended) the pseudo-intellectuals drink when they witness their precious "socialist egalitarian theories" revealed as a bunch of simplistic and ill-conceived emotional humbug.

Addressing the article, the comment "any of.. 'Lindsay Tanner'.etc. would make a good leader..
Well, I say NOOOOOO !!! That man demonstrated the lowest of low, hypocritical scumbag kaniving immoral disgraceful opportunism that I've seen for a long long time when he dredged up a hitherto unheard of claim about ArchBishop Hollingworth or his handling of sex abuse issues TIMED perfectly to do NOTHING for the claim and EVERYthing to get his name in the media and to grandstand politicaly and damage John Howard by 'association'. He would be the last man on earth I would EVER like to see in ANY position of responsibility to do with government of this country.Kim Jong IL would be a better choice than Lindsay Tanner.

Col,
I was just wondering what are your ideas or suggestions regards checks and balances that could be put into place that will stop a government becoming corrupted. History shows that voting can be rigged, media can be made to be biased, politicians can lie or use propaganda to sway the public to vote for them. Russia is an example.

My thoughts were to have the Senate made up of independants only, and the House of Reps can be made of independants or members of a political party. This would help provide a check and balance on a government, so as to reduce the chance of it becoming a dictatorship.

Nick, you say, "Those who oppose him too often seem desperate to be regarded as 'hip'", and "Most people would choose ugh boots and a warm meal to heroin chic any day." Now, I know you are only indulging in a bit of a wind-up here (as your comments thread was threatening to run off the rails), and most of us can forgive clumsy attempts at wit, but let me just say this in return.

From your photograph you appear to be a fresh-faced young man, who has not been around for too many decades. You should know then, that the term 'hip' is hardly currency today. It comes from the fifties and the beatnik era. Update your language Nick, otherwise you will sound like you are just parroting the silly old codger who leads your party, and who really was around in the fifties.

And Nick, let's try to remember that 50% of the Australian electorate did NOT vote for Howard, give or take a few percentage points. To suggest that all these good citizens prefer "heroin chic" to a warm fire is pretty insulting, not too mention way off target, don't you think? I can't imagine what it is you are driving at here, but if "heroin chic" means anything to me, it is a term that arrived with the fashion industry in the eighties, not with politics. Sounds like you are stuck in a linguistic time warp, old son.

Tim,
you put your finger on it.. very well. The problem is not actually the 'system' its the people... human nature is driven by self or family serving ideas. The only alternative to crop up in our time has been marxism "live for the State" which, as u pointed out becomes corrupted. It also has the mild problem of not giving any sense of ultimate meaning or purpose to its citizens. Among other things the Russian approach also proved that a generation or 2 of sustained atheistic and materialistic determinism in education just succeeded in reducing the humanity and dignity of millions.

The idea of a senate composed of independants is theoretically wonderful and one which I totally support. but the old human nature being the devious critter that it is, would find a way to pervert it and chanel its influence into benefitting the various competing interests of our community. What a tragedy that we have to have "Labor" and "Liberal" "left" and "right" always 'us/them'.

While people may have some issues with the more 'colorful' aspects of the old Israelite economic system, it is where we get our idea of social welfare and human rights from. Outside the Temple and priestly spheres, there was private property and social welfare. There was nothing of 'left and right'.

As trite as it may sound.. "New people make any system work" and new people are those who live for One greater than themselves. Well there I go.. "bible bashing' again

David Boaz says, "The idea of a senate composed of independants is theoretically wonderful and one which I totally support. but the old human nature being the devious critter that it is, would find a way to .... chanel its influence into benefitting the various competing interests of our community..."

First vaguely sensible thing you have said in a long time David, congratulations. And amazingly, without all the capitals, exclamation marks, and other distracting embellishments!!!! Knock off the last para, and other people might even be able to have a conversation with you.

Grace.. u can always have a good convo with me.
But I speak from a 'Christian in democracy' perspective.
I am convinced that unless we are able to extricate ourselves from the 'Them/us' quagmire that political discussion usually resolves down to, it will be circular ad absurdem.
I also am not writing academic papers here :) I do enjoy interaction and I dont mean to be personally insulting, but I do mean to be passionate.

Grace,
What are your ideas or suggestions regards checks and balances that could be put into place, that will stop a government becoming corrupted or less efficient over time?

Timithy, I would elect a few more feminist mothers and grandmothers to parliament. Corruption usually has a hard time facing up to a withering maternal stare.

GRACE....
(hope you saw my apology about misquoting you on the other subject)

they don't have to be feminist.. they just have to be ordinary level headed women.. we need to lose that 'combative' term.. perhaps a council of elders ? :)

Grace,
Do you have any supportive evidence for this.

A now elderly woman who has been regarded as one of the founding members of the feminist movement is Dorris Lessing. But after this interview, in which she described the present feminist movement, I guess she would no longer be very welcome in that movement.

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s390537.htm

Boaz, yes I saw your apology, thanks.

Feminists are ordinary, level-headed women, and they are all around you going about their daily business. If you believe that women should have the right to vote (which many did not believe a century ago), that women should have the right to equal pay for equal work (which many did not believe forty years ago), and that women have the right to be elected to parliament and have a say on how this country is run (which still seems to upset some men on both sides of the political divide), then you are well on the way to being a feminist yourself Boaz.

As you know, there are also extreme feminists, just as there are extreme religious fanatics, but they all have the right to argue their position without fear of persecution. That's democracy.

Democracy flourishes where women have equal rights. But women have had to fight through the democratic process for these rights, combatively if you like, they were not just handed over. If you don't like this democratic challenge then look at the alternatives. Fundamentalist islamic societies enslave and brutalise women because they believe that women are sub-human and not entitled to the same political rights as men. I am sure this is not what you want.

"Council of elders"? No thanks, that's undemocratic and belongs in early peasant societies and present day religious cults. We need the elderly, the middle aged and the young in our representative democracy, and a lot more women.

Timithy, I can only quote Audrey in another forum: "Furthermore, I refuse to respond to any of your 'demands' until you start reading the rejoinders that people present to you. What are you anyway, the dictator of a small country or something?"

"Good on ya Grace" ...
there are lots of issues to explore. I will say one thing though, while I agree its fine for women to vote and have equal pay for equal work. A culture where those things are not in place, can be quite balanced and workable, and even "just" and it would not mean that women are devalued or maginalized. The main principle that we should all be working toward is that we give and receive love. U can have all the voting power and pay in the world, but without love, its rather meaningless.

As per the biblical claim "Love covers a multitude of sins" it also overcomes a lot of perceived cultural injustices. I would feel a lot happier about reasonable cultural change on the feminist side, if it had not been achieved through terrorism. (read up on the suffragettes).

I also maintain, that had the male chunk of the population actually lived up to their part/role in the social contract, (in the biblical sense) such extremes would not have been needed or seen to be needed.

A close examination of who drove a lot of the feminazi agenda would be most beneficial. Particularly what they read, and the opinion leaders they looked up to. I had no real problem with the main thrust of of the suffagettes, until I read about the attempts to blow up the English parliment. (or threats promises to)

Now..I KNOW ur going to call me a 'muddle headed PATRIACH' eh :)
aah well.. its all good..and food for thought. How could we define ourselves unless we had someone elses view to villify :)

BOAZ

Grace,
So far as feminism is concerned, it is NON-DEMOCRATIC. It is BIASED TOWARDS ONE GENDER, and because of this it will never succeed for too long within a society that is democratic (or at least should aim to be)

Just because someone calls themselves a feminist is NOT a qualification to be automatically elected into government. Quite the opposite in fact, if you begin to analyses the history and agendas of the primary feminists throughout the world.

As Dorris Lessing said (who has been involved with many feminist groups in the past) “What a lot of bitches have been created by the women's movement. It really is frightening.”

Now I could say that capitalism is good, because it has brought some people a better standard of life. A lot of capitalism is bad also, and has brought untold misery to millions. Similar with feminism, some good for some women, but it has made “dependency divas” out of millions of other women.

As long as the propaganda machines keep pouring out their rhetoric of how "wonderful feminism always is", while turning a blind eye to how "harmful it often is", then there will be less and less people who will take feminism seriously.

Many feminists are supportive of IVF, although there are many problems involving IVF. As a test, in another forum there are now many women (who seem to identify themselves as being feminist) who have been invited to provide just one possible solution to just one problem involving IVF. None have been given so far, and yet we are supposed to take feminism seriously, and vote for feminists or the far left……I don’t think so.

The best thing Beazley could do to create a better opposition is to remove the far left from the Labor party, as it is just dead wood and it is stopping many people from voting for the Labor party.

I HEREBY rename Grace ==> "Chiwawa" and Timkins "PitBull" :)

Tim.. go easy on Grace there is a warm heart under that vociferous typed exterior.

Your point is made. Good to have difference.

Boaz,
I dont even have a dog at present. Just goldfish, but there are little birds that come down to drink from the lilly pond in the garden.

It is interesting that the greatest critics of feminism are now women. They realise that feminism is no more special than capitalism, socialism etc. Beazely has to tighten up the bell-shapped curve of the Labor party, so we know who we are voting for.

Tim.. in support of what you say about the left of the Labor party,
I think I'd rename that segment a "Flesh eating bacteria" which, unless removed will ultimately destroy the whole body it is attached to :)