Good on Col, at least you are consistent, your usual compassionate, caring for others self. Selfish self opionated people really get my blood boiling, as if everyone was in your position, wake up and smell the roses, your bragging about your talents is annoying to the average people who rely on awards to make sure they have enough money to support a family, it may come as a schock to you, but we weren't all born nuclear scientists {thank goodness} and if you can negotiate for yourself, good, however the majority cannot. We need the assureance of awards, or the exploitation in the previous post will apply to all, except of course the indespensible amoung us like you...funny I don't remember your name mentioned in despatches, perhaps I don't read the correct newspaper, or I might actually realise how increadibly important you obviously are, a legend in your own lunchtime...

TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.

Many posters have pointed out that when either party has control of the Senate, ‘they use it to advance their party agenda’

So, what is the problem ? Simple

THE SENATE. was constituted as a ‘House of Review’ with equal numbers from all states to ensure that no state was disadvantaged by legislation.

WHAT WENT WRONG ? Also not exactly a difficult question to answer: PARTIES gained control by fielding candidates.

SOLUTION. Candidates for the senate should NOT belong to political parties ! There should be a method of selecting/nominating them which is SEPARATE from the “Party” method we currently have. In fact, while it might be a bit optimistic to say so, Political parties should be BARRED from activity in the Senate.

I can’t see this happening, because presumably we would end up with many different views even from the elected state representatives on how legislation is perceived to impact the States, this in turn will be tied to the particular interests of the individuals (or those who promoted them) concerned. So, we could end up with such disunity and squabbling it could make the whole idea untenable.
How else can we approach this without a ‘party aligned’ system ? All ideas are welcome.

CONCLUSION It seems to me that until we come up with a workable ‘non party’ aligned system for the Senate house of review, we are stuck with how things are now, and there is not a lot of value in whining about it when one party does happen to have full control.

CIRCULAR ARGUMENT.
Have parties= Bad, subject to abuse. or Good, can get things done?
Have Individual non party aligned reps= Unworkable ?

“REAL” SOLUTION

National revival and spiritual awakening, hearts turned to the Almighty, in Christ ! Well, yes, But, even this would be subject to the fickle nature of we humans.. resulting in a polarized community again in time. A true spiritual revival is not about ‘policy’ its about attitude and heart. Policy from such hearts will be good policy.

THE FINAL ‘real’ solution. The 2nd Coming.

Boaz,

Check my Blog for the proposed 'Family Friendly' campaign proposal.

I would actually appreciate your comments, as it requires the churches in order to be effective.

http://jezreelvalley.blogspot.com/

Welcome back

PS It is somewhat disheartening that you appear to have no options available for those that refuse to accept the existence of Jesus. Moreover, the supposed chronological support for Jesus actually being the messiah (as with most of what he is supposed to have done) is equally supportive of Shimon Bar Kochba's claim to have been the son of the star.

I'll take tyranny of the majority over tyranny of the minority any time.
One of the reasons Coalition has control of the Senate is because of the opposition parties constantly stifling reform.
Without a meddling Senate Telstra would have made much more than it will now, we would have a GST on everything rather than the exemptions on food which are a nightmare and we would have had a full lot of IR reform when we had a minister who could sell it well such as Abbott or Reith, rather than Andrews.

Ironically, if all these changes were so bad for the Australian public as is made out by the ALP and the 26 per cent of people who are Greens on this site, they should have let them through first up.
Then the outrage at the ballot box would have overspilled during the first, second, third term of this Govt and the good old ALP could have been elected earlier.

Then again, people might have liked the changes and the ALP would be exposed for the policy vaccuum it has become.

PS: With three year parliamentary terms, the Senate is irrelevant. Accountability comes every three years. The Senate no longer does what is supposed to do and that is represent the states - rather, it looks after minority interests at the expense of the majority. What has Tampa got to do with Tasmania or Van Nguyen with South Australia. You'll have to ask Brown and Stott-Despoja that because I don't have a clue.

t.u.s

I can relate to some of what you say, Col. I worked for many years in sales and sales management, for the most part being paid on commission. Then I started a sub-contracting business in the building trade and had to negotiate my own contracts. And at 71, I am still running a part time business from home. But I also realise that not everyone can, or has the desire to do that.

I am a strong believer in having legally enforceable conditions of employment which are fair to employees, management and owners of businesses. One of the most important of these is a minimum wage safety net. Just because some employers get away with flouting the law in this respect, this isn't a valid reason to scrap the law and return, in effect, to the law of the jungle.

Another aspect that requires adequate control is safety in the workplace. When I had the sub-contracting business, I was happy to be a member of the appropriate union. My union couldn't get me better pay, but they could help to keep the building sites safe. As far as I am concerned, safety is non-negotiable and cannot be compromised, but I know from experience that not every employer sees it that way.

Your comment about the cash economy in the restaurant trade is true in many cases, but is used mainly to cheat both the low paid employees and the taxation dept. My friend had a good job for several years, where all her wages went through the books and she paid tax.

Her spoken English is adequate for most purposes and her spelling and grammar better than some people who are born in English speaking countries. But, like many people coming from some other countries, she doesn't understand the concept of fighting for one's rights and is easy prey for unscrupulous employers.

Well, under the proposed legislation, plenty of good honest Australian workers will find that it's no good being prepared to fight for their rights, because they'll have no rights to fight for.

And thanks, Shonga, for your comments.

Sorry to disapoint you Chris but the Australian Labor Party will be in the willderness for a lot longer yet.Australians are no doubt apothetic when it comes to politics,but they have long memories.

Labours fall from grace does not need an in depth anylisis by pseudo intellectuals,or economists.You can basicaly nail it down to the following.Home loan interest rates went through the roof under Labor,Howard hoodwinked the elerctorate with his Battlers mantra,and the young people of this Country have never had it so good.Also sad but true when it comes down to it we Anglo Saxons don't like people of other ethnic stripe.Tamper comes to mind,Howard is not stupid.

I am old enough to remember when the Foreman of a work place carried a pick handle,it will take a lot more suffering of the Australian people to get the penny to drop.
PHILB