I made the startling discovery one day when reading about a story in the media that you can not beleive everything which the media prints or publishes.

The story that was published by the media was very different to the facts that I knew, when reading the story in the media the only reason I knew it was the same story as the one I knew about, was the names were the same, all the 'details' the media published were very different to what I know to have been fact.

Since that time the media have been caught telling 'porkies' on number of occasions, that it really makes me wonder how many more porkies go unrevealed.

I equate the newspapers and current affairs programs to very little more than 'pulp fiction' these days.

Newspapers are little more than entertainment value.

Having read 'Spin Sisters' by Myrna Blythe this opened my eyes further the the manipulation by the media, and love him or hate him Andrew Bolt exposed the ambulance scam in Palestine.

When I first started reading other articles which varied from the political line, I found it difficult to believe them at first and I now strongly resent the media for trying to manipulate my beliefs and understanding on many subjects.

Yes James it really is that bad due to labor and liberal. This is what they wanted get the people who dont care and they will vote as they always have as they cannot see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Then you get people like me who are here to shake things up with the truth,i know a dirty word but when you mean it, well in my case anyway thats my word.
And breathing new life well I think I am doing more than that.
People can either take it or leave.

Just like the following.

The money makers ,big business and pollies are not going to like The Australian Peoples Party

The pollies entitlements will be under the chop and supperanuation no more to 69% public funding for pollies

now that will be better used for the people.
These pollie entitlements have no value in the interests of the people but these pollies themselves.

Get the idea
Time to come on board or you can always have
LABOR
LIBERAL

www.tapp.org.au

This deliberative polling method sounds really interesting, more like the direct democracy of antiquity. I'd certainly be interested in attending one in Melbourne.

However, it presupposes a few things:

1. Politicians (of any description) want an informed and engaged electorate and are willing to promote such things;

2. More than a small minority are really willing to engage in such activities constructively and with some degree of open-mindedness;

3. Legislating for compulsory attendance would overcome the problems mentioned in 2.

Still, it's a refreshing idea, so good luck with it.

Although not a new problem, the use of wild generalisations, code words, spin, slogans and tenuous analogies plagues public debate. Almost every time I have participated in polls the meaning and purpose of many questions is so unclear that I terminate the whole process before completion. Yet the results of these polls seem to be accepted as measures of public opinion. Did someone ask those participants using the words "that Muslims were/are a threat to the Australian way of life." ?
Did someone forget to insert "some", "many" "most" or " a few" (Muslims)? How big is the threat ? (minuscule or overwhelming?) What aspects of the Australian way of life ? (All of it, some or a tiny bit? And if some, do they matter? Fairly meaningless to a casual reader.
We shouldn't accept the "too busy" excuse for sounding off about topics we know too little about. Newspapers once contained many times more detail about news content than at present. Unless detail is comprehensive, people will often draw distorted conclusions.

there is no public debate- just simulated discussions, with no visible consequence. citizens debate, subjects gossip.

ozzies are born into a society in which politics is a trade, wholly owned by the politicians guild. as they have no substantive input to political life, they don't waste much time on acquiring information. this is the rational response to the environment they inherit.

donald horne said oz was run by second rate people, but protected by history and geography from the consequences of inept rule. i suggest he was wrong in part, because the really competent national leaders typically started wars while oz has merely tagged along. this may have saved us some money and lives.

the real path to peace and prosperity seems to be getting the rule of the nation out of the hands of politicians. compare the history of switzerland with australia, or anywhere else. there is a good case that actual democracy is vastly superior to the (doublethink/newspeak) 'democracy' our masters assure us is our own blessing

JamesH - yes there are porkies in the media, but I think you'll find that most of the time it's because of a lack of diligence on behalf of the reporter allowing them to be manipulated by others.
It's easy to blame the media. It's quickly becoming a punching bag for pretty much everybody's ire.
But this is, quite literally, shooting the messenger.

Sure, messages get warped along the way, but as long at there is a plethora of voices, then that's about the best you can hope for. 100 per cent accuracy is never going to happen.

While media proprietors do encourage certain biases, it's all in pursuit of the bottom line. Their influence tends to be exaggerated.

tapp - you're going to have to get beyond simplistic slogans like 'big business and the politicians won't like us.'
What does that mean? You're anti big business? Does this mean you're a socialist party? When does a big business deserve to be cut down to size?
I'd like to vote for a party that does the things you say yours will, but until I see some more insightful posts on issues such as these, I'm afraid you haven't earned it. I've looked at some of your policies - bare bones, that's all they are at present, and we live in a pretty fluid system. Black and white doesn't cut it any more and neither does railing against politicians and the big end of town.

Although I hate to admit it, you'll also need to express yourself with a little more restraint, or you're going to alienate plenty of people and be your own worst enemy.

In regard to the article - nice idea, but you're always going to have people questioning whether the information fed to the participants is unbiased.
Yes, it sounds like a great idea - but the fact that you were one of the group managers, and that you didn't express any criticisms at all, or suggestions for improvement, has the cynic in me a little concerned.

Hi mate

what it means about big business or maybe you dont here this stuff how the other parties are always sucking up to them.

Money to BHP, FORD,HOLDEN and so on got the point.

I care about the people, you may find that it is big business destroying small business.

Politicians

Ok put it like this The Australian Peoples Party will be cuting all poiliticians perks, after sacking,retirement,
no free cares
no gold card
no drivers
no office
get the point

Pollies Super
we will be cutting this fron
69% public funded
to 20% public funded.

Pollies will not be happy.

Also will see how far this can be backdated as this his cost to the people is not in the interests of the people.

Pollies have to act in the interets of the public.

For instance the royal commission into centenary house found that the leasing arrangements made by the labor government to the ALP where not in the interests of the public and really the only people that made anything from that was the labor party.

so in the interests of the people are just that.

If the pollies dont like it stiff Sh#t its about time they were working for the people and not themselves and their own party.

www.tapp.org.au

Okay, you say you're against funnelling money to large companies like Ford and so on.

But what of the situation, where this funding is an incentive to either open a facility, or keep open a facility, on Australian soil?

Would you cling to that notion, if it meant that the company moved offshore, taking jobs and revenue with it?

I see your point about politicians not liking that you would remove their perks.

I take it then, that you unequivocally dismiss the notion, that it will take a high standard of remuneration to attract a high calibre of individual to be a politician?

Compared to CEOs and most mid-level to senior positions in business, politicians receive little recompense - it is the perks that make the position attractive. How do you reconcile this to the fact that many talented individuals with extensive knowledge and training in fields such as economics and science will consider the pursuit of politics less rewarding than could be found in the private sector? They also wouldn't have the stigma of being vilified for being a politician.
There is also the fact that in terms of budgetary considerations, politician's salaries (& perks) are really a drop in the ocean.

You mention back dating. Will new politicians share this cost? will there be efforts to claw it back from retired politicians?

TRTL has a good point that this idea of compulsary debate in local forums at first sounds like a good idea, but in practice it can be easily abused like polit bureaus and propaganda rallies.

Not to mention the expense of the thing. We have environmental disasters to pay for. Do we want to spend more on an exercise which may or may not be effective in Australians having a real voice. We don't have the Swiss tradition of Cantons, and the price they pay is high taxes and national service.

We also don't have Swiss neutrality and therefor our Governments don't always make decisions for the interests of Australians but for the economic interests of the multinationals. The rationale is that we benefit with jobs in the end.

Are we looking for utopian goals here or realistic goals. The urgent goal is water, power and infrustructure reform. The economy can still purr along if we are sensible about this.

JamesH: "I made the startling discovery one day when reading about a story in the media that you can not beleive everything which the media prints or publishes."

Welcome to the real world, old son. Might I suggest you apply your newfound scepticism to other areas of your reading, particularly with respect to gender reations?

The commenters above don't seem to have understood the thrust of the article, which is the potential that 'deliberative polls' - or something like them - might have for constructively facilitating public debate about the important issues that confront Australian society.

As opposed to, for example, the inevitably polarised excuses for debates that we have in forums such as this :)

The Australian Peoples Party will attempt to backdate super, if this is possible it will happen
re corporations if it is in the interest of the people that will be a yes with conditions.
if it is for new inovations yes with a catch of course as is the peoples money so the people should have a part of it.

Ok This party requires members and candidates and as long as people have passion that is what it takes it to be representative.
There is enough personal for assistance/advice. It is from us the people that creates change and ideas so thats what makes it.

At the federal election you can either have your protest vote which is what it is get fed up government stuffs up then protest vote. Labor has given nothing but talk no policy so if labor gets in it is due to protest and nothing more.

This will keep happening util the people work out that a protest vote isnt the way but;

DOING THE RIGHT THING IS

Ok thats me

if you wish to stand at the federal election and know those either way members or candidates it is your choice.
that is what i have given.

thanks all

stu

www.tapp.org.au

tapp - in relation to sponsorship of corporations, it will be a 'yes' if it is in the public interest.

This isn't saying anything. The public interest is defined by perception. Believe it or not, most politicians believe the decisions they are making are in the best interests of the public.
Many are of a view that in supporting big business, the trickle down effect and growth this provides, will stimulate the economy, provide jobs, and all the warm and fuzzy things that come with it.

If you're fair dinkum about these issues, I suggest you submit an article to OLO outlining the flaws with the current party system - don't go for simply spruiking the Aust People's Party, that will turn many off.

If you're going to do that however, you'll need to do far more than say 'if it's in the public's interest.' You'll need clear cut examples of decisions the government has made, why they are flawed and what should be done to rectify them.
You'll also need to be prepared to debate the issues without emotion - because with every example you provide, there will be plenty of people who disagree and have persuasive arguments as to why they are right.

Because this is what politics really is - reaching consensus. Your all-or-nothing approach thus far hasn't convinced me you will take into account the opposing viewpoint, or have come to a carefully crafted view with outcomes, rather than reactions, as the central tenet.

If you can put together a strong argument on a range of policies and are capable of defending with logic, then perhaps I'll consider your party as more than simply reactionary anger - if you can do that and your policies will genuinely make a fairer country, then you'll have my vote. But in my opinion, I think you've got a way to go as yet. The established parties have been around a while, and have had their policies shaped by a battering from opposing viewpoints - yours hasn't as yet, and it needs that criticism to make it grounded and practical.

Deliberative polling sounds like a great idea. Bit utopian perhaps, but we do need an alternative to media and the current Babel of public opinion for reliable information.

Whether deliberative polling would suit the powers that be is its main weakness I think. Funding and organisation would have to be independent of any commercial or political interest for it to serve its intended purpose.

Still, 10 out of 10 for effort and good intentions. I'd be interested to know how it goes on other topics.

TRTL and all

you all have the chance and the choice about TAPP's policies and also is a forum for such if you wished to debate them.

They are there if you want to read them and until you take the time to look then you havnt done anything.

Between myself and the backroom around Australia this is what we have come up with as being normal everyday people who are fed up.

So if you dont want to read them your fault not mine.

You take take a horse to water( if there is any) but you still cannot make him drink.

If you do not want to drink then the only choice is labor and nothing more.

Until you take that step which is up to you not me your choice is only labor.

So that is the point have a read and in a week will write something for OLO for your comments but until you have read it there really is not point at debate as no reference.

www.tapp.org.au