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.