It seems that one person has said what i have been saying and also it in tapps policy

choice

well said yabby.

if any of you had decided to read it, and any other policies you would see.

www.tapp.org.au

The sooner those people with money get the hell out of Australia, the sooner the Left can take over and supply the necessary employment as well as dictate the conditions. You would think the wealthy would be leaving in greater numbers than they are. Of course there is always tomorrow and planes leave everyday. I wonder if the Left have worked out how many Mickey D's are necessary to keep the welfare system afloat?

Same old merry go around... j.h. puts his name to an article and (media) wants us to think that he is in control of this area and driving its direction...unfortunately j.h. is probably a tool like the rest of us...if it backfires, usual solution is publically remove the 'face person tool' (like olmert in israel) but the 'usual suspects' whom actually been running the show for a while can continue with their untouched power and authority to create another disaster with much herald promise of benefits to public...but especially for themselves...

Union numbers are down, and many reasons given...fact is unions are formed by a need among workers to counterbalance commerce need to produce profit...so the balance of forces between money as profit to money to put food on the table...both needed and balanced outcome essential. The IR unbalances this by statue empowering one side...result is immediate benefit for one side but without usual 'checks and balances' the pressure will built later and then...yep another disaster in the waiting to happen...

Union should never have entered into politics as labour, and liberals with pro-business causing the same balance of struggle between the opposites of the money equation...though money is important for society well being, it is not the only thing, but the current political parties are essentially about money...unlike the origin of democracy like roman senate, where each member was supposed to be elected by the free public among their area ie no 'parties' but good-individuals hopefully chosen for their true community spirit...and aim was to achieve a balanced 'administration' of the country by the people- note 'people' (not vested interest groups) which politics should be about ie rise above the money equation line of forces...

Sam

pegasus, your suggestions for Hockey's AWA are most definitely a good and positive start.

But I think what is really needed is a wholesale re-evaluation of the position, not the man. He is after all just one extremely visible manifestation of the problem, which is that there is no form of contract, at all, between the government and the people, nor between the elected member and his constituents.

We are asked to vote for an individual, who represents a party, on the basis of a manifesto. This manifesto is effectively the terms and conditions of an agreement between the candidate and the voter.

The problem is that we are not allowed to sue the elected member for breaking the terms of that contract.

We should be.

Given that we have a representative democracy, we should be allowed to hold our representatives responsible for the commitments they make.

Nowhere else would you be allowed to get away with it.

No business manager would countenance an employee who said "I changed my mind about doing the job you asked me to do, and did something else instead"

A theatre-goer would justly demand their money back if they found themselves watching "Waiting for Godot" when they were sold tickets to "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert".

Or you pay a builder to build an extension to your house, and he spends the money on a vacation to Florida.

Yet we put up with failure to act, and policy substitution, on a regular basis.

Who voted for Howard's IR reforms? No-one, because it was not in the manifesto.

And what about all those "non-core" promises? Remember those "ministerial guidelines" that were going to sweep away the rorts? "The guidelines that were laid down in this document will be complied with in full", said Mr Howard, only to ditch them quickly as the rush to the door became a flood?

Politicians' pay should be inextricably linked to their performance against their manifesto commitments. No performance, no pay.

Just like it is in the real world.

Joe Hockey is a Liberal MP and yet dares to raise such furphys?

What about all the bosses in the camp of the Liberal Party? What about ex Liberal staffers Peter Hendy and Heather Ridout where they are now in two of the key employer lobby groups?

And what about the Tasmanian unions that gave John Howard two seats last election?

This is one of the dumb things that Libs use to terrorise people

Labor is NOT in the control of the unions as Kevin Rudd declared publicly.

Let's look at more serious issues like why Bill heffernan is an utter disgrace and should be sacked from the Howard parliament benches

Dear Sam said,

Joe Hockey a "tool"? I couldn't have said it better myself.