The Forum > General Discussion > A new system
A new system
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
-
- All
Posted by Fencepost, Friday, 6 October 2006 6:29:59 PM
| |
Dear Fencepost, at least you are thinking about alternatives, which is a good thing.
I see our present system as terrible. I don't have much to offer by way of replacement, apart from spiritual renewal of all members of government. One problem I see, perhaps selfishly, is that having the power, and the face2face contact with large trading partners like China, it must be soooo easy to simply shuffle and structure our trading relationship in terms of benefit for particular well funded, politically connected segments of the country, at the brutal expense of other segments. If the Coalition represents "National"(Country) party and "Liberals" (big/small/medium business) I suppose they feel it is in their interests to support/develop policy which reaps rewards for those they represent. Clearly they do NOT represent the 'national interest' but 'vested' interest. It would be possible to make a list of various industries which will simply die because of being told a) You have to be competitive in worlds best practice. b) China will not re-value its Yuan significantly nor will it raise the pay of its workers. Those 2 points might make a good epitath on the gravestone of the car parts manufacturer CEO who blew his brains out because he was so hard pressed to be 'competitive' he re-invested the super entitlements of the workers back into the busines, just to keep them in jobs. The Chinese want 'resources' and to send them back as 'value added product'. They want better resource prices, they have a LIST of Aussie industries which they feel are too protected... what about their LABOR MARKET ? The Coalition will not tread on this toe, when the lure of selling more stuff dug out of the ground, or grown on a sheeps back is giving short term reward. Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 6 October 2006 6:43:09 PM
| |
Taking the idea of 'New System' and the problems I outlined in my last post, perhaps we need a 'Senate of National Interest'... which would supervise 'segmented bias' or.. 'political opportunism' based trade policy ?
What a responsibility would be on their shoulders, and how many enemies they would make :) If only we human beings were not so fallen. I cannot think of any place or government, even in totalitarian states, where people don't govern in the interests of their supporters, rather than the nation. Your scheme would give us a pendulum effect. Each time the government changed, we would see a different set of 'consultants' used to develop government policy, and different contracters receiving 'open tenders' haha... but at least the average would be ok :) The Senate was intended to put a stop to things which would disadvantage the smaller states. Perhaps its time for it to be totally non partisan or party linked ? Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 6 October 2006 6:48:39 PM
| |
Nationalise banks and all major industry in the hands of the workers without compensation.
Posted by tao, Saturday, 7 October 2006 1:26:41 AM
| |
Hey Tao.... I think we should rename your nick to MAO :)
Actually, on the banks, I disagree, instead I just advocate ONE 'Peoples bank' which offered low interest, sympathetic yet responsible lending policies and had almost zero 'fees and charges'. That would probably be enough to bring the others into line. At heart I am a socialist I guess, in the best Christian sense, not the usual political one. But my socialism would never destroy the individuals right to persue personal excellence and advancement based on their skill and insight. So, in that sense I'm a 'centrist'. Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 7 October 2006 7:25:23 AM
| |
Well Boaz,
I believe usury was frowned upon in the bible. Jesus did throw out the money lenders :) Perhaps he was a socialist himself. If you’re interested, here http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/luxemburg/1905/misc/socialism-churches.htm is a link to an article by Rosa Luxembourg (a socialist who was killed by the Germans) discussing early Christians. My point about nationalizing banks and major industry was rather simplistic, however if you think about it, it holds within it some profound implications. What if banks and all major industry where owned by workers? What if charging interest on money and extracting private profit from social production was outlawed? What changes would that make to the world? I’d really like people to think about it. Posted by tao, Saturday, 7 October 2006 9:05:23 AM
| |
I should correct what I said, Rosa Luxembourg was a German socialist killed by the Nazis.
Posted by tao, Saturday, 7 October 2006 9:06:22 AM
| |
I correct my correction, she was Polish.
I should hesitate before I run off at the fingers! :) Posted by tao, Saturday, 7 October 2006 9:16:58 AM
| |
BD, have you read Kevin Rudd's article in The Monthly? He has some interesting things to say about the church/state business and the contribution that true Christian values - the ones Jesus advocated - should properly bring to government.
Posted by chainsmoker, Sunday, 8 October 2006 10:14:41 AM
| |
How about a Governments made up of one Chamber, the Upper House / Senate, where they represent the whole State / Nation who first go through an in house electoral system representing the sectional groups. e.g. Business, Manufactring, Farming, the Utilities Services, Education, Household Lobby, Womens Lobby, Sports, Gaming, Health, Entertainment, National Security, Transport, etc, etc, etc. The sectional groups would elect within their members a spokesperson to be presented at the National / State Elections level as a Candidate.
Suppose there were 200 sectional groups and only 100 seats available then the whole State would vote for the Candidates they feel best represent their interests; the 100 Candidates reaching the highest votes would form Government. The failing Canditates would still head lobby and research groups to bring their interests to Government. This would do away with irrelavent electorate boundaries and the Candidate would have to be a State visionary. You would only gain the best spokes-person representing the sectional interest groups of the State as they would represent their members having been elected by the in-house elections. The Local Councils would be given more responsibility in local issues, and have an elected representative on a whole of State Council. Posted by Philo, Friday, 13 October 2006 9:49:10 AM
|
I say eliminate the political profession. Limit a pollie to one term of office. Have two main parties and alternate them every 4 years with 51% of the seats allocated alternately to one or the other.
I have other crazy ideas too, but I hope this stirs some creative thinking about alternatives to our present sorry system.