daggett,

I think you'll find that the Libs just delayed the electricity sale because they want to sell it themselves when they get back into power.

The offical reason was that they weren't opposed to the sale itself, just the terms of the sale.

wobbles says:

"It's a bit late now to start complaining about that as well as rampant privatisation after electorally supporting the architects of such philosophies for the last several elections."

Fair enough, too, if the elected party truly won genuine majority support in those various elections.

But consider: what if an elected party became elected innocent of the knowledge as to having been fraudulently assisted to do so? Would not any opposition party, in the face of such defeat, seek to modify its policies, tailoring them to be more acceptable to what they thought represented genuine majority public opinion, so as to increase their chance of winning power next time around?

Now what if this process had been going on not just for several elections, but over decades: what do you think would be the effect upon the policies of both parties? Would they not tend to become very similar, as each strove to match its policy with what seemed to be genuine majority community acceptibility? Is not this extreme similarity of performance in office exactly what Australians are seeing, and remarking upon?

Now, stepping just for the moment away from our individual political team loyalties, in such circumstances of the elected in the vast majority of individual cases not enjoying true majority community support, would it not be an environment in which a manipulative influence could with great ease advance, or retard, the political careers of individuals on both sides of politics? Would this not constitute a way for those doing the manipulation to obtain governments that always delivered what the manipulators wanted, public opinion notwithstanding?

What if many, on both sides of politics, unknowingly over the years have only held their seats by virtue of fraudulently influenced results? Could that not push policy in both parties in one direction in the face of overwhelming public opposition?

Just like what we are all seeing right now, with Rees seemingly becoming the new Iemma, and proposing the sell-out of electricity retailing in the face of 80% community opposition. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2103#49034

It was a sad day when the ALP started talking up economic rationalism and the sale of public assets.

The short-term gain of some quick cash to offset debts without raising taxes does no favours in the long-term. When there are no more public assets to sell, governments (of both persuasions) will have to learn to better manage their economies (State and Federal).

What sort of a society do we want? One where there are some commonly owned community assets that benefit us all or one where all services are provided by the private sector where the prime motivating factor is profit and the only real 'customer' is the private shareholder.

Privatisation does not always create better service to the public as some might have us believe.

Economic rationalism really means - we pay more for less - so real services are reduced and the public will continue to pay for it.

Pelican,

Privatisation, almost NEVER creates better services.

---

I note CJ Morgan has pointed out that NSW Greens have fought hard against privatisation, which is true as I have noted extensively at http://candobetter.org/NswElectricity

If anyone therefore wonders why people like myself, in seeming agreement with CJ Morgan, don't join with him in common cause in areas in which we seem to agree, I suggest they acquaint themselves with his vicious personal attacks upon myself and others who question the U.S. Government's whole underlying rationale for the "War on Terror" in the "9/11 Truth" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0#47512

I truly wonder how many Greens would feel proud to have him in their ranks.

Still trying to pick fights, James?

Get help.

CJ Morgan wrote, "Get help."

Don't you think it's time you expanded your repertoire of put-downs, CJ Morgan?

So, what you're telling is that it is OK for you to try to pick fights with me (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#45987 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#46114 ... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#48792 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#48866) ?

... but it's not OK for me to try to pick fights with you?

Anyway, the way I see it, I wasn't trying to pick a fight.

It just occurred to me that it may have looked a little weird to others the way we aren't talking to each other, so I thought I might try to explain the situation to them.

Just imagine how it would look to others. First they see me making posts against electricity privatisation and telling them about articles on my own site, including articles about the very same NSW Green politicians that you subsequently posted about.

Then you come along and tell everyone about those NSW Greens politicians, but don't even acknowledge me or my posts!

If I was another OLO user and didn't understand the circumstances between us, then I would have thought that that behaviour was a little strange and spooky, particularly if daggett went on to make more posts but didn't acknowledge CJ Morgan either.

So, I thought I would clear that up before I proceeded.

So, you needn't feel any concern that I feel let down because you have not been provoked. Quite the reverse, in fact.

And I certainly won't feel let down if you fail to post any more to the "9/11 Truth" forum. I am sure we can all manage perfectly well there without you.

Now, run along, CJ.

The vital struggles now being waged against religion and political incorrectness may founder without your presence.