pelican
Your specialite is the nationalisation.
Do you remember the Soviet Union? they nationalised everything in the name of the working class. The working class had nothing to do with these organisations, which controled from the beaurocrats, who was many times worst than employers, the services of the state organizations was many times worst from the private organizations, the condisions for the workers was many, many times worst from the capitalist organizations and productive was extremely low. The system colapsed of cause its low productivity.
The ownership of an organization is not the most important but how the organization is managed. Usualy in state organizations the manangment is more lazy and fat, as there are plenty money, taxpayer's money, to cover any loses.
In capitalist world the state own enterprises, when become profitable enouph, they are sold for pinuts to private sector, they used to transfer taxpayer's money to capitalists.
The question is if there is any way to block the liberals to become government. You have, we have no way to block them, soon or later the state own organizations will privatisied again.
Why you will nationalise them to west our money? to create a healthy, profitable organization which later will privatised for pinuts?
Is not it better to put additional rules to the current organizations, state or private onwn and check if these rules are respected?
Instead to give taxpayer's money for free to private sector is not it better to buy shares in low prices from private sector and later sell them?
Help the private sector but parallel help the state with various ways, not ONLY for your seoul but for taxpayer's benefits.
pelican
With the financial crisis and the shares so low go and buy shares from the private sector for pinuts.
Do not privatise state entrprises for pinuts, buy shares from private sector for pinuts creating new jobs!

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Frankly, I've always been gunning for the position of minister for recreation and experimental beverage relaxation.

In other words, I'd like to be paid to test hammocks and new cocktail recipes.

It's a gruelling job, but someone's gotta do it.

Bronwyn, on Friday, 6 March 2009 at 11:43:41 PM:

"As for the 'other rare events', I'm not sure what the Emperor is getting at there. But no doubt there's something in my posting history that's prompted that somewhat dubious honour!";

in response to examinator, on Friday, 6 March 2009 at 6:39:57 PM, who inter alia said:

"Bronwyn for minister for serious occasions and other rare events".

Bronwyn,

Could those other rare events be duels, jousts, or even, heaven forbid, phlaigmes? Perhaps the fault's not in your posting history, but in ignorance of some other, that uninformed you languish.

examinator,

Its a bit of a worry that there appears to be within that Ministry a triumvirate that may be members of a secret order. Don't know how that would square with transparency and open government.

There is only one thing the PM needs to do, is to give us a real forum, where we can argue with each other and sort out the pros and cons, of every dispute, with just fair and impartial adjudication teams.

There should be no sacred cows, protected and privileged persons, immunities from prosecution, and opportunities for bribery and corruption. This is the first public forum where freedom of speech is permitted, because the moderator is a computer. In most of the publicly erected forums these days, called Courts with a capital C, in all States and the Commonwealth there might as well be a computer as adjudicator, because all Judges and Magistrates in Australia are preprogrammed, by an outside organization, called a University Law School.

In this forum, there is a computer that will not allow swearing, which is good. It will not allow too many posts on any one day, and it strictly enforces the word count. It is absolutely brilliant, because it allows a spade to be called a spade.

We have a debate going about Christianity and atheism. It is not a debate the atheists can win, but without a real forum to debate it in, it has no real significance beyond the feelgood factor. Currently we have stilted and restricted debating forums, run by lawyers, for lawyers, and they are all afraid of the government.

Malcolm Fraser had to agree to four things when he got the nod from Kerr in 1975. He had to agree to restore supply so the Public Service could get paid, he had to agree to go to the big jury with an election, he had to agree not to persecute the outgoing government, and he had to agree to only be a caretaker until the election was held. Danny Sankey prosecuted Whitlam, in a State Court. Fraser had to nobble the High Court and create a Federal Court for show only to keep ordinary individuals from prosecuting Whitlam and his henchmen. A real PM will give us real courts again. Instead of playing talkies, give us real reform.

Banjo
"Bring on proportional representation elections"
You have right, I will vote YOU 100%, give the power to people, no cheats, not tricks, no face democracy.
If people have the power they know what to do.
The current electoral system is only for ALP and Liberals, not for small parties, not for Australian people, NOT FOR NEW IDEAS.
The current electoral system destroy any new party, any new ideas if the do not have the acceptance from ALP or Liberals.
Banjo, Bring on proportional representation elections, we need it, help Australia get out from the zero circle, ALP or Liberals, Liberals or ALP. We have voted small parties or independens and we have on our neck the same duo for very long time.
Banjo give the power to people, that is democracy!
We will fix all others later, first to establish real democracy!
I voted you ONLY for the proportional representation elections, THIS IS EXTREMELY GOOD and it overcover all the others.
Banjo, my lord, you deserve my vote!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Antonio,
Who would have thought that you and I would agree on something! I recall that CJM and I agreed on a matter sometime back. Even if it was only about a popular song called 'Fever' being good, some decades ago.

If you are keen on democracy, I suggest you become familiar,if not now, with the concept of Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR), which I also proposed.

Basically, it means that if a certain number of voters petition about an issue, the Government is obliged to hold a referendum on that issue before or at the next election. I cannot help but think if we had CIR would we have sent our troops to Iraq or would the present government have increased the immigration rate so dramaticly after the election when nothing was said about it. CIR would make politicians think more about what the people may want (whom they are supposed to represent) rather than simply say we have a mandate to do what we wish.

I would not hold my breath waiting to get either CIR or proportional representation elections as it is democratic and likely reduce the power of the politicians. That they will fight against.