Banjo
My english is not enouph good and I do not understand everything from the text.
"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."
Houuuuu! you are a democrat! I agree with you about it too.
Sorry my poor english!
YOU ARE EVEN BETTER THAN I THOUGHT.
EVIVA Banjo!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

examinator,

When it comes to open government, I'm definitely not the best candidate. But, I still morally support the idea (up to a point?), because I know it has positive flow-on effects to the rest of society.

Well picked, Forrest.

I agree Bronwyn, Bronco Lane not as a RH man though, but as PM!

Some great ideas. As someone mentioned above a PM would really be a person who can bring together other people with ideas who can collectively come up with solutions to current problems, while recognising that you won't please everyone particularly those with the most to lose (like CEOs).

Ideally a real social democracy with a good mix of regulation,free enterprise incentives (without the greed factor)and social support.

My utopian society would reduce the disparity between the lowest and highest incomes. Bill Shorten on Q&A the other night suggested a 20x higher salary of lower income workers to the highest as a fair divide. I tend to agree. How rich does one need to be and certainly not at the expense of other people who get exploited along the way.

I think it was Antonios made the comment on my nationalisation project. Read back again, I was not advocating nationalising the entire manufacturing sector just those listed for obvious reasons. I reiterate my and Banjo's and even runner's desire for publicly owned assets particularly in the utilities sector.

The PM must be thinking he has problems in Queensland. The polling published this morning gives the LNP a four point lead. That is not good news for Anna Bligh, but the PM can do lots to help. He could ring Anna Bligh and tell her to fix up the Liberal party dominated judiciary in Queensland for starters. He could tell her that the Bone v Mothershaw decision taken without juries, that has destroyed property rights in Queensland not by Parliamentary decree but by judicial malpractice, must be overturned.

He can tell her that if she will fix up Queensland’s judicial system, she will fix the whole of Australia. He can tell he she will have all the money she needs to fix hospitals and roads, because big corporate criminals will have to pay up when they commit crimes. These corporate criminals got tax breaks from the Liberals, and have not been carrying their fair share of the public burden for years.

These corporate criminals have used their big bank accounts to get favours from both the State and Federal Governments, just so they can have Judges, instead of juries. One of the biggest of these is a now privatized Telco, who are paying their CEO thirty million dollars. They should be paying Queensland at least one billion dollars, out of the money they got selling all their shares. They were able to fully privatize only because the Queensland courts are not working properly.

The Rot in Queensland started in 1984, in the Imperial Acts Application Act when an uppity State Parliament supposedly declared Imperial Acts that apply in Queensland and left out the Australian Constitution. OOPS. That was when the Nationals started to slide into opposition. They also started calling people who want them to be honest vexatious. That is an illegal Act too, because it directly contradicts S 28 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth). Courts are the places where open political debate used to take place before impartial judges. There is a lot he should tell Anna now so he doesn’t have to tell Lawrence after the 21st.

Forrest

"It's a bit of a worry that there appears to be within that Ministry a triumvirate that may be members of a secret order."

Okay, Forrest, you can't leave it at that. You'll have to name the triumvirate. Rob seemed in agreeance with you, but it's probably not so obvious to all of us, certainly not to me anyway.

"Could those other rare events be duels, jousts, or even, heaven forbid, phlaigmes?"

Phlaigmes ?? I hate admitting defeat on words, but you're going to have to explain this one to me! You've made me realise though why the Emperor, bless him, might have given me that particular title. I've never initiated them myself, but I have given several OLO duels and virtual social gatherings a kickalong in the past, and they are relatively 'rare events', so that is probably why. Thanks for the prompting. :)

Antonios

"The ownership of an organization is not the most important but how the organization is managed."

I don't often disagree with you, Antonios, but I do this time. The ownership of public utilities is in my view critical for several reasons. If utilities such as water and electricity are publicly owned, there is a greater chance that government can influence their operation, especially when the public good comes into conflict with the profit imperative, for example, reducing consumption of power and water and switching to alternative or renewable sources. The other benefit is that profit is generated and returned to the people as opposed to lining the pockets of a privileged few.

"Banjo, my lord, you deserve my vote!"

Don't be too hasty. I'd check out his policies on multiculturalism first if I were you. :)

Bronwyn,

Your reading lags your writing, it seems. For a chance to redress the balance, make Google your friend. Search for phlaigme, capitalised if you must. Surely then, given that one other member of what in this context you will almost certainly recognise as a triumvirate has already been identified in this thread, all should be plain to you.

Simply perform the ten exercises. It may take some little time.