Dear Graham, great to see the exposure for OLO with your survey results published in The Weekend Australian. This prompted me to make this suggestion. How possible would it be to get the Politicians from all Parties to post their “equivalent” policy platforms directly on OLO during the run up to the federal election?

As with Julie Bishop, OLOers only occasionally get the chance to comment directly, it is normally indirectly via a journalistic opinion pieces. Surely the politicians would relish the prospect of direct contact, analysis and comment from this forum.

We have “Australia’s Got Talent”, “Master Chef” and “So You Think You Can Dance”. Why can’t we have something along the lines of “So you think you’re a Politician?”

Let’s face it, there is some real talent on OLO, if Pollies can make a case on here they would really be able to sharpen up their “pitch to the voters”.

You might have to set out some ground rules for our more excitable OLOers, but this could be a standout for the next 5 months. What do you think? And what do OLOers think?

Dear spindoc,

I for one would love to go head to head
with Tony Abbott!

Bring it on!

I imagine that i would be debating with their press secretaries not them.

There should be just ONE official site (probably in the .gov.au domain) where all registered parties place their formal agendas before elections about everything that matters, clearly, side-by-side, so citizens can make a good informed judgement based on the issues that really make a difference for the people.

Alas, the big parties would not allow it because they prefer the current situation, where their politicians are well-known, while those who want to be fully informed must make a significant effort to search for the agendas of small parties with less resources, so ordinary voters do not even know what they stand for.

I don't think OLO is the place, because:
1) it is not so well-known.
2) OLO servers would probably collapse under the network-load if all Australians tried to get their information from here.

I'm for an official site too - for all parties and independents. One in which all policies and platforms are clearly articulated and costed.

Voters could leave questions which can be answered under a FAQ style heading.

Spindoc,
Good idea in theory but how would you suggest that we control the "animals" from turning it into a rant and abuse site.

I can see a whole lot of ill informed, biased, bigoted individuals trying to air their pet idiocies.

Which polies is going to sit there are sift through pages of rubbish let alone answer the questions.

Wouldn't we just get the party lines and responded to by party drones.

Nice thought though a one stop fact site.

Regards
examinator.

Well, this idea went down like a “Lead Balloon” did it not? Thanks anyway Foxy and examinator.

I really did think that the interrogative nature of OLOers would have jumped at the chance to go through government and opposition policy “like a dose of salts”.

Perhaps examinator is right and that for many; this forum is just about the “ill informed, biased, bigoted individuals trying to air their pet idiocies”. This is quite sad really and seems to be evidenced by the reponses so far.

Sorry about that Graham but thanks for giving it a shot anyway.

Not a lead balloon at all spindoc, a good idea in principle maybe just not logistically possible as someone else suggested with the overload on the servers. It could work if GY maybe took a number of questions from contributors and put it to the various parties and Independents with an article/s detailing the responses.

There are plenty of topics to pick from, a glimpse of people's concerns gleened from various media at the moment seem to focus on issues of: Big Australia, Mineral Resources tax, tax reform, health reform, asylum seekers, Federalism, climate change, ageing population, renewable energy investment and free trade. There are of course many other issues.

Perhaps even some questions about participatory democracy and referendums, or topics like euthanasia, national security/law enforcement/border protection, and tertiary education.

It is good to know from what ideological premise each candidate starts from even if they don't always quite end up there. Sometimes other pressures arise which may influence a change in direction or a delay, such as the GFC; or even because it might be acknowledged it is not what the people want (at all or in that form).

It is not good enough just to know what someone believes in but how they will go about achieving their goals.

Possibly not.

>>Perhaps examinator is right and that for many; this forum is just about the “ill informed, biased, bigoted individuals trying to air their pet idiocies”. This is quite sad really and seems to be evidenced by the reponses so far.<<

My experience is that where the subject matter is presented with respect, it tends to be treated with respect.

The opportunity for a Party to present their policies for scrutiny may be technically interesting, but I doubt we would see anything of value from them.

I suggest that the politicians themselves would be extremely flexible in their approach to facts; bland rather than interesting or challenging; and obfuscatory rather than candid.

A perfect reflection of politics in Australia, in fact.

"I suggest that the politicians themselves would be extremely flexible in their approach to facts; bland rather than interesting or challenging; and obfuscatory rather than candid. A perfect reflection of politics in Australia, in fact."

Pericles, I was just going to post a similar rider.

If there was a "So You Think You're A Pollie" television show one might need to connect candidates to a lie detector prior to questioning and the audience can go for it?

No need for a Worm at all then.

You hit the nail on the head pelican; it is about us understanding “how they will go about achieving their goals”.

I don’t anticipate any form of interactivity, simply a “thread” per policy for each Party.

Let’s say six key policy statements (nominated by OLO?) for each of the ALP, Lib/Nats, Greens and Independents. That’s 24 threads over say six months, that’s only 4 normal threads per month, no abnormal work or loading there. (GY?)

Each policy statement is about “their” policy, not any others’. The policy statement is their “what” they intend doing. Our fun would be in trying to understand the “how?”

If OLOers cannot understand the “how” from the policy explanation, a number of questions would be generated and the number of unanswered questions might be the “measure” of the effectiveness of the statement.

I suspect this would self limit the temptation for OLOers to offer “opinions” as our primary task would be policy interrogation rather than its fit with our individual political disposition.

We might even work as a team? (Heaven forbid) as some will be much better informed on certain policies than others. One thing is for certain, we are all capable of asking some hard questions and if they are not answered in the statement, what’s wrong with letting the Pollies know what it is “we” can’t understand?

In the end it won’t really matter if we are dealing with the Pollies direct as we will have their policy statements. But they will benefit from our assessment of what is not understood.

Any nominations for key policy platforms? Pelican threw some up in his post.

My six nominations would be say; Health, Immigration, Renewable Energy, Tax reform, Federalism and Education

Pelican,
Great idea for a TV show! Selected members of the audience takes turns to ask a question then push the button.
They are competing for prizes as voted on by the audience worm. "The best of the day/week/series" get bigger prizes.
There is giant meter that ranges from "intelligent", "sensible", "information seeking", "iffy", "Dumb" "Dubious", politically motivated, "rant", "bigot" That grades the question once the button is pushed.
Each rating is accompanied by a sound i.e. "Cheers" with "intelligent", etc" a Raspberry" for "Dumb" to "Boos, hisses shame" for "bigot".
The pollie chooses a cause in their electorate and is playing for a contribution and the title of the most believable pollie.

The Pollie is only required to answer "Dubious" and above "politically" motivated and below earns the questioner is cut off.

If the pollie lies according to the polygraph they get the the loud negative sounds and loses point.

I toyed with making it like a Japanese game show with all sorts of shocks, assorted humiliation etc but the humanist in me, after considerable debate decided, by a narrow margin, it was a little primal inflicting pain on the deserving, enjoyable but not nice.

What do you think it's in line with current 'reality shows'

I know, I know, time for the get a life corner.

Spindoc,
Have you looked at ambit gambit on olo?
It's sorta like what you suggested.