Why do politicians now seem so untrustworthy or fainthearted? Where are the Lincoln's, the Washington's, the Churchill's, the Thatcher's of old? Where are the politicians who are willing to die for their country, to stand up for what is right and to lead from the front so that we, as a people, want to follow where they go? Where is the God that inspired them, the morals which guided them and on what vacation island is the moral discipline to do what is right because it is right, however unpopular?

I think that our poor politicians are just a mirror for who we are as a people, and that we need to stop swaying back and forth with whatever opinion we hear, but stand strong in the right and look out for each other. Selfishness is the breaking ice beneath a leader, and a peoples feet. I feel for our politicians because we aren't helping them lead us. They surely are kings and queens of the losers.

its the times we live in
in time of war..peace talk seems insane

its told well in a story
im looking for it here
http://www.youtube.com/user/oneundergod?feature=mhee

but youtube has changed its format again
it could be here
http://www.youtube.com/user/oneundergod1
but it sems empty

the old way i just searched friends
and went to the new channel as the old ones filled up
now it seems all that work was wasted

it was the first vidio i ever posted
based on a un record...of native tales

loyalty in a time of treason...is in that time treason
the kids story said it so much better

but you tube cleverly has shut all that down
just like yahoo before them...and many since

we know there are no leaders
such is the time..[after the time leaders got bumped off]
but heck they still bumping them off..[bin larden..gadaffi.kim el sun]

the assinations without trial;
that breeds..the loyalty to treason..[party line]..we now got

[will ron paul be next]
the [my]..latest attempt..at a new topic..that failed

Times make the man some of those mentioned may have looked ordinary in other times.
But right now Australia has good leaders on both sides.
Just not the ones holding that job now,wait changes soon.

Leaders can no longer lead from the front and make the hard choices needed for fear of being voted out.

Anyone can vote.

You can keep your leadership thanks, I'll do without it.

My favourite PM John Howard only stuffed up when he ventured into leadership. Gun control, industrial relations were total stuff ups. Most of the time he concentrated on the management of the place & economy, & did a pretty good job.

This current lot have wanted to lead, but they have, they have no idea where they want to lead too. Like bad cavalry, they have exhausted the horses galloping all over the place, bankrupted the treasury, spending like drunken sailors, & like grass hoppers, they don't land anywhere long enough to get anything worthwhile done.

You can tell where they've been, because like a swarm of locasts, they leave only disaster in their wake. I suppose this is what you have to expect of a bunch of twits, with no management experience, not even of themselves.

So Random, you can keep your leadership. I know where I want to go thanks. All I need is a competant manager to mind the store for me, while I'm busy

My thoughts are that the endless polls, focus groups and the media's short attention span force our leaders to become our followers.
Part of the problem is, i think, that the message our leaders receive via these mediums, is not the message many, maybe most, Australians would like to send them.
Moreover, newspapers unashamedly set out to support one side or the other. They spin stories to suit their particular objectives and so we are willfully lied to.
Politicians are sensitive to that and it makes them excessively cautious.
But I take Belly's point. There are strong leaders, (as strong as the current landscape allows them to be), on both sides, and I reckon their turns will come as the pendulum swings.
I'm a bit Left oriented and so lean towards Labor, but I will say that I have huge regard for Malcolm Turnbull and I do expect to see him become an outstanding PM down the track.

That track may not be far away, mr no has got too many signatures in blood.

Posted by Anthonyve, Thursday, 5 January 2012 9:59:15 AM

Yes Anthonyve and like you Malcolm has a huge regard for Labor.

Hasbeen I agree in part but at the same time I'd like some leadership in Canberra to turn some things around.

Whilst we countinue to do well campared to much of the world thanks mostly to mining exports we have a lot of eggs in that basket with no plan "B".

I'd like to see the kind of leadership that found creative way's to ensure that we can cope if a major collapse happens elsewhere. That we have the manufacturing capability to make the things we need if they were no longer available from China (or elsewhere), that we have the capacity to ramp up local production quickly if required.

I don't need the kind of leadership that operates by trying to manage my life, I would like to see the kind of leadership that looked at the risks facing the nation and took some steps to prepare for them.

R0bert

dumb leading dumber.

The people get the government they deserve. As long as electorate complacency and a fawning media (look at all the 'feel good' articles on politicians and the interviews where 'how's the kids?' is one of the interviewer's main questions) carry on as usual, we will be stuck with these clowns that are destroying our nation.

How do you prepare for a risk, who knows what form a risk could take. If the world takes a dive, worse than now, what are you going to do about it, it's like consumer confidence, powerful but unfixable. Encouragement may go nowhere. Oil is on the rise, so walk.

I think history has been too kind to many of those we regard as "great leaders" in generalising achievements and ignoring faults.

Churchill for example wanted the British Navy to shell striking miners and eagerly wanted to use (then banned) Mustard gas against German women and children during WW2 (and Arabs shortly afterward).

His staff were kept busy running after him and putting out political forest fires he was always lighting.

Despite today's warm-and-fuzzy memories, the British voting public showed what they thought of him at the first election after the war ended.

Lincoln and Thatcher also had significant personal (if not political) flaws that are simply ignored in deference to their mythical status.

They were more the product of their era than miracle workers and to expect they would make some sort of difference in the 21st Century is somewhat fanciful.

Chances are our next Great Leader hasn't even been born. Maybe things aren't bad enough yet.

579 "How do you prepare for a risk, who knows what form a risk could take."

You can't prepare for every risk but there are some that are clear.

In particular the limited capacity for manufacturing much of what we use on a day to day basis is something that a creative leadership team should be able to find way's of addressing without going protectionist or racing to the bottom on wages.

I don't have the answers to that riddle but I don't accept that it's beyond the capacity of responsible government to address.

R0bert

Can not see any good manufacturing, for the sake of it, or on spec. If the need arouse it would spring up overnight. If there were a market for commodities now, it would already be taken care of. Political suicide, comes to mind

Dear Random Guy,

I've taken the following from Marianne Williamson's
book, "Illuminata,":

"We are experiencing a crisis of leadership now,
now so much because people lack the qualities
necessary for it, but because we systematically
invalidate such qualities. It is hard in today's
world for a person to stand up in excellence and power
within the public realm. There are myriad forces
marshaled against doing so causing a massive brain and
spirit drain from the realms of wordly power."

"Let us support the possibility of greatness, in
anyone at any time. We must rethink our attitudes about
leaders, or at the rate we're going we will soon have
none. We must create the fertile ground for leadership
in order to prepare the way for great leaders."

"A politician listens to his or her constituents.
A leader listens to whispers in the wind."

I guess what most of us hope for is that our leaders are
not swayed by politics but instead listen to the truth.
That they grow beyond a shallow fight.

I see the situation as irretrievable.

The political system has become so sclerotic and inward-looking, that the chances of a leader of any kind emerging from it are zero. At every level, from the corrupt and highly inefficient pre-selection process to the factions that determine the make-up of a cabinet, it designed for failure.

Furthermore, political leadership is in name only. Driven by every prevailing wind, from opinion polls to internecine faction wars to backbench fear of losing re-election (and all those permanent pension perks that go with it), the poor bunnies have about as much chance of showing that quality called "leadership" as I have winning an Olympic gold medal in the biathlon. (I chose biathlon because I don't ski, and have never used a gun).

Successful leaders are not necessarily popular - Exhibit A, Margaret Thatcher - but have the cojones and stickability to get unpopular measures adopted. Whether they are ultimately good or evil is beside the point. It takes more than niceness to take people, willingly, along with you to get stuff done.

While we have the current situation of total lack of proper individual accountability at every level of politics, together with obscene levels of pay and perks that should be reserved for people with talent and capability, nothing is going to change.

A plague o' both your houses.

Reps and Senate.

Dear Pericles,

I believe there's hope for our future - regarding politics.

Although extensive research on political systems has shown that people
take the legitimacy of their particular political system for
granted very early in life, and they usually accept their own
country's system and its national leaders.
What we are witnessing today, especially amongst
the young - could well be - a breakdown of traditional loyalties in favour of a more fluid party system, in which people pick and choose
among personalities and positions with less regard for party
labels.

This could be a new direction - and this trend toward the
questioning of party loyalties should not be unexpected in a
modern society whose hallmarks are individualism and choice.

I don't see the situation as irretrievable.
I a strong believer in cycles. Nature loves them and we are part of nature.
Everything about us goes in cycles including our fads and cultural behaviors.
I think we're nearing the turning point of a cycle built around many of the points already made by commentators.
It's a yin/yang thing. Every trend has built into it the factors that will limit how far that trend can go. Those factors eventually kick in and start a trend in another - often opposite - direction with its limiting factors also built in.
So, if we hang around long enough, as the old song goes, 'Everything old becomes new again.'
Of course, waiting for the cycle to come to its inevitable end sure can be trying on the patience at times.
But it does help one to remain optimistic.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Yes RObert, we have lost so much capacity, & experience in manufacturing techniques we did once have. Even worse, we have no knowledge or experience in new techniques.

It would take hundreds of millions in investment to be able to produce the just the plastic components before we could get back to partial self sufficiency.

Then of course, we could come no where near producing enough steel, just to build the equipment the mining industry need, let alone build that equipment. I wonder how many Holden V8 petrol engines, [the largest we make I believe] would it take to power a large coal mine drag line? It is a joke when you think of it.

We had better make sure we hold onto the car industry, if that goes there will be nothing left.

It could take a decade to ramp up our productive capacity, even to a level to sustain a 60s lifestyle.

Hasbeen it would not be a trivial exercise to resurrect manufacturing, especially if little or no planning or preparation had been done to allow for the possibility.

Much of the investment would have to be done if and when it's needed but a smart government would put some effort into working out what's required and ensure that if push comes to shove we are not missing some key piece of the puzzle needed to start up.

How much of our car industry relies on components we can't currently make here?

One thing that comes to mind is how long would it take to make the tools to start making electronic components if we were stating from scratch? Do we have any capacity to do that in this country at the moment and how much would it cost to have some capacity?

What's important to us that wears out over time and which can't be entirely made here by equipment which can be entirely made here?

If we have to start walking because of problems with fuel supply from overseas how do we produce and transport food to the cities (and if we don't do that what's the alternative)?

How easily could we adapt to massively reduced energy supplies and a lack of access to overseas manufactured energy efficient devices?
I'm using this as an example of something which I think we could use some leadership on, it's certainly not the only issue.

As a more difficult challenge for leadership how about the leader of one of the major political parties deciding to change the rules for how politics is played to something more deserving of respect. Take a moral stand against spin and lies and start being honest in their dealings with the public. Deciding that Australia deserves better even if it does go against conventional wisdom on how to win the next election.

R0bert

Where have all our leaders gone?

They went to UNIVERSITY and got a finger painting degree!

Great, huh?

I hate to disagree with such an agreeable person, Lexi, but I feel I must.

>>This could be a new direction - and this trend toward the questioning of party loyalties should not be unexpected in a modern society whose hallmarks are individualism and choice<<

Because it is a really comforting thought.

As is Anthonyve's reassuring "I think we're nearing the turning point of a cycle".

My doubts are based on the experience of the 'sixties, when the youth of practically the entire Western world was gripped with the feeling that people - individuals - could actually make a difference. We went on marches, we protested - in the US, college kids even died while confronting the "powers" with slogans of universal peace and love.

What happened? Significantly, it wasn't just that the enthusiasm fizzled out, but then a whole legion of ex-hippies went on to become poster-children for Wall Street greed. Not only did the resistance fade away, but the resisters became part of the machine they - allegedly - despised.

A survey of the attitude of today's young Chinese to the events of Tiananmen Square, twenty-one years on, would quite probably reinforce my theory.

I suspect our own breed of individualists will also become fodder for the conformist mill, once they have to face the reality of making some headway in the world, just as their flower-children forbears had to.

In the final analysis, the Party system is well-nigh impregnable. Especially considering that the power to change rests wholly with those people who benefit most from the perpetuation of the system.

"""
We went on marches, we protested - in the US, college kids even died while confronting the "powers" with slogans of universal peace and love.
"""

You can't do that anymore, Pericles, you're branded a terrorist, pepper sprayed to death and if that does get you they bring out the tasers and rubber bullets!

You gotta wonder why the founding fathers of America wanted all to have the freedom to bear arms huh? Wasn't such a silly notion after all!

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead!

Oh I forgot! Now they can detain you indefinitely without a trial!

Dear Pericles,

Thanks for the compliment you paid me. However I would like
to remind you that the Vietnam war came to an end largely
as a result of the antiwar movement, a social movement that
consisted disproportionately of young people, including many
college students. When the antiwar movement first challenged
the war, it received little support from politicians or the
press, and its goals seemed almost hopeless.

But the tide of public opinion gradually began to shift.
In the 1968 presidential primaries in the US, an antiwar
candidate backed by student volunteers did unexpectedly
well and President Johnson decided not to run for
re-election. From that point on, political debate on the
war focused not on how to stay in it, but on how to get
out of it.

Through collective action, ordinary people with few
resources other than their own determination had changed
a national consensus for war to a national consensus for
peace.

A fundamental insight of sociology is that once people
no longer take their world for granted, but instead
understand the social authorship of their lives and futures,
they can become an irresistible force in history. We have
Poland, and the Baltic States in recent history
as one example - which ended up with the disintegration
of the Soviet Union and other Eastern European satellites.

Look at the current unrest in the Arab countries - we can
only trust that good outcomes will result there. As for China -
it is opening up more today - to Western co-operation - and
who knows what the future will bring.

As for our political leaders - past history has shown when
there is a need - somebody will take up the baton - and steer
the country in the right direction. And let's not forget
that so far the country seems to be doing moderately well
in comparison to some of the major world economies.