Under the boyhood government circumstances, Labor has had arresting achievements, abounding of which will account the nation for ancestors to come. They accept auspiciously anesthetized hundreds of pieces of legislation, a lot of of them bitterly against by the Coalition for absolutely political purposes. This Labor success will eventually become accessible ability to abounding added humans as the next acclamation approaches.

______________________________________________________________

"The secret of success is consistency of purpose. – Benjamin Disraeli"

http://www.foodsaustralia.com.au/Organic-foods/
https://www.facebook.com/salliehayden

sorry hollysurly, have no got a clue what you are on about!
And sorry too that dreaming away Labors faults will not do it we are in it deep.
No one loves the party more.
But we forget too soon the battle to unseat Howard, our pledges, our hopes.
Gillard can not win back the popular vote.
Even opposed by Abbott and his shambolic front bench, we on the polling, face near death.
Even with the better policy's, against policy's bound to destroy the fabric of our fair go mate country, we are beaten.
Thomson is a symptom, of a deep problem.
Sussex Street owns our party, reform is a joke.
After we are smashed without change we will be, we may reform.
But till then our party is in power brokers hands not ours.
Who would not be able to beat such as Abbott?
A Gillard lead faction owned ALP that is who.

Perhaps we need a whole new approach to government, some form of a super party.

Labor have had some good ideas, but unfortunately they lack the ability to successfully implement most of them.

Another flaw in government is that while we, the people may know who we are voting for, we don't know what job they will be doing if they get there.

They may be elected finance minister one day, then, all of a sudden they become minister for ag, of the environment.

In the 'real world', business, one has to swim or sink.

I am a firm believer we need big business running government, or at least advising, after all, if there is an enquiry, it is generally headed by a retired judge, not a retired book keeper.

In my view there should be an elected leader, then under him/her, the brains trust, who, by the way, are on a moderate income plus healthy Bonusses if they perform.

This way we could have one party, where they candidates stand for election, segrigated into thier fields of expertise, and we the people can be the opposition.

If they under perform, an elected board can decide whether or not they get the boot.

Furthermore, there is the usual 'golden hand shake', but that's it. Once they retire they are on their own, much like the rest of us.

This supporting former pollies is costing us an arm and a leg.

Just on the polls, there are two keynissues here.

One, it's very easy to buy support.
two, it's much easier to improve when coming from behind.

But, if this resurgence from labor results in a lift of confidence from the people, then we all win, as that is what I said was the problem four years ago, lack of comfindence.

People will spend money if they know they can replace it. That's what confidence is all about, from your average battler, right up to your huge companies.

Great discussion in this thread.
Rechtub makes a good point about the structure of our government.
What he seems to be describing is the US system where the President is elected and then the President appoints Secretaries, (equivalent to our Ministers, as they are department heads).
These secretaries may come from business, i.e. Timothy Geithner, or academia, or may even be past competitors, e.g Hilary Clinton as Sec of State.
The peoples' elected representatives in the US system are Congress and the Senate who have to approve (or not)certain of the Administration's actions as well as its appointments.
The beauty of this system is that the president has the opportunity to build a team, (front bench in our parlance), drawn from the best of each part of the community. It avoids the problem of having ministers who are professional politicians and thus have no clue about the world of 'normal' work and business.
As to big business being close to government, I worry about that because, as we see now in the US, big business owns the US government because of the Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited campaign contributions.
We're seeing attempts to water down prudent regulations such as environmental protection, workplace safety, etc driven by business seeking to ever improve profits - at a time, I might add, when US corporate profits are high.
Business is vital and it is the creator of our national wealth.
But it never acts in your or my best interests; Business acts only in its own best interests, whcih is to be expected.
But, where citizens' best interest and Business's best interests are in conflict, then we - ordinary people - need protection.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Belly wrote: "No one loves the party more."

I can understand loving individuals of the same or opposite sex, family members, nature, learning, music, friends, intellectual discourse, solving mathematical problems, the beauty of algorithms, poetry, strawberries with cream and many other good things on this earth. However, I cannot understand loving a political party, a governing unit, a corporation or any other institution set up to exercise power or promote a particular interest. Seems like a greater perversion than a fascination with lingerie which can have beauty in its design and may arouse a healthy lust.

My son is an anthropologist. He is trying to promote the study of the political party as a discipline within anthropology. Maybe he can understand your love.

Yes Anthony, what Rehcub has described is the US system and I think
that has failed to keep politicians free of improper outside influence.

What every commentator I have read do not seem to have understood is
that every government is short of money.
Some, such as Canberra, are relying on borrowing from the market to
undertake those projects that are considered to be essential.
They do this because they believe (hope ?) that the recovery will give
an increase in GDP and so increasing income to government.
In other words growth fill solve their financial problem and enable
them to repay the loans.

Unfortunately they may be wrong in this belief.
This is what has happened to the US and European governments.
With our borrowing now exceeding $1/4 trillion and no more than small
growth thanks to a booming China, err whats that ? China is slowing ?
Well we have set ourselves up for a carbon (pun intended) copy of the
European performance.

Unfortunately, while Joe Hockey seems to be nibbling around the edges
of the problem I don't think the opposition really understands the problem.