I thought it might be interesting to see how the posters
on this forum see the differences between the two major
political parties.

Here's how one link sees things:

http://theaimn.com/2013/09/14/what-does-abbott-stand-for/

It tells us that:

"The Labor Party believes it is the role of the government
to improve the management and support of the community
through progressive policy reform. Progress, Equity, Fairness,
Sustainability. In Gillard's words: "a party of purpose."

We're told that -

"The Liberal Party believes that the government already
intervenes too much in our capitalist economy and that the
community is managed and supported by the economy not the
government. Profit, Greed, User-Pays, Privilege.
A Liberal Party supporter when true to their values,
believes government 'regulation' is not there to serve the
community's interests: it's there to hinder the freedom of
the economy."

"When a voter understands these core differences and holds
an opinion on these opposing values, the values should,
in a sensible world, strongly influence which party they
vote for."

Your thoughts?

Hi Foxy. I hope you are well? :)

I had been a Liberals supporter for many years, even being a member of the Young Libs at one stage. My best friend's mum was the president of Perth branch of the party.

The main reason for this is because my parents are staunch Liberal supporters.
My mother always told me I should vote for the Libs because they supported 'middle class Catholics', of which she considered all her family and friends to be part of!

For the past 10 years or so, I have been a 'swinging voter', preferring to vote on policies and my local members, rather than blindly following the same party no matter what.

To my mind, the main differences between Labor and Liberal parties are close to what my old mum said.
Labor tends to make more positive policies for working class people, small businesses and unions, whereas the Liberals make more positive policies for middle class workers, big business and more conservative issues.

Dear Suse,

Thank You for your kind words and for sharing your
background on this thread. My background is very similar
to yours. My family has always voted Liberal. My father
adored Robert Menzies and was a staunch supporter of the
party. I became a "swinging voter," after Mr Howard. Although
I do admire our state MP and our state Premier as well as
our city's major (all Liberal).
I agree with your take on the differences between the two
parties - I think you've summed things up rather well.

HI FOX
NO DIFFERENCE*
its left hand right hand
TOLD WHAT TO DO..BY THE SAME PUBLIC Servants/TREASON

[we..only..vote for which ONE..next..GETS THE NEXT HAND IN MY POCKET
to give to their mates.

liberal..serves the imf..[HENCE the bailout of 9 billion joe gave in borrowed cash to his WIFES FED Reserve banker buddies...9 BILLI9ON HOLE..BEFORE PARLIAMENT EVEN SAT.

krudd..too gave away billions[nbn]
that eventually will get resumed into telstRA/..VIA PENALTY CLAUSES..[ON THE QT]

TONY HOLDS A LOW PROFILE..just like the libs in QLD
bill is a disappointment...NONE SHALL DO what needs be done
[ie install TANSACTION TAX]..AND ditch all other taxes./levies fees fines service charges.

then govt takes back fed reserve/MINT..RE-installs staTES BANKS
ISSUES ONLY LEGAL TENDER COIN..TO THE LIVING

I HOLD THAT HRH COIN [THUS OUR COIN of her realM].HAS BEEn debased
COIN VALues must return..to equal values/as if still 'worth'..their weight in SILVER OR GOLD.

and buys back the servesis/roads rail ports etc they'privatised]

ie the commonwealth bank was sold for 8 billion
yET TODAT RETURNS 4 AND A HALF BILLION..half year dividend[ie sold to mates]..by public SERVANTS NEST FEATHERING..

whoever wins..will yet have to deal with public servants dOING TREASON

The Libs tend to come from the more affluent suburbs.

Dear Johan (OUG),

You're sounding a bit more negative on this
subject. Still the writer Dennis Pryor seems to agree
with you. He wrote in his satirical booklet,
"Political Pryorities: How to get on top of
Australian politics," as his "Dedication to Canberra," -

"Where bureaucrats parasitical
And parties political
And Ministers hypocritical
Steal the money of the nation
Through what they call taxation."

Dear Is Mise,

Yes, I agree although I guess it's not surprising is
it when you belong to a party that benefits the
rich and the powerful. I guess it stands to reason
that you'd protect your own interests.

a-lex/quote/..<<..You're sounding a bit more negative on this
subject.>>

funny i was trying to 'go easy'..just IN CASE
NO WRONG WORDS..HECK ILL SPILL it out

how did we go?

anyhow yes im a bit upset..from things heard..ON ALEX JONES
http://xml.nfowars.net/Alex.rss
whos unclE/COUSAN..DIED..FROM BAD MEDICIN

and michael
http://republicbroadcasting.org/Stang/index.php?cmd=archives.month&ProgramID=77&year=14&month=2&backURL=index.php%253Fcmd%253Darchives.getyear%2526ProgramID%253D77%26year%3D14%26backURL%3Dindex.php%253Fcmd%253Darchives

who near died ..last week..in hospital
and my other mates..with docter issues..i grey a few more gray hairs
BUT FOUND THE MEANING..Of life
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6207&page=0

noticed the judicury of jury nulifications principles
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16009&page=0

preserved..what remains of our common wealth
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6230&page=0

and studied the war/law and so much more
but yes we need more love..

where is the love[?]..lOVE
how is our luv lover?
hows hubby../*/..heard any good jokes lately?..[?]

oh one big issue..i just cANT SEEM TO GET THROUGH CLEARLY
RE THE EVOLUTION/Weak end..see i figure..evolution adherants need verify..their thesis[i reason..that we wrote down..and kept record of mens witness of god..in our holy texts

each prophet has this personal witness..sureLY..TO REFUTE GOD..IS TO CALL SO MANY GOOD TRUE..TO BE LIARS..THATS UNFAIR..BOTH TO THEM..AND GOD?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995&page=0

SO...YEp im A BIT/off..
but better for heaRING..FROM U

HAPPY VALINITNES DAY
[FROM A SECRET ADMIRER]

x0x0x000xx0xxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX*....

/O\\*//O\

Dear Johan (OUG),

You always cheer me up.
So right back at you with a big hug.
Take it easy.
Tomorrow is another day.
And we're both still here. ;-)

No difference, they all stand for the same core values.

What do I see as the differences between the two major parties?

NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTHING…. of any significance!

They’re the liblabs, two peas in a pod, tweedle dumb and tweedle eversoslighlydumber!

They’re both stuck out at the same end of the political spectrum, while the rest of the spectrum is pretty well unoccupied…. except for the Sustainable Population Party, which is in the dead centre, right where both major parties should be!!

<< The Labor Party believes…. [in] sustainability >>

Erm……….. No they DON'T!!

Kelvin Thomson certainly does. Bob Carr did. Julia Gillard might have. But their party has made absolutely sure that they weren’t ever going to go anywhere with it.

<< When a voter understands these core differences and holds an opinion on these opposing values, the values should, in a sensible world, strongly influence which party they vote for. >>

Foxy, the ‘core’ differences that you quoted are extremely fuzzy, and if they are real at all they are not of much consequence. Especially when you consider the insane facilitation of manic very rapid and never-ending growth …. and hence antisustainability, they are both addicted to, and compare that to the SPP policy platform of sustainability.

Voters should be very carefully looking at what they are offering compared to what SPP is espousing, and decide who to vote for on that basis.

They should absolutely NOT be only comparing the Libs with the Labs and deciding to vote for one or the other on the basis of something which really is very insignificant in the bigger picture.

Not much difference - they both believe that they have a right to order us around.

In name only, the Liberal party are supposed to believe otherwise, that ordinary people should be able to do whatever they like so long as they do not hurt others, but in practice the Liberal party (and especially Tony abbott) are not liberal at all.

The libs want flexibility in the work place, while the union intrenched labor party won't recognize that the conditions enjoyed now, where secured during boom times.

The other major difference is that labor waves a blank cheque book at big business, while the libs say, if you want to invest in our country use some of your profits to do so, not our taxes.

Furthermore, labor is focused on buying jobs, while the libs are focused on encouraging business to prosper and create REAL jobs, not subsidized jobs.

Then of cause there's the doozy of all doozies, the libs have stopped the boats, something that not only did labor create, but couldn't stop in six years, compared to less than six months.

80% of the DNA of the Labor and Liberal Parties are identical. Most of the other 20% is more to do with emphasis than philosophy. The political spectrum has shifted to the right, with voters given little choice.

Paul as my mob occupied land once Liberal you are quite right.
It baffles me.
True, that the very left considers Labors evolving to be a betrayal.
See Labor followed the voters.
And once they come to understand the swamp in the extreme right, they hold Liberals will get closer to most too.
In the end folk who decry Labors move simply insult voters, by not considering them as worthy of being heard in the debate.
As our middle class grows and the light on the hill is in the second/holiday home, dreams and nightmares of a long gone time seem childlike.
Foxy too much to address here but yes in my view Labor is the party of social consensus Libs increasingly lost in a right of right land that in time will do great harm to us, and them.

no level of govt is WITHOUT Sin
you may recall..the staTES..done away..with..'deeds'
to avoid investors paying transphere fees..[mates swerving mates?]

[WHEN they bundled good and bad alikE..INTO AAA+..[plus non eXitant deedsETC /SEE ROBO SIGNING]..into the mortgage bUNDLES..fraUds we..all seen..FALL

[we BUT HAVNT YET BEEN TOLD FILL OUR INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS]
anyhow ELECTRONIC deeds failed..you got no claim/NOR THEY..no-one knows who owns what..BUT..THEY*[WHO BOUGHT FRAUD]....ARNT ON THE CONTRACT..

THUS..[NO STANDING UNDER law..plus
the dead..[ie business/corporations/TRUSTS ETC..]..
cant suffer injurious-loss ..or cLAIM HURT/DAMAGES..NOR TITLE..[THE DEAD FEEL NO PAIN]
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=mers+mortgage+transfers+deemed+illegal&oe=

GOVT PUBLIC SERVANts trick..their ELECTED/maSters [CONTROLLED BY YET oTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS..RUNNING THE TWO AND A HALF PARTY SYSTEM]..into ever greater treason

because boTH PARTIES Pick the fools/selected for their complicity..by ignoraNCE..to enact high treason.[NO END TO THE SCAMS..to send the PEOPLE INTO LANDLESS PEONHOOD

EMPTY HOMES /SHOPS SPEAK FOR THEM SELVES
SOON they will become empty lots

public servants are THe experts
BUT NOTE..no one votes them..out..ever
HERE COME THE NEW patsies..to do even worse treason

they got everything..thus have everything to loose
[except their plunder sitting in off shorE TAX HAVENS]

In my opinion the LNP are far more practical and more cabinet decisions are made, rather than just leave it to the party leader as Labor tends to do. This makes for more considered decisions.

Labor is far more idealistic. For example they were desperate to introduce the NDIS without any consideration to the cost. I think the Gonski education was similar. They went headlong into the NBN without proper analisis, the disbanding of the Pacific solution is a further example of idealism before practicality.

Labor has shown incompedence in managing any scheme they came up with. Nothing was thought through.

I think the LNP has , at last, seen the folly of multiculturalism and will formally remove the policy. After 40 years MC has cost millions and has yielded nothing of any practical value.

The public appeal of the leader appears to be far more important to Labor than it does to the LNP.

The important differences to me are.

Labor run up debt, the Libs pay it off.

Labor increase taxes, the Libs cut them.

Labor loses jobs, Libs create conditions where they increase.

Labor buy every dropkick with handouts, the Libs cut them back.

Labor MP are trying to find lurks to make themselves wealthy at our expense, the Libs are already wealthy & don't need to rip us off.

Labor want to give taxpayer money to union shops, & rip off everyone else, particularly miners to do it.

Libs want to let nature take it's course, let viable companies succeed, & don't care about union shops

Good Morning Everyone,

Thank You all for your responses thus far.
It's great to read the various opinions and
interesting that many of you seem to think
that there's few differences between the two
major parties while others see very distinct
differences. Perhaps part of the problem lies
in the reporting of politics by our mainstream
media and part of the problem, especially for
the Labor Party lies in their failure to remind
voters of their successes. Labor's communication
failures are possibly caused by their mismanagement
of the party and their leadership failure. As the author
tells us in the link I gave in my opening post -
"A bad sales pitch spoiling a great product."

And as far as the Liberal Party is concerned, the
author points out that the Liberal Party, "they know
deep down they would never win power if they told
voters what the Liberal Party really wanted Australia to
look like. So in this case, they offer a ... expertly
misleading sales pitch, for an awful product."

We're told that, "...Australians don't want the gap between
the rich and poor to widen substantially... judging by their
response to Work Choices ... wholly alarmed at the prospect of
the Liberal Industrial Relations agenda. "

"(Australians) do expect government services and assets to
be publicly owned, and not part of the capitalist private
sector, available only to those who can afford to pay."

"People do care about equity and balance in our economy -
they don't want all the wealth and the privilege that comes
with this wealth to be distributed only to the upper-echelons of
our communities."

" ...the Labor Party has failed to remind voters
that the government policies they rely on for the success of
their communities exist because of the Labor Party.
Policies - like Medicare,
a strong public health system, a workplace relations platform
which gives workers safe, fair, and stable employment,
disability support, nation-building infrastructure,
environmental protection and a strong, regulated and growing
economy are all because of the successful work of Labor
governments."

More to come...

Foxy a degree of self control is needed by me to post here.
I could point to the opening up of our banking and trade systems and list great achievements of Labor.
But would be hard pressed to find such in the other side.
I understand every view is worth hearing seeing.
But too for some my views are not at that level.
Rather than try to rebut paper tigers/untrue statements I will visit only randomly.

Hi Foxy, great to see you back. However I have to disagree with some of your thoughts.

1/ Labors communication difficulty are for 2 reasons. They have lied to us so often that it is hard to even think of believing a word they say, & 2/ Most of them have no idea of what they will do next, so can't very well explain it to us.

2/ The liberals have a much better idea of what will work, but have trouble with the message, with our ABC try like hell to muddy the waters for them.

3/ Labor want a huge difference between haves & the other lot, provided they are the haves. Look at union deals that destroy industries.

4/ others later.

Oh & Belly yes they opened banking from making small profits in a service industry, to making huge profits, & controlling most industry.

Then mate, don't forget who sold off the Commonwealth bank, & unlike the Libs, did it sneakily without warning after an election. You know, something like the redhead, who brought in a tax she had promised she would not do.

As I said Foxy, they have lied & been sneaky so often, we can't believe a word they say.

Dear Foxy,

<<many of you seem to think that there's few differences between the two major parties while others see very distinct differences. Perhaps part of the problem lies in...>>

The English language makes a clear distinction between 'many' and 'much', 'few' and 'little'.

I did not claim that the differences between the parties are few: indeed as mentioned by others here, there are many such differences, especially in the area of economics - but what I wrote, without contradiction, was that there is "not MUCH difference", because when it comes to what matters most - our individual freedoms, they both are practically the same, they both believe that it is OK to order us around.

Dear Belly,

I understand.

There are quite a few people who are happy to support
the Liberal campaign which stresses "government waste"
and decries Labor policies that benefit all Australians.
People don't realise what it means to cut, slash, and burn
government services until such a time when their lives are
personally affected by these cuts. When their child's class
at school suddenly has 45 students per teacher, instead of
20. When they have to wait 18 hours in the emergency room
at their local hospital because there are no nurses or
doctors available to see them - and so on.

The next three years should prove interesting.
It's going to be a different scenario now that the rhetoric
about what's wrong with the Labor governments has to change
to the Libs having to actually having to govern. There's
a big difference between rhetoric, and having to govern.

Dear Hassie and Yuyutsu,

Thank You both for your contributions.

Please keep them coming.

It should continue to become an interesting thread
if we get a wider variety of opinions. Again - Thank You.

im watching the two bourkes in back..of bourke
giving a talk on the big bad droubt..all wet..[in the pouring rain..BEATING DOWN ON THE..'FRONT*'..veranda..

cheers from the land..of free-lunch
for drought..AND FOR Flooding PLANES....its win win

FOR PEOPLE ON THE LAND..DROUGHT..IS A THING YA PLAN FOR/BY NOT OVERSTOCKING IT IN THE WET..FEEDING OVERSTOCKED-BEASTS..ON FARM..
ENSURES THE DUST COMES BACK SOONER..

THE RAIN..IS SO HEAVY..THEY MISSED SOME DRY DAM SHOTS
DAMM THEM filling dams..we cant even get rain..to hold off WHILE WE MAKE HAY...HEY?

YEP PRIVATIZE THE COMMONWEALTH BANK FOR 9 billion
Now it pays the shareholders 4 and a half billion..per half year

yeah..great stuff..no competition..but dont sweat IT THE PUBLIC SERVANTS HOLD THE SHARES[for their super suppers]..to remain in the dry trough doing it tough.

both parties are run by public sevices
think how many govt depts are big enough/clever enough..to do that.

too EASY..THE PUBLIC SERVANT INBRED ELITES..
running their autocratic ERatic..demonic autocracy..
doing their automated crazy..CALLED DEMONIC Mockery...[AS THEY WILL].

sinCE THE DAYS OF old..trusted/rusted on
public services CZARS have their GOB IN THE Trough...

BOY..they..do it real tough..
IN THE NEXT LIFE*

Dear Johan (OUG),

Thank You for raising the plight of the farmers.
As Malcolm Turnbull pointed out - Australian
farmers are the least subsidised (by government)
farmers, in the world. And good-on Barnaby Joyce for
fighting on their behalf. The farmers are not asking for
a "hand-out" merely some help during the drought
in order to survive.

Fingers-crossed they will get the help they so desperately
need. These are people who are successful at what they're
doing. It's simply a case of special circumstances that
they currently find themselves in. Help should be provided.

cont'd ...

Do we want to be reduced to a nation of
just pubs, casinos, cafes and restaurants?

ITS JUST HUMAN NATURE..to be OVER-optimistic..and for the rest of us optimists..wE ..invest..then takE our chances..[unlesS your one of them with govts ear/PURSE..then you can ignore the basic..knowing govt wail supply fUEL/fodder/roads etc

thing is lexie..you seen lot fed cattle[fed largely on grain]
that dont digest well in a cow gut..and makes cattle sick]

anyhow..THERE IS LITTLE NEED for so much land..so far away
if we grew them in cities..free range HIGHRISE cowboys..AS OPPOSED TO THE MACAQUE street farmers NOW TELLING OTHERS WHAT..TO STOCK..

ITS JUST TOO EASY..TO get gOVT cash..to build your fencing..for govt to pay you to plant trees/DAMS/..for govt to build roads into the never/NEVER [BACK OF BOURKE.

suRE we need food..but developing countries make product..cheaper than us[and if our dollar wasnt continually solddown..by govt spending big on bying junk american fighters and f111's etc[our dollar could buy our food half the 'real cost of production..

its like farmers are gods..cause they 'feed'us[look at the mess in the eu/via farmers lobby getting paid..to not grow food..[thING IS IT ISNT MOM AND POP/FEEDING US]..thats the spin..but heCK..NEED FREE IRRIGATION..NO WORRIES

free fence..no sweat..you want the pm..no worries
yet we paying too much to the poor..its the selective elitism..i resent

they got free land..many began with sTOLEN CATTLE
AND SOME GET RICH..OTHERS FAIL..some arnt meanT To grow..others thrive[it all depends on who gets the bailout...plus they hide the numbers into sio many in the know slush funds[even got their own tv shows..lets face it..they own their own party.

ITS THE HYPOCRISY..MORE THAn..Anything
stuff the unions/who build/keep us housed/fed..THEY pay tax TO bailout the farmers,..WHO FEED US SOB STORIES..VIA THEIR MEDIA LEVERAGE.

YOU SHOULD SEE HOW HUGE THESE CHUNKS OF LAND ARE
and how muCH FACILITIES..WE PUT in[rail roads bridges dams PHONE POWER GOVT SERVANTS..Hospitals/DENTISTS

[SORRY ITS JUST how i feel...too many..in the know snouts.]

Dear Johan (OUG),

We're not talking about people with their noses
in the "troughs," as you put it.

These farmers are successful at what they do. However
they are under unusual circumstances. The drought has
gone on for too long. They are not asking for a "handout."
When the drought passes they will bounce back.

As Mr Abbott stated on TV, "...what we can do is try to
ensure that good businesses that are hit by natural
disaster get the sort of support that they need."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/16/tony-abbott-tour-drought-farming-areas

Mr Prime Minister has decided to do the right thing - and
I admire him for it.

its ok to disagree..thing IS ask yourself..how you even know it
someone has media SKILLS?..when i think of the other news ignored..i see we see only what the media allows US TO SEE.

no..CANT SEE..this
http://www.prisonplanet.com/u-s-cops-have-killed-more-americans-than-iraqi-insurgents.html
http://www.naturalblaze.com/2014/02/well-child-and-vaccine-visits-linked-to.html
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2014/02/11/tv-propaganda-and-the-mind-control-culture/
http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/gmos-killing-bees-butterflies-birds/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-york-city-douses-parks-with-toxic-roundup-hundreds-of-times-annually-is-your-city-doing-the-same-thing.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/more-toxic-rice-fda-recalls-uncle-bens-infused-rice-after-victims-suffer-skin-rashes-headaches-and-nausea.html
http://www.blacklistednews.com/What_Won%27t_This_Private_Prison_Corporation_Do_To_Turn_a_Profit%3F/32871/0/38/38/Y/M.html

http://grist.org/news/just-a-natural-gas-well-exploding-into-flames-nothing-to-see-here/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=update&utm_campaign=socialflow
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Planned_parenthood%E2%80%99s_cecile_Richards%3A_Women_need_abortions_for_Valentine%E2%80%99s_day/32901/0/38/38/Y/M.html

http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/predator-banks-enter-brave-new-world-epic-scams-public-hasnt-got-clue/

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/mental-illness-is-the-new-normal_022014

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Big_Pharma%27s_Profits_Over_People_and_How_to_Hit_Back/32902/0/38/38/Y/M.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/kerrys-brother-johns-not-anti-semitic-were-jewish-n30576

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-14/bill-gates-energy-co-files-bankruptcy

http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/how-the-credit-card-gravy-train-is-running-over-you/

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/news/eu-ministers-link-gm-crops-approval-future-elections

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-12/europe-considers-wholesale-savings-confiscation-enforced-redistribution

SURE YOU WILL SEE THIS 50 times..[was trying TO finD THE CLINTON LINK
[while the mnedia was watching him not having seX WITH..aN INTERN..[he waS getting a bill passed that got rid of..key FINANCE oversights]

cant find thE LINK..but its typical..to so things away from media attention..all this..distracts froM..THAT

WATCH MY LEFT HAND
AS THE RIGHT DOES THE TRICK

REDIRECTION/SPIN..HEAR THE SAME Story many times..but never the fiull detaiL..OR OTHER NEWS...oh well enough ..on this topic/LETS AGREE TO DISAGREE.

glad your back..jack.

Foxy,
Sadly there is usually politics behind these decisions.
Fire, flood or drought are natural events and can affect many businesses apart from farmers.
The decision to provide assistance is usually politically motivated.
Glad the PM has offered to assist but there is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to politics. Except for politicians of course.
SD

So many misconceptions, and so many blinkered/myopic/biased views; interspersed, fortunately, with some truths.
Policy determination by popular consensus 'of the people'? In such circumstances (of so much staunchly-held misconception) could only be tragic (or at best, comical).

A few points: 45 kids to one teacher? Education is controlled, conducted and funded by the STATES. (Except for our very successful 'private' schools of course.)
Likewise, HEALTHCARE. (18 hours waiting in Emergency? Who's your STATE health minister?)
(Private hospitals and clinics might serve you better - but of course, rebates for taking out private health insurance is Liberal, and therefore has to be anti-Labor, although it results in lowering demand on the already-stretched, State run, public health system.)

Labor for 'workers'; Liberal for viable business conditions which create sustainable, long-term jobs. Two sides of one coin, but veer too far in either direction and someone gets squeezed - and everyone ends up paying.
Of course, contrived differences in policy direction have to be magnified (and exaggerated) both in words and (unfortunately) in 'actions' in order to win votes.
From what I've seen, Labor is noisier, and more prone to rash judgements. (Hawke/Keating good; Rudd/Gillard a disaster.)
Libs, steady as she goes, re-balance, and row, row, row.
The problem with politics is a fickle constituency.

Another misconception:
Floods, bush-fires, cyclones, droughts - all 'natural disasters'. But, with one significant difference - whereas floods, fires, cyclones, of any great significance, are usually wildly dramatic events (and plastered all over the media), DROUGHTS are creeping, insidious demons, with potential and damage unperceived until they reach 'critical' or 'disastrous' (and only then, when farmers are committing suicide, does the media deign to offer a mention).
But, who cares? After all, farmers are all rich landed gentry, are they not? A spoiled lot, who probably inherited their 'wealth' and just sit back and employ loads of low-paid workers to do the lifting. But, think again, my old mate. Few farmers can afford farm-hands - even when you can find any - and the majority of farmers would be the hardest and most all-skilled workers you could ever hope to find - and they mostly do it for peanuts, and for love of the land, the stock, the 'product' (and have to 'love' all manner of machinery, technology and plain hard work, just to survive).

So, the public and governments leap to provide assistance, support and re-building to those inflicted by flood, fire, cyclone.
But, drought? That's only the farmers problem, isn't it?
A 'fine' differentiation - built of a multitude of misconception.
And, farmers (and their stock) die in consequence of apathy to their predicament. Shame.

its grumpy bum again..[this explains..why..we got only a two party/AND A HALF..SYSTEM]

why bancok.' occupy/movement..is working
[and occupy our main streets..failed]
http://www.activistpost.com/2014/02/why-occupy-bangkok-is-working-and.html

<<..Thailand's Occupy Bangkok campaign proves that the real power of protests are to take territory*..[areas of enslavement]..from an unjust regime -

but that terri*tory..must then be filled by
the institutions backing the protests...stop that..and nothing can change..ever*

If, like Occupy Wall Street, there are no such institutions, it is inevitable that the protests will eventually collapse. Occupy Wall Street, then, is not a failure, but a lesson to be learned from and built upon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xP3it6U7oew
The next time Americans take to the streets, hopefully they do so with their own indigenous institutions backing them...instead of those going colluded high treason

conspiracy autocracy excepted.
http://www.ukcolumn.org/sites/default/files/Bankers%20Bradbury%20and%20the%20carnage%20on%20the%20Western%20Front!%2030:11:12.pdf

AS LONG AS GOVT NEEDS BORROW..its own money..frOM bankers
nothing can change/till they realise owning implies a duty of care.

and those in power..dONT CARE
but we running their institutions must*
heck the public service owns us/look at our pension..compared to theirs

common wealth?

Once again Many Thanks for your contributions.
Thanks to Johan (OUG), Shaggy Dog, and Saltpetre.
I absolutely love it when posters give me food
for thought and make me re-think things.
I guess that's how we learn (if we keep open
minds), so again Thank You - you've done that in spades!

Hello there FOXY...

Firstly, I hope you're feeling well, and have overcome you last bout of ill health, you're too scarce a commodity to lose on this Forum !

I understand that you and I are from diametrically opposed, political ideologies. Therefore from a political point of view, there's probably very little we can agree on, or find some common ground ?

In my humble view, those in Labor try very hard to cure or relieve at least, many of the economic woes the electorate at large find themselves in. And in so doing, they try to spend themselves out of the problem, instead of finding alternate ways of producing the same outcome.

The LNP on the other hand, are a little too tight with the purse strings, and often try to retire the debt that Labor has incurred, by introducing too soon, far tougher economic sanctions, than probably necessary to do so. Therefore, the LNP will always be 'on the nose' with most of the working class, whereas Labor generally try to be Mr 'Nice Guy' to the electorate at large, thus are seen as much more flexible or pliable and very much more approachable ?

Therefore, One Party is too tough ? The other Party, too lax ?

How can there be any difference they just oppose each other. Germany and Japan lost the wars they started yet they are both the worlds strongest economies.why.........simply because when they were beaten so was their politicians and best of all their beaurocrats so they started with a clean sheet. Thats what we need to do because while we have the same beuros there will be no change, just different figureheads for each department, just ask yourself a pollie is minister of health one week an then he can be minister for tourism the next and know nothing about either. Labour is more like liberals and the libs are just plain facists..........

Westozzy,

You are quite right there about unqualified politicians heading very complicated departments.
Another little issue is the Senate being a supposed house of review.
I can appreciate Senators having different political viewpoints but being a department head sounds all wrong to me.
How can you honestly review yourself.
Our system needs a shake up as it attracts those of little talent when in fact it needs to attract the best.
With a few exceptions most would struggle in any sort of genuine small business.
All talk, ego, and little else appears to be the main qualification.
SD

In Australia it almost doesn't matter anymore which party is in power because the majority of the voters are swinging voters who really don't give a crap about the country.
An extremely poor base indeed but how can it be changed ? Tougher econonomics could possibly make people here think because nothing else has thus far.

Hi there SHAGGY DOG...

I've heard it mentioned many times before, that most politicians have very little or no talent ? I was wondering therefore, what type of talent does a politician need ? I might add this is a legitimate question, I don't mean to be impertinent to you at all, SHAGGY DOG.

Most of our politicians are well educated, in fact many possess a degree, sometimes two. Certainly, innumerable number have a LLB, some even dual degrees, therefore they're obviously not academically 'wanting'. So what further qualities do you suggest they need in order to become effective politician ?

Is it a good education ? John Joseph CURTIN, one of the very finest Prime Ministers Oz has ever had, was (I believe?) a mere railwayman ? Moreover, he led this country through the worst features of the second world war - truly a great man ! Others though possessing sound academic credentials, proved useless. Others still, were thought to be corruptible ?

So what are those VITAL principles necessary to be a really effective politician ? Besides the usual, common sense, probity, ethics and integrity, all of these personal qualities are important. If a politician wished to be considered, equal company with the like of, the great John CURTIN, one of Australia's formost Prime Ministers, he would need to have all of these qualities, plus a few more, I believe.

OSW,
Damn good question.
I think leadership is something that exists in certain people. Education certainly helps but that said I have met many highly educated people who do not appear to have any leadership qualities and often appear to totally lacking in a practical approach to most things.
I think leadership ability is recognised by most, I know I have seen it in many groups, that stand out person, not necessarily loud or pushy but one who people naturally defer to.
I have worked for my fair share of dodos and a few brilliant, practical leaders. Most were quiet calming individuals, loudness did not appear to be part of their brief. The latter are hard to find, especially in political circles.
I can point out examples but what that inner strength is, that ability, is very hard to define.
SD

You guys have raised some good issues.
Thank You.

You're so right about government
departments, various portfolios, and the needed
expertise in each.

Take a look at the Defence
Department for example - Dennis Pryor once wrote
that this Department "devotes itself to the purchase
of costly military equipment from the USA. This gives the
armed forces something to play with and keeps American defence
contractors in the style to which they have become
accustomed." (Tongue-in-cheek, of course).

Then there's the Department of Foreign Affairs - this we're
told "is the Department of government concerned with the
implausible task of persuading foreigners that Australia
matters. Its a useful portfolio for a loyal party
member who must be made to feel important while having
nothing 'significant' to do. Ministers for Foreign Affairs
require the capacity to cope with overseas travel, dysentery,
diplomatic hypocrisy, sudden changes of policy and alcohol..."

But enough satire.

As to the qualities that we'd like our politicians to have?

We'd all like them to go into Parliament to bring about
particular reforms - and many do try to do just that,
but many also go into politics because they find the life
irresistible and they want to be in it all their lives.

Peter Coleman told us in the Preface to "The Costello
Memoirs," Some pollies, "enjoy the exhilarating highs
and take the miserable (and tedious) lows in their stride.
They face long years in the wilderness with equanimity.
They take for granted the slander of fools. They also
believe the voters will get it right in the end. Their
day will come. They are politicians in the way others
are poets. They can't help themselves."

Coleman points out -
we get the seat-warmers, the hacks, the careerists,
the adventurers, and so on. But once in a while we get
those that belong to a different parliamentary tradition.
And those are the people we remember. People who did (and
do) make a difference.

Dear O Sung Wu,

My health - is a work in
progress, but having positive people such as yourself on my
side certainly helps.

As you say SHAGGY DOG, leadership is a quality you either have, or you haven't got. I don't believe you can train a person to be a leader. Though a leader can be trained to be a better leader, but that's it I reckon. And most effective leaders are pragmatic, with many of the issues they need confront. Good leadership is everything I believe.

what talent does a politician need? obviously none. However perhaps some moral obligation to tell the truth maybe keep a promise or learn to say two words "YES or "NO" and not give some convoluted reply when asked a question that results in him asking a question on a subject thats not connected with the question asked. If you want to see the ultimate contempt for the electorate then just follow the liberal leaders in west australia, our premier stated when asked why he had abandoned his pre-election promises he just said well nobody really takes pre-election promises seriously. Hows that, could you honestly apply the word talent to such a complete idiot and he leads our state. God help us.

The difference comes down to the classical conservative vs progressive ideologies.

Conservatives believe in - "the individual", economic freedom, employer support and free trade.
Progressives believe in "society", personal freedom, worker support and fair trade.

Conservatives believe "equality is opportunity" and freedom as the chance to succeed or fail.
Progressives believe "equality is a level playing field" and freedom is freedom from the abuse of power and inequality.

Conservatives believe in upholding order, helping those who help themselves, strong role models and are the champions of opportunity.
Progressives believe in fairness, helping those who can't help themselves, positive role models and are the champions of the downtrodden.

There are several other examples, but people should realise that Abbott & Co are NOT traditional conservatives - they are the new breed of neo-conservatives who hold extremist views and are in the grip of religious fundamentalists and large corporate interests.

The ALP has always been influenced by Trade Unions but the Liberals are now philosophically closer to fascism than the traditional democratic political party they were twenty years ago - which is not only a pity but of real social concern.

All the comments here prove to me that there is a definate concern among the few that are obviously thinking people. But one has to ask the question why media reporters dont voice concerns and bring it to the people. My thoughts are tha Australia has now entered the dangerous world of Murdocracy and our media is so controlled that Abbott & Co are just his puppets.

rache, a very good post. I would substitute liberal for the word conservative. As one who I did respect, John Gorton, Liberal PM famously said "I am a Liberal, not a Conservative." It appears to me liberalism has been driven out of the Liberal Party. The ultra right, have assumed control, with the "right" people in office who are now flexing their muscles on a broad range of issues.
The political shift to the right in Australia has been gradual, starting with the downfall of Whitlam, and Labor has been complicit in this. The likes of Hawke and Keating done little to restore balance in society, they were very good on the political rhetoric but failed badly when it came to positive progressive action. Howard was able to capitalise on Labors years in office to continue the political shift. Nothing in the way of major progressive action was undertaken by either Rudd or Gillard, they may have retarded the flow to the right, by winding back some of the Howard excess. Rudd Gillard Labor never tried to restore the balance to society through any kind of real positive progressive action. The disarray of Labor now gives Abbott and his ultra conservatives a free hand to up the ante and shift even more to the extreme right, without question.

Westozzy,
I have made a study of a long serving polly of many years ago.
I have followed him via Hansard as well. He was a labourer amd miner in his early years , fought in the Boer war and WW1 where he was badly wounded in the trenches in France. He had little formal education but went on to serve as a minister at various times of different portfolios.
I am not too sure he could be called talented but he comes across as a simple, ethical and honest man who went out of his way to help others inside and outside of politics. He was no doubt a pragmatist but I think life made him that way.
I suspect there were quite a few like him in politics at that time. Very different critters to those that supposedly serve us today.
He was my grandfather. Sadly I never knew him personally as he died when I was quite young.
SD

I've just come across a copy of a letter written
to The Age on July 1st 2003 by Robert Corcoran
on the difference between the Liberals and Labor.
He writes:

"Liberals are supported by, and favour the rich and
powerful, and Labor acts for the rest of us - when it
gets the chance."

So why do people vote for the Libs?

Is it because they get sick of the warring and infighting
that often occurs with Labor, or do they just simply
want a change of government every now and then? Or does
the media influence public opinion?

I'm a little undecided as to how I view the topic.
- The two major parties as they are now
- The two major parties as they should be
- The mindsets that tend to cause most of us to support one side or the other.

rache has in my view provided one of the best summaries so far of the broader underpinnings of the parties.

Some points which I'd like to add.
- I think the left generally has more faith in the ability of government to deliver useful outcomes than the right.
- Both sides tend to simplify things and work with broad groupings rather than individual cases when they go to implement beliefs and policy even where that implementation goes against values in specific cases.

R0bert

Foxy, you ask; Or does the media influence public opinion? Very much so, where once it was newspapers it has shifted from that medium to TV and to a lesser extent radio and the internet. It is not only what news is being presented but also how that news is presented. Often news is inaccurate by the omission of vital pieces of information, with complex matters condensed to a 30 second grab. I do believe 80% once said they received their "news" all from the 6 o'clock commercial TV bulletin, which sadly omits 80% of the news and mostly sensationalises or trivialises the remaining 20%.
Some vote for a certain party regardless, where once that was probably in the order of 80%, and the other 20% being the uncommitted or voting for minor parties, its now days in the order of 60/40. The best a major party can rely upon is roughly 30% of rusted on voters. So media influence as to outcome is greater than it ever was. Media bias is a little more subtle these days, no longer do we have Frank Packer's 'Daily Telegraph' demanding that "On Saturday vote Liberal!" we have more sophisticated methods of conservative bias in the main stream media. The commercial media, simply by presenting positive stories for "our side" and negative stories for "their side" influences the outcome.
I think Hawke learned the lesson for Labor after the Whitlam experience, you need the media on side in Australia if you want to govern. Also, its not entirely concoctions by the media that make or break governments, political parties give them plenty of ammunition all the time, its what the media choose to do with that ammunition that is also important.

Labor is infested with 'Progressives' aka Fabians aka International Socialists who believe that the State should reign supreme and be interfering in every nook and cranny of the private citizen's life and personal affairs.

Combined with the egocentrism, cynicism, materialism and ratbaggery of the middle class feminists who have an influence in government way out of proportion with their numbers (they don't 'represent' most women for starters), it is only to be expected that there are negative outcomes such as fatherless families.

Any party that boasted at election time as Labor did, that its 'productivity' in government was hundreds of new laws to control and regulate the life lives of ordinary private citizens should be considered for what it really was - radically centralist, Statist and directly opposed to maintaining the rights of the individual.

There are the few who are finding it impossible to accept the results of the federal election. Of them, many would be recipients of the generous, unsustainable largess from the public purse they were receiving courtesy of Labor and their outrageous sidekicks the Greens Watermelon Party. Their manipulative spin is that the Labor-Greens mob were somehow denied government through 'bad' media. They insinuate that there is something wrong with democracy. They believe that the public cannot be trusted to 'get it right' (as in the public should be supporting international socialism) in elections. However Labor and their Greens sidekicks were rejected for very solid, compelling reasons indeed: divisive social, class and gender warfare (ideology), unsuitable policies, poor decisions and bad management.

While the LNP generally make a reasonable fist of balancing liberalism and conservatism, a criticism could be that they are inclined to generalise their 'medicine' for budgets previously blown by the international socialists, and that can negatively affect the vulnerable.

Of course the 'vulnerable' as defined by the 'Progressive' elite are in fact the horde with an oar in victim politics and the guvvy largesse that flowed from it. That horde will be buzzing and crying foul for a long time yet, until they are forced to get real jobs (being hopeful there!).

Some are certainly in Cloud Cuckoo Land with their great conspiracy theory. This nasty conspiracy led by those International Socialists aka Fabians, aka Feminist, aka Labor Party aka Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, add to this the Bolshe/Grennie alliance, and what do you have, an international conspiracy to take over the world. This is no doubt all being control by the unseen hand of Joe Stalin, direct from the Kremlin!
What do we have to protect us from these evil hoards, according to some Campbell Newman is saving Queensland, and Tony Abbott is saving the rest of us.

LOL. Paul, you and a few of your mates who claim to be the world's Number 1 Labor/Greens supporters and experts on politics didn't even know about the Fabianism aka Progressivism aka International Socialism and its influence in present day Labor until I informed you in a thread a little while ago.

That was despite Labor leaders declaring their 'Progressive' ideology, avowing membership of the Fabians and speaking at their knees-ups.

I even linked you to a video where Julia Gillard admitted its in her words. Here is another source,

"Julia Gillard remained actively involved in the Socialist Forum/Fabian Society after her departure from Slater and Gordon

You'll recall Tony Jones from the ABC's Lateline interviewing Ms Gillard about her communist/socialist forum antecedents. It took place on 17 October, 2007"

http://tinyurl.com/Gillard-Fabians-Progressive

You were all completely clueless even about the ideology and its origins, notwithstanding the evidence available publicly. Honestly, didn't you ever wake up to that 'Progressive' word that pops up so often in the discourse of Labor leaders like Little Willie Shorten? Too funny! There you all were, hundreds of postings on OLO spruiking for politicians, being the foot soldiers of Internationalist Socialism and you never realised. Dupes!

Here you go, this PDF is a reasonable summary. You are invited to counter with facts,

http://www.fli.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Julia.pdf

I was wondering if government debt (and receipts) worked as an indicator of the difference between the two in terms of practical outcomes. There are a range of measures that could and should be considered with debt being just one indicator.

Perhaps someone else will have reference to more exhaustive data, eg it would be interesting to see the performance of the states over a similar period. There is much this does not tell, external economic factors, spending on infrastructure compared to day to day running costs etc.

I've tried to map Net government debt and receipts from the budget in the year that various PM's took office. Budget data source http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst10-04.htm

Year PM starting Net Debt (Pct GDP) Receipts (Pct GDP)
1971 McMahon -496(m) -1.1 9,135 20.5
1972 Whitlam -790(m) -1.6 9,735 19.6
1975 Fraser -341(m) -0.4 18,727 22.5
1983 Hawke 16,015(m) 7.5 49,981 23.4
1991 Keating 31,014(m) 7.3 95,840 22.6
1996 Howard 96,281(m) 17.3 133,592 24.0
2007 Rudd -29,150(m) -3.8 294,917 25.1
2010 Gillard 84,551(m) 6.0 302,024 21.6
2013 Abbott 144,887(m) 8.9 392,544 24

I might well be missing some fundamentals in the way this is done, if so I'd welcome improvements. Any thoughts for other measures that could be considered to see what if any practical difference the parties make when in government. Things like suicide, bankruptcy, employment rates come to mind but I don't have the time to try and track them down in a usable format right now.

R0bert

robert/..<<..Year PM starting Net Debt (Pct GDP) /
Receipts (Pct GDP)/

1971 McMahon -496(m)..

I SORT OF GOT YOU TO HERE
minus half a billion..[ie surplus]
but then we get

<</ -1.1 >>
<<..9,135>>

and <<..20.5..>>Receipts PERCEntage of gDP..(Pct GDP)/

*BEFORE..THEY EVEN BEGAN*
IE A START POINT..THAT RIGHTLY BELONGS TO..*THE ONES BEFORE*

then/1971 McMahon..LEFT../minus 3/4 rs of a billion
ie surplus/DEFICIT?

,,NOT...<<..1972 Whitlam -790(m) -1.6 9,735 19.6..>>..not* WIT LAMB ..but mcMAhon

AFTER ONE YEAR

WIT-LAME.. 1975 LEFT Fraser -341(m) -0.4 18,727 22.5

after 3 years
1983 FRAZER LEFT Hawke 16,015(m) 7.5 49,981 23.4
after 8 years
HAWKE..1991 Keating 31,014(m) 7.3 95,840 22.6
AFTER 5 YEARS
1996 KEATING GAVE Howard 96,281(m) 17.3 133,592 24.0
AFTER 11 YEARS..
IN 2007 HOWARD LEFT..Rudd -29,150(m) -3.8 294,917 25.1
after 3 years
2010 rudd left..Grillard 84,551(m) 6.0 302,024 21.6
after 3 years krudd left GRILL LARD/krudd
2013 left Abbott 144,887(m) 8.9 392,544 24

SD, you are talking about a period in time and history where ethics had a different meaning and value to the individual. Most labour party members had actually had jobs in factories or the docks/wharfs etc. They knew what it was like to actually work and to get voted into parliament you had to go and knock on doors and put in the footwork. How can you compare your grandfather to this trash that rule us now, he was a man that did everything his country expected of him at that time and earned his place in parliament.
This hotch potch of society that rule us now have the media to do their footwork, television to promote the "good guy" image, Abbott is a disgrace the way he turns up in the pickle factory and screws on a lid like a hands on guy, so false its sickly. Most have never done a days work in their lives and are a product of the university. We can go on forver on this topic.

Oh dear. I see our resident nasty has jumped in with his
usual tirade of "socialists" ruining the country for good,
simple, honest, conservative people like him.

I guess that's the price we have to pay for freedom of
speech.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for shining a humourous light on the comments made.

I'm still reading the other comments and RObert - I also
agree that Rache wrote a great summary earlier.
I'm really enjoying this thread.

Talking to a teacher this morning about high prices everywhere & he said "well, that's capitalism" for you. I replied "well, not quite because it is Socialism which feeds off Capitalism & that's what's driving the costs up. There can't be any Socialism without Capitalism putting up the money in the first place.
Let's try socialism in sport where everyone wins the same prize or let teachers get the same pay as a drop-out on the dole.

The staunch my team right or wrong rhetoric that flows as many of my fellow posters joust with each other over which team is best for Australia is silly....which team is on the “peoples” side and which is on the “big business” side. Which team has the better economic policy, which team has the better social policy....the whole truth is that neither party rule the destiny of Australia.......The European Banking Cartels run the global economy, they have for 300 years, while our social agenda is set by the UN.

Australian politicians rule nothing whether in government or not.
I read a piece in the Sunday paper about heartfelt demise of SPC and it squarely put the blame at the feet of free trade agreements and the dropping of tariffs. This is the first time I can recall that a major mass media publication has stated the bleeding obvious, I was shocked. Simple Simon could tell you that dropping tariffs destroys domestic production.

All the traitorous politicians on both sides sat back and took direction from the World Bank, the IMF, and the UN Developmental Organization in the full knowledge that production and self sustainability would disappear in a thirty year plan. It is all in the Lima Agreement and both sides of politics voted yes to adopting the protocols in the early 1970’s......and it has all come to pass.

Go ahead squabble.......but it does not make a difference...they are stealing our assets and poisoning our environment under the watch of both Partys.

OUG>>
SORT OF GOT YOU TO HERE
minus half a billion..[ie surplus]
but then we get

<</ -1.1 >>
<<..9,135>>

and <<..20.5..>>Receipts PERCEntage of gDP..(Pct GDP)/

*BEFORE..THEY EVEN BEGAN*
IE A START POINT..THAT RIGHTLY BELONGS TO..*THE ONES BEFORE*

then/1971 McMahon..LEFT../minus 3/4 rs of a billion
ie surplus/DEFICIT?

,,NOT...<<..1972 Whitlam -790(m) -1.6 9,735 19.6..>>..not* WIT LAMB ..but mcMAhon

AFTER ONE YEAR

WIT-LAME.. 1975 LEFT Fraser -341(m) -0.4 18,727 22.5

after 3 years
1983 FRAZER LEFT Hawke 16,015(m) 7.5 49,981 23.4
after 8 years
HAWKE..1991 Keating 31,014(m) 7.3 95,840 22.6
AFTER 5 YEARS
1996 KEATING GAVE Howard 96,281(m) 17.3 133,592 24.0
AFTER 11 YEARS..
IN 2007 HOWARD LEFT..Rudd -29,150(m) -3.8 294,917 25.1
after 3 years
2010 rudd left..Grillard 84,551(m) 6.0 302,024 21.6
after 3 years krudd left GRILL LARD/krudd
2013 left Abbott 144,887(m) 8.9 392,544 24<<

God luv ya OUG.....

Dear SOG,

People will always argue about which "team"
is best. And this will vary with their
understanding of what they perceive the core
differences between the parties to be. They
will hold an opinion on those values and these
values will strongly influence which party they
vote for.

It seems we in the west will be returning to the polls, can they make it compulsory the second time round, many say they wont vote, once was enough. But it does lead to an interesting situation overall. I truly dont think anyone will vote liberal if they consider our fuhrer Barnett as a deciple of Abbotts regime.

THIS PHOTO..reportedly..shows what 32 billion/yaNKI DOLLARS LOOKS/LIKE
http://www.infojustice.com/Drug%20Lord16.jpg

JUST THINK..WHAT POLITICAL/DAMAGE..you could do with that

http://www.infojustice.com/Topics/29%20Photos%20of%20Drug%20Lords%20Home%20after%20Raid.html

[you have to REMEMBER..police earn pennies
but SECURITIES AGENCIES RUN THE DRUG CARTELS
[DRUGS PAY FOR ALL WARS]

lest we forget sadman insane..got INVADED JUST FOR HIS GOLD
[OH ..and black gold]..and alpgonastan..was invaded to ensure drug supply[alfgan dope was at 5 percent pre invasion..now 90 percent[rendiTIONED DIRECT TO YA DOOR.

LEST WE FORGET..GADAFEE..[GOLd][oil]..
lest we forget..every war..post vietnam..aRE DRUG/OIL WARS

and guess who got the bailout cash
but look yet again..how securities agencies/got the assets/FROM A FORMER MATE/WE ONLY SEE THIS STUFF..after..someone..got needy or greedy..or wOULDNT TAKE the cash

what would yOU DO..EAT MUD..OR FILL UPYA POCKETS
EVEN KNOWING MILLIONS DIED FOR IT..it corrupted everything it touches.

and every penny of it was borrowed..[ie the money was borrowed..by a debt entry..onto a ledger][but the intrest..due on it..dont exist]..infact..'now'..there is even less money..in circulation..to pay off thedebt we collectivly owe

75 quadrillion..or there abouts
everyONE..IS DROWING IN IT..[DEBT/THAT Is]
just go see how large every coroperate 'debt'..is

THIS 32 billion
http://www.infojustice.com/Drug%20Lord16.jpg
couldnt cover a singlE DAYS INTREST[EXTRA CASH SOMEONE..JAS TO BORROW..into existence...[ya CAN ONLY GET it by borrowing from the money changers]

who changed credit/value/money..into debt
sold their souls..for paper..that fools thought was value

in THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC..THIS MUCH IN HYPER-INFLATEd..REICH MARKS
WOULD BUY YOU A CAR../A WHEEL BARROW OF THE JUNK PAPER..bought a loaf of bread.

this is your future..TILL THE BUBBLE BURSTS.
BY THEN..OUR ELECT WILL BE SUPPING AT THEIR OWN PRICATE PUBLIC service pensions fun&

SO..WHAT DID THEY DO..with all that cash?
They just burned it all down!

IE BURNT 32 BILLION..that means it was given..to the fed
[they wont forgo lending it to govt..again..even if it sends govt broke

edit the fed..who stole our gold silver coin
gave us bank-bills[real bills[ie debt-notes]..[fiat ie/by decree
decree by govt..who must lend every penny from the fed[know babnkers orderd it burnt/thus their BOOKS GET A 32 BILLION BOOST/AND BY FRACTIONAL RESERVE/lending..leveraged IT OUT AS MORE DEBT.

BUT BACK TO THE HENCH MEN..WITH UNLIMITED AMMounts of drug cash
[what no gold silver jewels[ya really believe they just burnt..the art work?
http://www.infojustice.com/Topics/29%20Photos%20of%20Drug%20Lords%20Home%20after%20Raid.html

The money and valuables found in this one house alone, would be enough to pay for health insurance for every man, women and child in the USA for 12 years!

There are believed to be approximately 27 more of these houses in Mexico alone not to mention the ones in other countries who are enriching themselves in the illicit drug trade. These people have so much money, they make the great Arab oil sheiks look like welfare recipients.

Their money can buy the best politicians, some cops, the best judges, or whatever they need they just throw down stacks of cash and it is theirs!

This is why the drug problem is so difficult to fight.
it even bought off your politition..[who sold the fed.s and national banks/and stock exchanges and services..to scUM

THE MEDIA SILENCE IS SICKENING

Beach, I knew all about the Fabian Society long before you ever ventured onto this forum. What I didn't know was how they were all under the "control" of the Reds from under the beds. Apparently you get all "information" from your very own Miss Marple.
As I posted way back to you Beach.

Fancy being fooled by this old dodo. Dr Amy McGrath flogging her phoney book.
For nearly two decades a group of cranky old right-wing reactionaries from the leafy suburbs of Sydney, such as Dr Amy McGrath of the H S Chapman Society, and cheered on by Alan Jones, Christopher Pearson, Paul Sheehan, and Professor David Flint. These people in their hysteria "see" communists at ever turn, Wow Bill Clinton was a communist! Was Ronald Reagan also a communist, Obama, as is the Queen of England, The Pope they just don't admit it. Assisted by that right wing plonker 2GB's Michael McLaren. what an "interview" incomprehensible nonsense.
Anyone taking notice of this batty old fool could be described as a 'Useful Idiot" but I'm not sure about the useful part. Have you listened to this "interview", I rest my case.

Just for others amusement here is the old dodo's "interview".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK54fBPTuZo

Beach are you getting a comish from book sales? Don't forget to collect from the 21 sold to the use car saleesman! Then again you might be that Used Car Salesman in question.

Dear Paul,

Here's a link you may enjoy:

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/about-town/the-difference-between-liberal-and-labor-20130910-2th8s.html

Paul1405,

Heh, heh, it is amusing that you now claim 'prior' knowledge of the Fabians and their influence within Labor.

You are still in denial though, which must be quite an effort given the video evidence of Julia Gillard's forced admission and her quick retreat from further questions. Here again,

@0:45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhvuR05ZNUY

Foxy,

Now you rely on a 'fringe comedian'. LOL

Easy to see why when he ends with, "Actually, I voted Greens. Labor were my second-last preference, just above the Liberals".

The Greens,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtXBgiubnK8

Foxy thanks for the link made for a good read. Ha ha

Beach; A few obs from your link.
Firstly, have you ever noticed the striking resemblance between Julia Gillard and Karl Marx, they could be identical twins, uncanny that! Sorry, it might have been Harpo I was thinking of, anyway it doesn't matter, they were all communists.
The women who asked the first question on your youtube, was that your very own Miss Marple, I did like the way she said all the smoke went up the chimney, nothing to worry about there, anyway, if she wasn't your Miss Marple, then she must be a communist.

As for the last fella on your clip I did ask this question of you previously, which you never answered. Was that Andrew Middleton asking the Fabian question, the same Andrew Middleton who ran for a lunatic fringe party in the federal election of 2010? Got about 500 votes. Wow! maybe he is the son of your Miss Marple.
If you don't answer, I must assume, I am correct and another wacko to add to the list.
Did get a laugh out of your Greens clip, don't usually give you a big tick on the score of humor, but it was right up there with your Miss Marple (Amy McGrath) interview, when it comes to laughs.

That's enough on the Fab people, we already had a long discussion on them, besides your Miss Marple now reports that she has been using the weegie board and has contacted the "Space Aliens" and arranged for all the Fabs to be transported to the planet Kripto, end of problem.
Miss Marple has moved on, and is now flogging her latest and greatest book;
'I Was Once Psychotic, Now I'm Just Mad'.

Dear Paul,

You gotta laugh. Fabians here, Progressives, there,
Socialists, Capitalists - everywhere. And then we
have the example of democratic socialism,
with its blend of capitalist and socialist elements,
which has led some observers to postulate
convergence theory; the hypothesis that the similar
problems by capitalist and socialist societies may
influence their evolution toward a common ultimate
form. Economic convergence does appear to be
taking place - but will political convergence also
follow?
There's no denying - the world is an interesting place.
And who can predict the future with any certainty.

Over 2,000 years ago the philosopher Aristotle observed
that we are political animals. We are indeed, and
necessarily so, for politics is an inevitable consequence
of social living. In every society some valued resources
are scarce, and politics is essentially the process of
deciding "who gets what, when, and how."

The character of political institutions and behaviour
varies a great deal from one society or group to another,
but the political process itself is universal.

otb,

Xavier Toby is much more than a "fringe comedian,"
(Not that there would be anything wrong with being
just that). But to set the record straight for you:

Xavier Toby writes for several newspapers, magazines, websites,
and of course has performed comedy throughout Australia and
overseas. He's also worked as a bouncer, kitchenhand, editor,
waiter, engineer, admin assistant, copy-writer and labourer.

He also has degrees in Mechanical Engineering and English
from the University of Melbourne, a Master's in Creative
Media from RMIT, and he's a fully accredited meter reader.

I'd recommend you get hold of his book, "Mining My Own
Business," for a thorough take on this talented and intelligent
man.

no choice anymore?

Rubbish, there are greens, and other minor parties. They mostly hold the balance of power in the Senate, so have an important impact.

Most vote for Coalition/Labor because they are perceived to be parties most relevant to demands of the world.

Sure, debate more to centre-right in relative terms, but still important differences.

Dear Chris,

I agree we do have choices.

Here's a link that might be of interest:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4694050.html

It deals with the rise of the minor parties -
and well worth a read.

chris..,,..<<..Rubbish, there are greens, and other minor parties. They mostly hold the balance of power in the Senate, so have an important impact.>>

BUT IF IT CAME RIGHT DOWN..To it
they would side with each other..
[IF IT EVER BECAME 1/3 rd liB/nat
1/3 RD lab..1/3 rd green]..

sure some currently do deals
but the main PARTIES ARE FILIBUSTER PROOF [REGARDING ANY REAL CHANGE

Paul1405,
I agree with you about the drift to the right, but it actually seems to be global.
New Labour in the UK went to the middle and so did the Democrats in the US. The US result was that the Republicans had to go even further to the right.

Howard moved to the far right to capture those who drifted toward One Nation Beazley moved with him.

Even more than Hawke/Keating, Beazley abandoned many ALP principles and ended up as a wanna-be Howard clone - albeit with a lot more social conscience - but he lost his traditional ground.

Most posters on this site automatically deride anybody who questions the LNP as "left" but that's because there is absolutely nobody to the right of the LNP anymore. All the crackpot right-wing extremists have found a new home. You can see many of them on this site.

Even middle-ground moderates are now rabid lefties and the only thing in the world that seems to matter is debt levels.

Thanks foxy.

It will be interesting to see how events turn out during the next 3-4 years in terms of the influence of the minor parties/members in the Senate.

its nice to know we all live in a free country.
We are all free to do as we are told.

Dear Chris,

It will be interesting to see what develops in
politics in the next couple of years.

Political commentators have pointed out that quality
debate about big issues is very poor. Peter Costello
tells us, that "These days politics is more about
gaining and holding office than using office to improve
things for the better."

And former attorney-general and foreign minister -
Gareth Evans says, "The quality of policy debate in
the last election campaign was as desolate as it gets,
including, it has been acknowledged on the Labor side:
all Hill and no light."

No wonder the public are fed up. They are being fed
rehearsed lines, and they know it.
It also appears that it's not so much a policy debate
any more - but about personal attributes, and
personalities. Something has to give.

It looks like this discussion has now run its course.
Thanks to everyone who participated.
It's been an interesting discussion.
I guess our political views stem from notions of what we
consider responsible, moral, and reasonable. There doesn't
seem (certainly for young people) the traditional party
loyalties that existed for our parents.
Opinions today differ from person to person, from year to year.
People today on the whole don't think uniformly. A lot of
views are actually mixed - when it comes to party affiliation.

It shall be interesting to see what the next couple of
years brings us. And whether people will demand more of their
politicians.

The Greens Party has once again escaped criticism and comparison. Deliberately bracketing the debate to the 'two major parties' does that.

Yet as sidekicks of Julia Gillard in particular the Greens always claimed to be the 'big swinging d*cks' who wielded undue influence (more like political blackmail) on the Labor government, and they generally claim the ability to frustrate and exasperate any government in an ongoing fashion.

The public's painful memory of the Greens Watermelons in government as Labor's sidekicks -always treacherous- is still raw. The Greens were rejected along with Labor.

Camouflaging the Greens as merely one of a number of minor parties that might do better in the future simply does not work. The Greens are different and the public knows them as such. The Greens have a record to live down. Most likely they will continue on a downward electoral spiral as predicted by many political commentators

its noT RIGHT LEFT/either party/NOR little partlies
its ..the globAL cabalIST AGENDA..wall steet run by British Intel
BANKERS MAKING WARS..TO LOOT OTHER BANKS/RESOURCES MONERY SYSTEMS TREASURE AND INVENTION..[AND WORK]..JOB JOBS JOBS/WORK TILL YOU dIE

we are less than fleas caught up in thE greasy fleece

http://rss.infowars.com/20140220_Thu_Alex.mp3

otb,

This thread was about what people saw as the differences
between the two major parties - the Libs and Labor.
However if you wish to clearly articulate the distinction
of what's wrong with the Greens - may I politely suggest
that you start your own thread on the subject and see how
many people actually agree with you on this forum.
It would be interesting to see how many responses you get
and from whom.

Cheers.

Foxy,

You yourself introduced the subject of minor parties. Your thrust it seems was that voters are somehow disillusioned with the two major parties and minor parties would benefit.

Voters cannot be too upset with the LNP. After all, they were voted into government. True, some have difficulty in accepting that, but it is a fact, ask the Governor General, Bill Shorten's mother-in-law if she got that wrong.

Regarding minor parties, they are not all the same as the public would realise. They are very different. Apples and oranges that cannot be sold as the one product.

It is simplistic to talk about a claimed rise of minor parties, when the most obvious one that you are taking care to keep free from scrutiny had a big role in the failure of the Gillard government, and Rudd's before, and is on a downwards spiral. Greens' policies are not acceptable to the public, full stop.

otb,

Correction. It was Chris Lewis who introduced
minority parties to this discussion.
I merely responded with a link that he might
find interesting.

You are entitled to your opinion on your personal
choice of political parties and whom who give
your support to. What you're not entitled to however
is think that your opinions are shared by others.
Or that you are some sort of an authority on the
subject.

I usually don't bother reading what you have to say
because I find that you're neither logical or rational.
And your insults don't appeal to me. They're too common,
predictable and nothing out of the ordinary.
Therefore - go talk to someone who does value your opinion.
I certainly don't.

Cheers.

Foxy,

Correction. It was you not me who introduced minority parties. You had a ticket to ride in the process - you chose a link to support your view.

However all of that is a distraction from my contention that minor parties are not the same. They are very different and generalising is fraught with obvious errors of fact and logic.

The example I gave is the Greens. They are the odd fruit that stands out from what are oranges and lemons anyhow. As well, the Greens are on the downward slide, which is hastened by the 'Watermelons' Versus Green Environmentalist fights raging within. So I suppose the Greens should also be discussed as at least two warring minor parties.

otb,

It was Chris Lewis who introduced the topic of
minority parties, see page 12 of this discussion.

Nobody suggested that you did.

As I stated earlier - I actually don't read your
posts as a general rule. Anyway, if you wish to
continue discussing minor parties and your
perceived failures on their part - I again politely
suggest that you start your own thread on the topic.

For me this thread has now run its course.

Beach, like many of your cohorts on the right of politics your wishful thinking/desire that The Greens will simply disappear, has no substance in reality. The Greens like no other third party on the Australian political landscape since the Labor Party at the turn of the 20th century has enjoyed such a sustained period of political popularity. The Greens success can be closely linked in the first instance to the rise of the environmental movement, but later to its broader appeal as a grass roots party of the true progressive left. The Greens are a party not afraid to participate in the political process.
Despite a marked shift to the right over a longer than normal cyclic period within Australian politics The Greens have not only survived but proliferated, enjoying a remarkable amount of political success, the party has the 'runs on the board'.
I now envisage a period of consolidation for the party, no longer achieving the spectacular growth of the 1990's-2000's, the future for the party will be punctuated by the general ups and downs that are part and parcel of Australian politics. Over the longer tern I still believe The Greens will continue to grow as Australia wrestles with the complex social issues that confront it, this will see The Greens well places as a forward thinking, broad based party, to take advantage of future political developments within Australia.

A link to Robert Manne and what he had to say on the subject back in 2010, still relevant.

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2010/october/1354143863/robert-manne/comment

Dear Paul,

Peter Garrett decades ago stated the
importance of a political party providing
an alternative voice:

"Words cannot express the beauty and the depth of
Kakadu. It has an extraordinary variety of bird
and animal life in one place. It is a nature
documentary in real life; great beauty abounds.
The park contains the greatest prehistoric art
gallery in the world with cave paintings that were
begun 230 centuries before Christ walked out from
Galilee."

"And there's the land forms of stone plateaus, coastal
plains and lowlands populated by astonishing variety
of plants and native flowers - about 1500 species all
up - some of which are still unnamed. It's one of
Australia's greatest assets, a place for all Australians
to visit and appreciate ...
It would be a disgrace to use it as a quarry."

Then also:

"We have the Daintree forest in Queensland (the only
complete rainforest ecosystem region left in the country).
A shame to use it for mining -
and special landing-strips for bomb-laden B-52s."

"In New South Wales, the wetlands of Botany Bay - birthplace
of European Australia, - could become the site
of a multi-national's chemical factory."

"In Victoria the great forests of East Gippsland - could
be turned to
greeting cards and coloured toilet paper by the woodchipping
companies."

And so it goes on ...

Then of course there's our export industries -
uranium comes to mind.

"We come from a land down under,
where women glow and men plunder.
Can you hear?
Can you hear the thunder? You'd better run,
you'd better take cover."

Of course, we must properly utilise
our natural resources in order to develop the country further.
"Don't we need to
process and produce other items instead of just loading the
country onto a truck and picking up a cheque at the end of the
day? Can't we understand that our national estate is an even
more precious resource in a world losing forests, plant and
animal species - indeed the complete web of generic diversity
that makes up the ecosphere at a daily rate?"

Appaarently not.

Foxy, as a Green I am passionate about protecting the environment. But I am also a pragmatic Green, I do not believe we can protect the environment if we do not protect the under privileged, the worker, the refugee. We cannot protect the environment if we fail to offer a voice to the voiceless in society. I do not believe we can protect the environment if we do not promote equality for all, promote equality for the indigenous, promote equality for women, protect the rights of ordinary people, provide help for the disadvantaged, the poor, the old, the young, the sick, the uneducated, the out of work, and all others in society who are in need of a helping hand. I do not believe we can protect the environment if we do not oppose war, if we do not oppose violence in all its forms, at home and abroad, and... I am sure there is even more we can do to protect the environment. By doing all of these things, and more, I believe we will be protecting the environment in all its glory, those very things you speak of.

Dear Paul,

You won't get any arguments from me.

BTW: I love your sense of humour, great intelligence,
and - incredible charm.

The only person that could possibly surpass you
in all these qualities is - (you guessed it) - me!

Paul,

Lying again? The greens are also opposing the Royal commission and protecting the union thieves.

You all say one thing and do another.

paul..<<..I do not believe..we can protect/the environment..if we do not oppose war,>>

just needed/TO REMIND..that many green areas..EXIST Only because war either was there/..or that space/place..is needed for war/thus development..was excluded..JUST BY A MINE/FIELD.

SADLY..THE LONGER WE LIVE..THE MORE..WE SEE BOTH\SIDES

WE HAVE BECOME..THAT WE..RESISTED/FOUGHT..WE CANT..FIGHT FOR PEACE

once WE WERE..CONTENT..TO SIT
WITHIN NATURE..knowing she provides..it all
NOW NATURE IS A THING..WE/FENCE OFF And..tell others to keep away/from..cause we..privledged..are loving it..to death/

SOME-one..WILL SAy..this is,,TOO/fragile..4..YOU.
so..i go there..just to KEEP OTHERS..AWAY.

two DAMM SIDES/OF THE SAME COIN..THATS WHY I GAVe-up..protesting
its the feeL-GOODING..or/RATHER THE DO-GOODER..YET doing it..for the feeling..became too revealing..

WHEN YOU PROTEST..IN THE FORREST..doth the Forrest..hear CARE understand..or even..DESIRE..its being..whether were here..or there..?

I had a mate..he..loves attacking..them smokers..dropping their butts
but..now.the smokers are gone..he attacks others ruthlessly..for dropping/forgetting..anything..

[he enjoys..the adrenalin..more..than the beauty..HE SEEMINGLY IS PROTECTING..BUT..CANT SEE THE FORREST..FOR THE EVIL ONES DESPOILING IT
but heck..any self righteous excuse..to/pick-up..chicks..wilL DO..[THATS THE DANGER]

BOTH PARTIES ARNT/THERE..TO Serve nor protect..anything but their mates/self-interest..and..BY..having SUPPORTED THE GREENS/BECAUSE THEY SUPPORTED..MY PARTY..REVEALED TOO MUCH..ABOUT ALL parties.

THE micro party/phenomena..reveals..they dont really care..for THE NAMED TOPIC..AS MUCH AS COLLECTING UP..THE FRINGE VOTES/THOSE INCLINED..TO Motor../vote for the motoring party/

THOSE Inclined to..thing's green..vote green/but
its all about..defining your ground...[YOUR POWER-BASE].not WHAT YOU DO..ONCE YOU GOT THE 'POWER'.

AS WE SAW..WITH THE DEMS/and with labour
ONE SELLOUT..THEY CHANGE BOATS..BUT HECK TWO..AND A Half parties/compulsory voting..where else can you go?

its just too damm clever
key word voting..THEN IGNORE.THE WORD TILL THE NEXT TIME

I FIGURE.WE NEED REAL change
you greens vote..for ONE/HEAD-GREEN..who BECOMES..the gREEN CZAR..FOR AL THINGS/green

WE DOPERS VOTE..FOR who our,,OWN DOPY representative
you motorists vote..for your MOTER-MOUTH/REP/..BANKERS VOTE FOR WHO BECOMES THEIR GOD/UNIONISTS VOTE FOR WHO..BECOMES THEIR TASK MASTER.

And we nominate..who getS..OUR..compilsory/levies/service charges/TAXES..OUR APPOINTED..'HEAD'..DISPERSES..OR USES TO PAY THE BILLs

the current system is broken/subverted by money/POWER
INFLUENCE BUYING..SPECIAL LICENSE..AND UNFAIR CIVIL BURDEN..IN LUE OF SOCIAL CONTRACT...

[WHAT Happened to act locally..REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTING..AND DECENTRALISATIOn]

Dear SM,

Talking about saying one thing and doing another...

Your reference to the Royal Commission and "union thieves,"
is rather telling. And you should be careful who you call
a liar - especially with the comments you fling about.

After all the investigation hasn't even begun into union
corruption and you're already pre-empting the findings
by your reference to "theft."

This indicates that you also may
believe that the Royal Commission is just a political strategy for
the current government. And their record for truth telling
as we all know if somewhat blemished.

If Labor get back into Parliament at some future time,
it will be interesting to see if they put in a
Royal Commission into what really happened in Manus Island.
Two can play the same game of Royal Commissions and finding
out the "truth."

Foxy, "If Labor get back into Parliament at some future time,it will be interesting to see if they put in a Royal Commission into what really happened in Manus Island."

That reminds of an Irish joke,

"Mick!!", asked the barmaid, "What are those two bulges in the front of your trousers?"

"Ah", said Mick "They be hand grenades. The next time that bum bandit O,Shaunessey tries to grope me in the bar, when he will be blowing his hand off, to be sure.."

otb,

I love Irish jokes.

Yours made me laugh out loud so Thank You.
It reminded me of the Irish comedian - Dave Alan.
(Bless his Soul). I used to watch his programs
as a youngster on TV. I loved his storytelling
and the way he spoke. "Follow me and I'll be
behind you all the way." Typically Irish.

Here's one I remember:

An Englisman, an Irishman and a Scotman were reading
a newspaper article about which nationalities' brains
were for sale for transplant purposes.
An Irishman's or a Scots could be bought for five hundred
pounds but an Englishman's cost ten tousand pounds.

"That proves," said the Englishman "that Englishmen are much
cleverer than the Irish or the Scotsmen."

"No it doesn't," said the Irishman. "It just means that
Englishmen's brains have never been used!"

Bless the Irish and the English for being more tolerant of jokes against themselves. Maybe all peoples are like that except for the deeply religious.

The most offensive and dangerous joke in the world,
http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=18853#.Uwmac4Wv_Mg

sorRY FOX..the englisH BRAINS ARE SO EXPENSIVE
[BECAUSE YOU NEED KIL..SO MANY TO FIND ONE.]

ANYHOW PADDY WENT To london..to..blow up a bus
burnt his lips on the exhaust.

WHATS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PARTY And a hooker?
THERE AINT..THEIR BOTh run by pimPS.
AND BOTH SQREW US FOR CASH

OUG, I am surprised at you!

Foxy, I loved Dave Allen too.
As a good (?) catholic schoolgirl I found his irreverent religious jokes screamingly funny.
Especially after the nuns told us that watching such a disgusting show is surely a sin.

I remember him saying at the end of each show, "Good night, and thank you, and may your God go with you". Fantastic notion that one...that there may be more than one God! He was a man before his time that one.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand.
It will be interesting here in the West to see how the major parties fare in another election for the senate?
Imagine how much this new election will cost the Government?

Yes, but do you enjoy South Park satire?

Uncensored.

Dear Johan (OUG),

Thanks for the jokes.
They're great as always and you know that
I'm going to re-use them.

Dear Suse,

The Irish are such good sports.

I grew up under the mentorship of a lovely Irish priest
who used to come over for Sunday roasts at our place and
my father would argue religion with him.

Which reminds me of the joke -

Mother Superior is giving a fire and brimstone lecture
to an assembly of girls at a Catholic college.
She warns them of the perils of giving in to "temptation."
"Remember girls, one hour's of pleasure will result in
your spending eternity in hell."

Suddenly a little voice is heard and echoes around the
assembly hall,

"Oh Mother, how do you make it last an hour?"

Back to the topic though ...

It will be interesting indeed to see what happens in the Senate.
I think the future looks rather uncertain all round.

There you go South Park, your courageous writers, directors and producers would be on their own in politically correct Oz as well.

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2010/apr/22/south-park-censored-fatwa-muhammad

Foxy,

"After all the investigation hasn't even begun into union
corruption and you're already pre-empting the findings
by your reference to "theft.""

Are you kidding? You were using the same line to protest Thomson's innocence for years. There is no question as to whether there is union corruption, only how bad. I have worked on a large construction site, and have seen some of the dodgy dealings that go on such as extracting "rent" from caterers on a site that isn't theirs etc.

I am not stupid enough to wait for a judge to tell me what nearly everyone already knows.

And Shadow, did you run off to the police with your evidence like the good law abiding citizen you are? I think not.
Seems you are like 'The Queen of Hearts' you have the guilty verdict, you tar all and sundry on the Labor side, including Shorten, with that verdict. Now you want the court case to justify the verdict. Interesting.

SM,

Then of course you would also be the first to look into
all the rorts of your party's MP's and the donations that
the party recieves et cetera, and the Mr Abbott's "slush
funds?" Mr Brandis's private library collection, and the
list goes on. I wonder what sort of things would be
found with rorting and corruption by the comapny running
Manus Island and other detention centres - should we also
go there?

Actually Paul,

I did contact the police, but as the police officer said, I only had the word of the vendor, and he was not prepared for risk of being blacklisted from all other union controlled sites, or having his vending machines trashed, there was no case. The rate that the union charged for access to the site was 15c per can of drink or chips etc from the vending machine, and $250/week from the portable cafe.

This is a protection racket run by a union that operates more like the Mafia. This Royal commission is long overdue, but as Labor profits from the proceeds of these crimes they are not going to touch the unions.

Foxy,

"SM,
Then of course you would also be the first to look into
all the rorts of your party's MP's and the donations that
the party recieves et cetera, and the Mr Abbott's "slush
funds?" Mr Brandis's private library collection, and the
list goes on."

That is funnier that those Irish jokes. SM would never stoop to calling for any kind of 'investigation' into the conservative side of politics, they are all angles.

Foxy,

I have no problem investigating any rort, however, before I support it I would need more than a bunch of left whingers wanting to embark on a fishing expedition.

Where everything is open and documented it is difficult to abuse the system without getting caught as labor and liberal MPs have found out.
The following is declared, documented and open for investigation:

Party donations have to be declared and are published.
MP expenses, (reviewed by the dept of finance) and are open for inspection.
Government expenses, such as the Manus Island contract (set up by Labor) are documented and all public costings are reviewed in detail every 6 months by the senate estimates committee, and I bet that every labor and green MP and lawyer is going through it with a fine tooth comb.

If either of you can point out to any malfeasance that has not already been picked up and dealt with, or anything that a commission could unearth that is not already available then go for it.

SM,

So you see any investigation into rorts of your party's
MPs as "Left-Whingers" out on a fishing expedition,
whereas the "Right-Whingers," investigations are not
fishing expeditions.

Sounds like your usual fair and objective assessment.

LOL, all of those posts to divert discussion away from the Greens.

The Greens are presently doing what a protest party does, they are blocking a democratically elected government from fulfilling its mandate. Carbon tax again: attention-seeking, headline-hunting stuff and impractical as usual.

Just one area where the Greens similarly frustrated and exasperated the previous Labor Rudd and Gillard governments.

It is a nonsense to include the Greens Watermelons with minor parties. The Greens are simply a small group of clever, comfortably-off middle class politicians who have found a way to get elected without having any real policies that can be integrated into a coherent whole - just a changing list of complaints and idealism. They have almost nothing in common with other minor parties.

And we have such "aspirational" policies from the
current government. The quality of their polices
is absolutely "visionary." As Peter Costello stated
"These days politics is more about gaining and
holding office than using office to improve things
for the better."

The public are fed rehearsed lines, and know it.

Yes - the Greens are looking better all the time -
and undoubtedly the Fabians, aka Socialists, aka, Feminists,
aka Marxists, aka, aka, aka, aka (Polly Want a Cracker?),
Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah - will vote Green - just to
annoy the rest of those decent, conservative, "real" Australians!

Foxy,

Don't be so silly, given that all the things you want an enquiry for are fully documented and available, the enquiry is pointless and a "fishing expedition". An enquiry into union corruption which is by nature covert promises to unearth a bonanza.

Foxy either you are too one eyed or ignorant to grasp this. Either that or you approve of union corruption?

The Greens must be doing a tip top job. Beach is as mad as hell, made a post and no mention of the Fabians, aka International Socialists ake Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, its all the work of those nasty Green Watermelons! Yeah! you better believe it, Beach the Watermelons are on the march!

Paul1405,

You would know, since you claim Trotskyist Green Lee Rhiannon (Brown) as your guru and the very limp but equally hard left David Shoebridge as a personal mate. LOL

Lee Rhiannon, Shoebridge and the Watermelon faction,
<Labor observer foresees factional divisions in the Greens
Joe Kelly, The Australian, October 22, 2013 M

HARD Left Greens senator Lee Rhiannon and her forces, dubbed the watermelon faction, have seized greater control of the NSW branch in a move some fear could influence the future direction of the party.

Hall Greenland, the failed Greens federal candidate in Anthony Albanese's Sydney seat of Grayndler, was elected state convener at the NSW Greens' annual general meeting at the weekend.

Controversial NSW upper-house member David Shoebridge also won an influential position, elected the parliamentary representative to the Greens' national conference, which develops the party's policy platform.

One Greens source said Mr Greenland and Mr Shoebridge were part of the watermelon faction - green on the outside and red on the inside - rather than the "tree-hugging camp".

They placed a greater emphasis on grassroots activism rather than on a centralised statewide approach to campaigning.

Along with Senator Rhiannon, the pair is seen to be sympathetic to the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel, although Mr Greenland has not promoted the movement>

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-observer-foresees-factional-divisions-in-the-greens/story-fn59niix-1226744096822

There is no way in hell that the Greens Watermelons Protest Party ought ever be put into the same basket as the small independent parties.

Beach, still pushing that bit of old Murdoch inspired scuttlebutt from yesteryear. Calling David 'hard left' hardly, a very nice family man with a couple of very lovely children. You only know what you read in the 'Murdoch Fish Wrapper' and they are not going to be flattering to The Greens, are they?
As for Lee, a Trotskyist! that will automatically bar her from The Fabians, only Satanists allowed.

Beach, are you an admirer/supporter of Jim Saleam? He seems to be you kinda guy!

SM,

You need to lighten up - and realise when people
are being facetious and having a go at your regular
silly accusations and consistent blind-eye view
of your side of politics - which can do no wrong
apparently but are so quick to blame everyone
else and when caught up they always seem to have
a "good" excuse which their supporters (like
yourself) buy hook, line, and sinker.

Of course most people don't support corruption (union or
any other) however we do have police and other agencies
well equipped to handle these matters at a fraction of
the cost of what the Royal Commission's going to cost.
And as even you must realise - this entire issue is not
about corrpution at all - its a political strategy.

You're the silly gullible one here.

Foxy,

It is difficult to tell when you are pretending to be dumb. As for being one eyed, you take 1st prize. I have yet to see you take anything other than the Labor left party line.

What is blindingly obvious is that if we have "police and other agencies well equipped to handle these matters" that they are failing spectacularly, and Labor's call to use the same structures is essentially a call to do nothing.

The Cole royal commission clearly established the need for the BCC, which reduced the thuggery drastically. Electricity Bill (ex union heavy weight) got rid of the BCC with the predictable result that the thuggery and corruption started up again.

SM,

I may be one-eyed in some respects (I prefer substance
over rhetoric) but at least
I'm not so narrow-minded that I am can
look through key-holes with both eyes
like you do. And I have criticised the Labor Party
in the past which is more than you've ever done
with the Libs.

As for my supposed support of
Labor? Well, look at the alternative on offer
currently?

I would love to support the Libs - when
and if they actually come up with policies that
make sense. But of course, that may take quite a few
years for them to not only attract the right people to their
party but to also be willing to promote them and give them
a chance to shine, instead of rewarding loyalty with the
same old party hacks.
The ones they currently have - have nothing
new to offer.

Now our state parliamentarians are a difference
kettle of fish. I like our state Premier - Denis Napthine
very much. I love Melbourne's Mayor - Robert Doyle.
And I love my local MP - (Liberal - female, who works
very hard for us). So, I'm not as one-eyed as you think.
I do give credit where credit is due, but I don't where
it's not deserved or earned.

As for the Royal Cole Commission. We've argued about this
in the past - and it spent over $60 million and not one
single charge was laid. So my argument still stands.
This is not about corruption - it's a tactical strategy
on behalf of Mr Abbott and Co.

Foxy, the jokes on SM, In my case, the last time I ran in the Local Government elections I gave my 2nd preference to the "Independent" Liberal candidate, the more progressive thinking person, a fully paid up member of the Liberal Party, and he didn't make any secret of it, over the Labor bloke, naturally he returned the complement . Greens have done many a deal with the Liberal Party at local level.

There must be many Labor supporters who would be exasperated by Labor always giving their preferences to the Greens, while the Greens show their scorn by preferencing Socialist Alliance and others of that ilk where available. Or playing other silly games, such as putting up multiple candidates who find difficulty getting a baker's dozen votes. - Could have done a bit better but not all of their extended family voted for them.

It must be the sworn duty of the treacherous Greens to cut the ground out from under Labor candidates' feet. As Gillard found federally, the Greens are even worse when in parliament and as partners.

That just underlines the very point I was making earlier that the Greens cannot be put into the basket with small parties.

The Greens are just a protest party, they are the crazy, cynical Watermelons their own warring factions say they are, and as Julia Gillard and others have wryly observed through sad experience of trying to work with them.

Lexi,

Your claim of preference of substance over rhetoric is not matched by your posts. Every slogan or phase of Labor is echoed in your posts. Your criticisms are gentle chidings about some of their spectacularly failed policies.

I have openly supported gay marriage, and indicated my displeasure for the paid parental scheme and the capitulation over the Gonski spendathon.

The Cole commission provided a catalog of the corrupt and unlawful practices of the unions and recommended the setting up of the very successful BCC that reduced corruption and improved productivity.

Abbott very clearly indicated to the ex union power broker Shorten, that if he acceded to the re establishment of the BCC, that much of the need for the RC would fall away. Electricity Bill being beholded to the unions refused, and now the RC with a special police task force will be a reality.

The RC is more than a stunt, it is purgative that clean out the faecal matter that infests the unions and the ALP.

Shorten is repeating the protection racket that was run for Thomson by himself and Juliar, even when the evidence is clear.

SM,

I see Mr Abbott and his government having the Trade
Union movement in their sights and they are determined to
disempower the movement and the Royal Commission will be
one step, a way of trying to blemish the trade movement
in this country and drain their resources. Mr Abbott
will firstly go after the unions, then he'll come
for people's rights at work. Isolated allegations of
wrong-doing in one industry should be investigated
by the police and should not be used to justify a full-scale
assault on the union movement.

Obviously, you see things differently. You accuse me of
being _one-eyed. And of course you see yourself as being
objective.

We have reached the point where further discussions will
not achieve anything constructive. Neither one
of us is prepared to modify our judgements.
Fair enough.

See you on another thread.

Foxy,

"Mr Abbott will firstly go after the unions, then he'll come for people's rights at work."

Again simply parroting the Labor party line.

" Isolated allegations of wrong-doing in one industry should be investigated by the police" and systemic law breaking and corruption needs a royal commission.

SM,

The irony is that corrupt practices occur in
Australian unions on a lesser scale than those
that take place across other institutions in
Australia, such as sporting clubs, charities,
governments, and political parties.
Serious corruption tends to follow the circuits
of money and power.

What goes on behind those closed doors is something
about which most Australians know little but you
can be assured that a Coalition Government would
never subject these elite interests to the
investigative intrusions of a Royal Commission.

Mr Abbott's Royal Commission is not about corruption.
It is purely a political strategy.

See you on another discussion.

Foxy,

Are you and this person the one and the same?

sallymcmanus71
Secretary of the Australian Services Union NSW & ACT Branch
http://en.gravatar.com/sallymcmanus71

Your post, @Foxy, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 9:39:12 PM has apparent similarity with what appears on her, your(?), blog:

<My guess is that corrupt practices occur in Australian unions on a lesser scale than those that take place across other institutions in Australia, such as sporting clubs, charities, governments, and political parties. Serious corruption tends to follow the circuits of money and power. The union movement does not represent the rich and powerful, and we are not the rich and powerful. What goes on behind those closed doors is something about which most Australians know little–but we can be assured that a Coalition Government would never subject these elite interests to the investigative intrusions of a Royal Commission.

But, of course, Abbott’s Royal Commission is not about corruption. It is purely political strategy>

http://sallymcmanus.net/2014/01/30/tony-abbotts-royal-commission-unions/

It also bears mentioning that the author(you?) admits to guessing and has no evidence to back up that statement. Musing doesn't count as evidence and many might disagree with her.

Foxy,

OTB has got you there. Have you any evidence to back this up? All the institutions that you mention have a legal requirement to have their books audited, and any malfeasance, is generally picked up quickly and punished.

Unions, thanks to Labor laws, are required only to provide a "report" to FWA, which many unions still fail to do. This enables all types of corruption to go on undetected. The theft of millions by Thomson and Williamson went completely undetected by FWA, and only came to light when the courageous Kathy Jackson blew the whistle. Even then the FWA had no idea what to do and took nearly 4 years to produce a shoddy report that a handful of junior lawyers could put together in a few weeks.

The proposal that unions are required to comply with company standards and submit their books for a full audit annually should expose this underbelly of the Labor movement.

trusting foxy saying this <<>...Mr Abbott's Royal Commission is not about corruption...It is purely a political strategy.

See you on another discussion.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 9:39:12 PM>>

frees me to say man TO MAN?

otb=[ON THE BITCH]..[witch hunting]..[again]
after the fox has left the thread

>>Are you and this person the one and the same?<<

then releases yet more innuendo/BLO
but THEN FROM THE SHADOW..COMES SHADE LOW blow

in the shade-low/blow..<<..OTB has got you there.>>

present proof..Shadowy minor..or otb..dont just throw merde 'out there'..let them who throw merde..WATCH OUT FOR FANS.

WHATS WITH ALL THE RAPPY new threads
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6262&page=0

YOU WOULD THING SOMEONES TAKING THE PISS.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16038&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16065

SM,

As I've cited earlier - (and taken from a
variety of sources) - "the real value of attacking
trade unions for the Abbott government is tactical.
The government can go after the funding base that
supports much of Australia's labour politics and it
can try to link misconduct directly to senior ALP
figures such as Federal ALP Leader - Bill Shorten."
It's a win/win situation for the Coalition.

The previous Cole Royal Commission and the ABCC did
not prove itself particularly effective at reforming
the supposedly corruption-prone industry. As cited
earlier - and confirmed by political commentators:

"The ABCC was pretty successful in its prosecutions
record, but most of its actions were for minor
breaches of employment law, such as unlawful industrial
action. It did not uncover systematic illegality
or entrenched corruption."

I can see that you want to continue espousing your
party's line.

I shall leave you to it

Dear Johan (OUG),

Bless You.

You have a good heart.

I shall see you on another thread.
I prefer to keep things on a more
professional level and choose to move on
from this one.

Foxy,

Once again you quote the faecal matter opinion pieces from the "New Matilda" from the far left intellectual light weight Ben Eltham.

If the unions were as pure as the driven snow, the inquiry driven by an independent judge would not enable the coalition to link any Labor MP to crimes, nor damage the union movement. The only damage to the unions / ALP will be from exposure of their criminal conduct.

The hysterical reaction to the commission is admission that there is plenty of dirt to find.

Foxy,

01/29/14--18:00: (chan 11047405)

<The real value of attacking trade unions for the Abbott government is tactical. By attacking powerful unions like the CFMEU, the government can go after the funding base that supports much of Australia’s progressive politics. It can also link union misconduct directly to senior ALP figures, many of whom are of course factionally aligned to the CFMEU, such as Victorian Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews, or the AWU, such as federal ALP leader Bill Shorten.>
http://lln20.rssing.com/chan-11047405/latest.php

The rest owes its existence to a New Matilda article of 30 Jan 2014, which I will not bother to cite.

SM,

You use your sources as you see fit and I do likewise.
You refer to my sources as "faecal" matter and I regard
your sources as supporting the will of its powerful
right-wing owner - and totally fake, phoney, and BS.
My sources base their information on facts - yours on
innuendo and attacks. But to each his/her own.

Seeing as no matter what I say - or whose opinion I cite -
you shall
reject it or refer to it as "faecal" matter (you're probably
more familiar with things "faecal" than I am - look at the
person who's giving you support curently). And seeing as I
find what you say - fake, phoney and BS. There's no further
point in carrying on this discussion.

Cheers.

Foxy,

A bit of a hissy fit? A hypocritical one considering that you described my information as passing through the colon of newscorp.

Then there is the complete joke of describing the NM as a source of facts. The NM is a collection of opinion pieces with occasional snippets of cherry picked information, written mostly by intellectual pin heads with no concept of the real world.

Beach, I did ask if you were an admirer/supporter of Jim Saleam? From you way out, right of the planet posts I take it you are.

the major difference is that the weight of bloggers
spinning ahead of the adgenda is increasing..[the change of the guard..has invigorated the 'other ' side..now so disheartend...AS THE OTHER SIDE SOON TOO SHALL BE..[COME NEXT ELECTION TIME

WITH A LITTLE COACHING CLIVE COULD TAKE TASSIE
HE JUST NEEDS TAR ALL 3 WITH THE SAME BRUSH..AND REALLY BE THE CLEAN BROOM.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/uncovering-australian-government-great-deception/
filmmakers Scott Bartle and Deborah Pietsch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEYawopjohU&list=PLjk3H0GXhhGc7NOFr74KbOPBCXrXT8nlf&index=2
shed light on the “impostor” government of Australia that is actually run by banksters and a religious cabal.

Why this reality is a manipulation, and the corporation that owns the Australian government is all discussed in a mind-bending interview clip from Buzz
Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/uncovering-australian-government-great-deception/#6FXTc48iYzpB6a4x.99